So the First Presidential Debate Happened

[Psychosplodge]

Yes it is sick, It's also wrong, that that girl had to put up with sh!t like that from a teacher, though don't understand why as a non-voter she'd care enough to wear a t-shirt, but that's her choice.

If the vids accurate, I second the Doc's glad I'm not in that system sentiment.

And that student's right, both sides should be open to criticism.
And that's where you trot out the freedom of speech amendment...


Well to be fair I haven't seen anything I'd consider proper news from american TV, (they show it sometimes late night here on various channels) And compared to ours its all just loud music big headlines and shouting more akin to our red top tabloid newspapers (unfortunatley they're dumbing ours down to that too slowly).

Though i think last time I said something similar someone pointed out your newspapers actually contain actual news, and the gossips saved for magazines?

One of the problems though is that jokes and facts are often times confused by today's youthful voters...

A surprisingly large chunk of the population actually turn to the Daily Show for news and opinion reporting (roughly 200,000 in the 18-35 demographic). Not for entertainment - news and editorial opinion. While I get a kick out of the show and watch it a few times a week - I also understand what it is, and Stewart has repeatedly stated that he is a comedy show...not a news show (generally following gross misstatements of facts). Unfortunately, there is no requirement to check sources be those who view things online before they go to the voting booth - so I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the people who see the picture take it as facts and not otherwise.

And you've just summed up why democracy doesn't work.

[wittdooley]

Whatever happened in the debate, it doesn't alter the fact that Romney continually lies, slanders, and looks down on other people.

Well...he doesn't, not really. Again, much of this perception has been the face presented by the media, many of whom are left leaning. That's not to say that Fox News doesn't lean more right (of course it does) but the "major" networks (as foxnews is cable only) like NBC, CBS, CNN, are pretty firmly entrenched in the Obama camp and present the 'face of the devil' that they need to.

His 47% comment, which he has finally said was wrong, he also described as 'inelegantly stated' i.e. it is true, but I am sorry you heard me say it.

But that's just it. It is true. And it's true for the Obama camp as well. Do you think, in regards to the election, Obama gives two flaming craps about the 'crazy christians?' Absolutely not. They're NEVER going to vote for him, so why should he waste his time pandering to them in any way? Obama is simply more practiced at keeping his mouth shut, which, in all truth, is easier to do if you're typically reading off a script.

Tax dodging, I have draft dodging too, seriously anti-women, anti equality in general, I think it is dreadful that anyone could consider voting for him.

I'm sorry, I think these are simply ignorant statements. The man clearly loves his wife. He gives a TON of money to foundations trying to cure MS. He gives TONS of money to charities that help the less fortunate. To make the claim that he is "seriously anti-woman and anti-equality" is, to me, just foolish. If he were as anti-woman as you say he is, there wouldn't be any women voting for him. But remember, just because you believe abortion should be okay and that a woman's right to choose should be their inherent right, there are three other women that believe that, due to their religions conviction, it's a sin and is morally wrong. And guess what the pro-choice women do to these other women? Ostracize them to an extreme extent. That doesn't quite seem right, now does it?

I also find it ironic that so many "pro-choice" folks are so willing to give up their choice with health care and allow the guv'ment to choose what is best for them.

@Psycho -- While I appreciate the anecdotes you provided, it's pretty clear that both of them have opinions coloured by their experiences when make any story they're going to tell wholly biased. The second one talks about all the "Romney lies and misrepresentation;" well, FactCheck.org's write up of the debate shows that each candidate "lied" a fairly equal amount. The reason so many people are claiming Romney lied "a ton?" Because that's how the media has presented him to the public. To me, it means there are too many people blindly following the campaign ads without doing any actual, you know, research, and that, friends, is frightening.

Also, the main point of contention in those anecdotes is Obamacare. Listen, there are very few folks that are right leaning that want sick people to suffer. Please remember that the majority of these right leaning folks give to the church, and it is typically the church (be it the Archdioces, etc) that takes care of the people that can't take care of themselves. Who are most homless shelters run by? The church. Who are many hospitals sponsored by? The church. So please don't get that twisted. Where caring for the needy becomes an issue is when people that CAN take care of themselves are forced to do something they don't want. Romney made a great point about this in the debate: "If I don't like my health care provider, or they're treating me unfairly, I can go find another one." Under Obamacare, you can't do that. That's a slippery slope, and we're already seeing that evidenced in NYC, where you can no longer sell or purchase a friggin Big Gulp. So, we can limit the size drink someone purchases, but we have people fighting giving drug tests to those on welfare. Really?

[Psychosplodge]

I appreciate that both the anecdotes were provided by people with a bias to their side, to be fair there isn't a lot of politics in my tumblr feed, so I didn't have a lot to pick from, but they were what I saw.

When it comes to the four women you mention, the one woman isn't telling the other three what to do with their body, but they are with hers. [URL="http://jigsawlovey.tumblr.com/post/31238623892"]Relevant link.[/URL]

I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is

Though I think last time we did that we did about 60 pages? and were still saying the same as on page one...

[imperialpower]

Country- Great Britian
Political alegianc- Royalist, Imperialist
Age 24

I do not have much intrest in US politics since it seems more like a high budget talent show than anything else and the candidates seem to get ellected because they are more popular rather than from what they stand for and what they are offering their country for me the media plays too much of a slanderess role and is just looking for a good story rather than trying to educate people on the candidates.

[wittdooley]

I appreciate that both the anecdotes were provided by people with a bias to their side, to be fair their isn't a lot of politics in my tumblr feed, so I didn't have a lot to pick from, but they were what I saw.

When it comes to the four women you mention, the one woman isn't telling the other three what to do with their body, but they are with hers. [URL="http://jigsawlovey.tumblr.com/post/31238623892"]Relevant link.[/URL]

Though I think last time we did that we did about 60 pages? and were still saying the same as on page one...

Sorry, i Should have been more clear. I simply meant to say that being against abortion does not make you inherently anti-woman.

[Psychosplodge]

I would disagree, though thanks for clarifying lol

[Kyban]

Country - US
Politics - Independent
Age - 21
Education - Currently In College

On the topic of the candidates' performances, I'd say both put up a good showing but Romney had a lot more energy and certainly seemed more prepared, Obama gave the impression of considering his answer more than Romney who sounded like all of his material was memorized. Both were pretty stressed throughout, just look at how often they blinked. Obama was a lot more jaded than 2008, he tried to stay more realistic and didn't make any of the grand promises that Romney made or he did in the previous campaign. He also tried to indicate that Romney's promises weren't realistic but Romney just shrugged off those accusations.

I'll probably vote for Obama because I see his plan as being more realistic and slightly better. Romney had some good ideas too but neither candidate seems really outstanding.

[eldargal]

No it doesn't, but it depends how you go about it. There is a difference between opposing abortion and trying to force your will on others just because you think some old book gives you that right. There are some anti-abortion groups that get this right, and there are some pro-choice groups that disgrace the name and damage the cause by actually advocating abortion. Fact is the whole debate in the US is completely messed up.

Sorry, i Should have been more clear. I simply meant to say that being against abortion does not make you inherently anti-woman.

I think they prefer to be called Evengelicals. I am not religious, however I hold strongly the opinion that people should be allowed to believe what they want to up until the point that they burn buildings and stone people in the streets. That said, old religions are a complicated bit.

My phrase encapsulates them better. I have no issue with their beliefs, I only have an issue with them trying to force it down other peoples throats.

The rest of what you say is quite correct, I'm well aware of the history of these issues. There are also translation issues, we are dealing with texts that were originally written in ancient Greek or Hebrew of Latin then translated into medieval latin and later into English. For example in one of the Pauline Epistles there is a phrase about 'women remaining silent' but the word for silent could be translated as 'silent' or 'peaceful' which have dramatic different meanings in modern english. The point is if you are going to base your moral code literally on a book written by dozens of different authors over hundreds of years in differnet languages then translated into modern English you either accept that the word 'literal' is virtually meaningless or you end up the idiocy that is evangelism.

The irony about evangelists and al lthose other nutjobs is how absolutely ignorant of their own faith they are. I mean part of the reaction against the Church in the early 16th century (that whole Reformation thing...) was that the Bible was kept out of the hands of the ordinary people so their religion was handed down from on high by their priests. Hence the significance of the King James Bible. Yet the level of knowledge some evangelists show of their Bible is specularly lacking and so consistent in my experience I can't believe it isn't widespread.

[Kyban]

Fact is the ... US is completely messed up.

Fixed!

The irony about evangelists and al lthose other nutjobs is how absolutely ignorant of their own faith they are. I mean part of the reaction against the Church in the early 16th century (that whole Reformation thing...) was that the Bible was kept out of the hands of the ordinary people so their religion was handed down from on high by their priests. Hence the significance of the King James Bible. Yet the level of knowledge some evangelists show of their Bible is specularly lacking and so consistent in my experience I can't believe it isn't widespread.

The problem is that many people are drawn to the outspoken evangelists who spout their own view of the scripture and aren't second guessed. Their followers end up knowing only what their told about their religion, even when they own a copy of their bible. In a lot of places it appears to be very similar to the problems that preceded the King James Bible.

I'm not a big fan of religion but it certainly seems like there are some unpalatable ideas still floating around in the Bible and other religions' books, though I'll admit I haven't read them and with the number of followers that still take the literal word of their books as law that unpleasantness still exists. Even if a religion were to be done correctly I still wouldn't be overly fond of it.

[eldargal]

I had an argument with one woman in the US who refused to believe one of the lines from the Pauline Epistles was true, so I showed her in her own Bible and she did not take it well. In contrast all my Catholic friends (and family, my father is from a Catholic background though he is very laid back about it) often have rigorous debates about theology.