"I reside in a fairly conservative fly-over state, work in a conservative field, am involved in a hobby that tends to attract conservative people, was raised by conservative parents, and married into a conservative family. I tried to be different, but couldn't make sense of it. Now I are one I guess."

there is still hope for you :). If James Carville and Mary Matalin can get married and have totally opposite political views it proves both sides can get along :)

Edited by Ewker on 10/17/2012 13:55:05 MDT.

Back to the original thread name. Next weeks debate will probably end in a brawl.

Big Momma's House 2 looked more exciting last night than a bunch of lying politicians. I would rather have a poke in the eye than watch a political debate.

Brad

Not this is relevant to anything, but I just came across a poll of Kiwis as to who they would vote for:

Barack Obama, (D) 85.4 %

Mitt Romney, (R) 8.3 %

Jill Stein, (G) 4.2 %

Gary Johnson, (L) 2.1 %

Not a big surprise, given we are a pretty liberal and socialist kind of country!

Back to the original thread name. Next weeks debate will probably end in a brawl.

MMA format would draw more viewers

No. It should be Thunderdome.

Two men enter. One man leaves.

"Back to the original thread name. Next weeks debate will probably end in a brawl."

The thing that amazes me about these debates is not how childish the candidates act-I expect that of politicians-but rather the fact that a debate could change the minds of undecided voters! It's like, heck, I'll vote for whoever does best in a brawl of words. Very intelligent use of your voting privelege!

"No. It should be Thunderdome.

Two men enter. One man leaves."

ROFFL!

This is hilarious and really, really sad:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/17/Jimmy-Kimmel-Asks-Who-Won-Last-Nights-Debate-on-Tues-Afternoon

When are they going to start addressing the real issues. It's so frustrating to watch.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420060/october-11-2012/this-changes-everything---obama-s-martian-gayness

"and I have to admit, I just don't understand the rationale or line of thinking. Probably never will, either. As much as it interests me, I will just have to admit that it is probably beyond my grasp."

Then your choice is clear: Vote for Romney, then hope he appoints McCain Secretary of Defense and Palin Secretary of State. That should clear things up for you, and get this country back on track to....... ;)

"Why do liberals try and drag so many State issues to the Federal level? I don't know if it's ignorance, circumvention, or what."

Like, for instance, passing laws banning g@y marriage and abortion?

Yes Tom. Those should be in the states' hands. Not being interfered with by the federal government.

"Yes Tom. Those should be in the states' hands. Not being interfered with by the federal government."

At least for Gay marriage, some folks believe that all Americans should have the same civil rights - and therefore it's appropriate for the federal government to be involved. I agree with that approach.

As for abortion, while I support legal abortion, I haven't quite figured out whether or not it's something states should decide or whether there should be federal involvement.

"This is hilarious and really, really sad:"

It is both. But I do wonder how many people they actually talked to to get those who faked watching it.

What I found even more interesting was that they all said Obama did much better than the first debate, which to me confirms what a massive influence the media (and social media) has on the general populas.

Well, to me it is time to weigh in a bit.

It is far easier to attack a record (easily proven or not proven) with politcal promises (always unknown) than to adhere to a non-existant record.

Romney has a huge advantage in the media. He has no record as president to attack. They quibble over "details" that cannot be known in advance of having the office. Romney can say whatever he likes, and, simply apologize if he makes a mistake or simply ignore it (if it gets pulled out of a "binding" context.)

The media is unintelligent for loosing sight of this in the effort to one up their peers. The average american voter, myself for example, is not that unintelligent.

Surely folk don't decide how to vote on the back of a TV show?

"The media is unintelligent for losing sight of this in the effort to one up their peers. The average american voter, myself for example, is not that unintelligent."

Overall, the media is quite intelligent - they know what's going to sell and that's what they produce. They're not interested in any lofty goals, they just want to make money. And I'm not that sure that the average American voter is all that intelligent (which means you're not the average American voter). If they were, they wouldn't keep voting in the people they do. False promises and lies work, it's that simple. I agree with those who believe that those who would address the problems we have in this country in an honest and open way, and offer realistic solutions, are simply unelectable. That's not the media's fault. That's ours.

Edited by idester on 10/19/2012 09:42:51 MDT.