Don't worry; we don't.Primula Baggins wrote:Romney won that one, unless you insist on factual accuracy.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/77smile.gif)
I so, so, so agree with this. Again, both sides, folks.Holbytla wrote:I understand that, and that is what is going on throughout this country, and has been for ages.Frelga wrote:Nevertheless, that's what people will take away from this debate. It's going to be "Russia from my house" all over again.
And it's fitting. I really don't care what either of them says tonight. I would not vote for anyone committed to Republican agenda, regardless of personal merits. This election is not about individuals.
P.S.: the Wiki entry on th Big Bird has already been updated.
That..is essentially the problem with this country.
I don't suggest that anyone change their ideals based on one debate, but to go into an election with a closed mind is why we are where we are. Divisive, biased, partisan, politics is why we are failing.
I'll be right there with you, sistah.River wrote:I'm also bloody sick of this campaign (I swear if I get another robocall in my voicemail I'm going to find their nearest office of the responsible campaign and throw a brick through their window).
Agreed and agreed. This is still "rah, team!!" stuff. The media will have fun minutely inspecting each breath taken, but in the end, most people really do know who they will vote for already.I do think the debates happen too late to have much influence on campaigns these days. They do keep the media entertained though.
As unbelievable as it is, even after four years as president Obama still has to avoid come across as the angry black man. That was all the more emphasized by the conservative media's trumping of this supposed "new" video (which of course was widely reported on at the time) of him addressing a largely African-American crowd in New Orleans in 2007 about Katrina, to show that he is "racially divisive". I guess that Obama and his advisers decided that it was more important for him to avoid that label than it was to call Romney out on his blatant and ridiculous lies.Primula Baggins wrote:Romney won that one, unless you insist on factual accuracy.
I do hope Obama's campaign will treat tonight as a wake-up call. It doesn't do Obama any good to be polite and patrician and bipartisan and restrained when Romney is baldly lying. Call him on it, much more sharply than tonight, or he wins.
Because most people aren't paying enough attention to understand what the truth is.Erunáme wrote:Yeah I don't get how you can win a debate when telling lots of lies.
There are many government expenditures, at all levels, where the value assessment has been distorted by people with interests in keeping up the expenditures.Lord_Morningstar wrote: These things all need to be paid for, even if taxpayers aren't getting value for money.
Or most people don't care anymore because we've been lied to so often about so many things by so many different entities, and we can't even tell what the truth is any longer.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Because most people aren't paying enough attention to understand what the truth is.Erunáme wrote:Yeah I don't get how you can win a debate when telling lots of lies.
I think it's worse than that. I think many people have decided that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend, so they should just go with their gut and/or support whoever puts on the better show. It's not (just) that the truth is unknown; it's that it doesn't matter.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Because most people aren't paying enough attention to understand what the truth is.
Or that, like Lali said, anything either side is endorsing as the TRUTH should have a big fat asterisk beside it. We know everyone's trying to manipulate us, all the time, and I refuse to be drawn into the game.Dave_LF wrote:I think it's worse than that. I think many people have decided that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend, so they should just go with their gut and/or support whoever puts on the better show. It's not (just) that the truth is unknown; it's that it doesn't matter.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Because most people aren't paying enough attention to understand what the truth is.
We know everyone's trying to manipulate us, all the time, and I refuse to be drawn into the game.
And I was addressing Dave's remark. Doesn't matter to my comment, either, actually.Lalaith wrote:I was addressing Voronwë's remark more than Eru's. But Eru was responding to Prim's remark, as far as I could see. In any case, it seemed like all of them were being serious about their comments. And, really, it doesn't matter to my comment.
Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I'd like to think that I am fairly on the ball, and I have followed things extremely closely. It seems to me, and again, maybe I'm deluding myself, that the president stayed quite close to the message that he has put across consistently, whereas as Mr. Romney simply disregarded most everything that he has said throughout the campaign (and which his party will very likely hold him to, regardless of what he really believes). I'm no longer willing to accept this idea of "they are all bad so there is no real choice between them" when my own powers of observation and reasoning skills tell me that there is a very clear distinction between them.anthriel wrote:Or that, like Lali said, anything either side is endorsing as the TRUTH should have a big fat asterisk beside it. We know everyone's trying to manipulate us, all the time, and I refuse to be drawn into the game.Dave_LF wrote:I think it's worse than that. I think many people have decided that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend, so they should just go with their gut and/or support whoever puts on the better show. It's not (just) that the truth is unknown; it's that it doesn't matter.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Because most people aren't paying enough attention to understand what the truth is.
So I have to focus on a few key problems this country has, and try to parse through the layers of GARBAGE to see if there really is any substance to either player's position. Knowing, of course, that even what they promise to do will not always be done. Some things they promise to do even THEY know can't be done. (Yes, even Obama.)
This is, after all, politics.
I don't completely agree. There are many important issues where you really cannot be open minded. I believe in women's right to abortion, that gays have the right to marry and receive the same benefits a heterosexual couple would receive, I am against discrimination and racism... these are issues I cannot be opened minded about. To do so would mean sacrificing the rights of some groups of people.Holbytla wrote:I don't suggest that anyone change their ideals based on one debate, but to go into an election with a closed mind is why we are where we are. Divisive, biased, partisan, politics is why we are failing.
And with this I feel you contradict yourself. You're unhappy that Obama didn't accomplish all he said he would. But I think the biggest single reason he didn't is because he attempted to be "open minded" or at least compromise with Republicans.. yet he got back nothing in return. So essentially it appears that in order to have gained your favour, he would have needed to adopt a very partisan attitude in order to accomplish what he thinks is right... yet you disapprove of that.In any case I wouldn't vote for him, because I have seen what he has done rather than because I am a biased dissenter based on party affiliation.
I wouldn't say I think that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend, I'd say I know it. This is probably why the moral/social issues like abortion and gay marriage are good ways to get people riled up. Those issues you can understand. You don't need a damn PHd to know whether or not gays should be able to marry. But tax policies? Foreign policies? Health care policies? The complexities are vast and uncertain and nobody really knows what the best thing to do is, we're all just making educated guesses. And for me to make a real, unbiased, and informed decision on even one of those would take a far bigger investment of my time and energy than I'm frankly willing to invest just I can cast my one vote better.dave wrote:I think it's worse than that. I think many people have decided that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend...
I didn't say anyone was deluding themselves. I also didn't say there was no real choice between them, (you put this in quotes; did I write this elsewhere?). I think you are qute on the ball, and I have actually solicited your opinion about politics, off teh board, because I trust and respect you.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I'd like to think that I am fairly on the ball, and I have followed things extremely closely. It seems to me, and again, maybe I'm deluding myself, that the president stayed quite close to the message that he has put across consistently, whereas as Mr. Romney simply disregarded most everything that he has said throughout the campaign (and which his party will very likely hold him to, regardless of what he really believes). I'm no longer willing to accept this idea of "they are all bad so there is no real choice between them" when my own powers of observation and reasoning skills tell me that there is a very clear distinction between them.anthriel wrote:Or that, like Lali said, anything either side is endorsing as the TRUTH should have a big fat asterisk beside it. We know everyone's trying to manipulate us, all the time, and I refuse to be drawn into the game.Dave_LF wrote: I think it's worse than that. I think many people have decided that the world is too big and complicated to comprehend, so they should just go with their gut and/or support whoever puts on the better show. It's not (just) that the truth is unknown; it's that it doesn't matter.
So I have to focus on a few key problems this country has, and try to parse through the layers of GARBAGE to see if there really is any substance to either player's position. Knowing, of course, that even what they promise to do will not always be done. Some things they promise to do even THEY know can't be done. (Yes, even Obama.)
This is, after all, politics.
Or maybe I'm just deluding myself.
I understand that you and others feel this way (and again, I am talking about the attempts to emotionally manipulate people, which I so very much see in both sides). Hopefully, the fact that I feel differently can still be shared here.Eru wrote: I don't believe there's as much truth to the "both sides" meme as some people think there is.
Oh sure I can acknowledge that is going on on both sides for sure.anthriel wrote:(and again, I am talking about the attempts to emotionally manipulate people, which I so very much see in both sides).
That occurred to me too, Maria.Maria wrote:I only caught part of the debate, but what struck me most kept reminding me of a Dr. Who quote:
"Don't you think she looks tired?" You know, the six words that brought down Harriet Jones' administration?
Obama looked very tired to me.
Conservative candidates often come across as being socially conscious during campaigns but end up ruling as blatant capitalists if elected. If they campaigned according to their hard core supporters' tastes, they would find exceedingly it difficult to get elected.Griffon64 wrote: Parts of his message was interesting to hear and went against what segments of the media held him up as believing in.