The Debates!

[Y2HH]

There is substantive criticism behind mocking Mitt's Big Bird and binders and "we have less ships than 1916!"

 

Most of that is taking what he said out of context, or misunderstanding what he meant when he said it in the first place, and then trying to criticize it. It's twisted logic at best, and disingenuous in the least.

 

What it actually is, is exactly what I said it was: People screaming look at me in an era of media attention...but not actually adding anything to the conversation.

 

Exactly like what we have going on right here, right now.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Of those three, only the 88 one fits in the pattern of what we got this year. I don't see how Binders compares to either experience, or are you better than foru years ago. Those are real election issues. Bayonets are not.

 

The youth and experience quote was a joke, not a real election issue.

[StrangeSox]

I tuned in to about 30 seconds of the second debate, and caught Romney talking about workforce participation rates in 2008 vs 2012, which was a great point. If we had the same participation rates now, the unemployment rate would be 10.7% instead of 7.8. Did that ever come up again? BINDERS!!!!

 

Serious question, don't we expect workforce participation to be dropping off with the baby boomers bubble?

[Jake]

I find it to be fundamentally good, even if the jokes that come out are about smaller things. It's political discourse either way. You want politics to be in the mainstream. The catch is, politics are difficult to talk about and sometimes you need little quips if you want to keep things fresh. The nitty gritty is confusing, frustrating, and gets boring after it has been rehashed too much. You can only talk about it so much. You start dropping "big bird," "binders full of women," etc. and you not only keep the campaign in people's minds, you encourage people to find the source of these things. How many times are you going to read "binders full of women" on facebook before you figure out where it came from? You might read the context and find it very troubling that Romney specifically sought out some special woman as if he were trying to fill a quota or you might be so pleased that the guy you heard was anti-woman was trying to keep female company in his workplace.

 

Our society values fun and that's awesome. Not only do we encourage open discussion about politics, we discuss it so much that we have to digress into humor to keep it fresh. We can make fun of people protected by the Secret Service and not find the Secret Service knocking at our door.

 

I also don't think that all of these things are trivial when you look into them.

 

"47%" - this was a huge thing going around and what an important thing to talk about. Am I in the 47%? What did he say about them? Do I like a system that results in such a number being able to be thrown around?

 

"Big Bird" - Romney wants to cut PBS. By itself, this may be very important to some people and to others they will find it troubling that that is the largest specific budget cut he had shared to that point.

 

"Binders full of women" - I touched on this. This will inform your opinion of that candidate's gender views one way or the other.

 

"horses and bayonets" - This throws a wrench in the way we judge our military. It's an apt point that our military strength isn't so easily counted in numbers of things or dollars spent. It may also characterize one person as out of touch with the needs of our military if you see it that way. I think it summarized the debate very well as the two agreed on most everything, but at this moment and others it seemed they agreed because one person was simply learning from the other.

 

These are the things that encourage discussion, turnout, thought, you name it. You might not like that everyone that participates in these catchphrases and buzzwords knows much, but they will know MORE as more of these things happen. To think that these things are the only things being talked about after the debates is also an oversimplification -- yet I'm happy that for the low-information folks, they're at least thinking SOMETHING about the debates and the election.

[Y2HH]

Serious question, don't we expect workforce participation to be dropping off with the baby boomers bubble?

 

No, not at all.

 

Population growth should nullify that in every regard. There are more people in the workforce now, in spite of the retiring boomers. For every boomer that retires, they're SHOULD be 8 people to replace them.

 

So again. No, we shouldn't be seeing workforce participation dropping.

[StrangeSox]

I think what we need is a better press corp that would actually ask tough questions full-time, not better 90 minute segments three times every four years. I have deep concerns about a lot of Obama's foreign policy, yet I knew that those questions wouldn't even be asked.

[Y2HH]

I find it to be fundamentally good, even if the jokes that come out are about smaller things. It's political discourse either way. You want politics to be in the mainstream. The catch is, politics are difficult to talk about and sometimes you need little quips if you want to keep things fresh. The nitty gritty is confusing, frustrating, and gets boring after it has been rehashed too much. You can only talk about it so much. You start dropping "big bird," "binders full of women," etc. and you not only keep the campaign in people's minds, you encourage people to find the source of these things. How many times are you going to read "binders full of women" on facebook before you figure out where it came from? You might read the context and find it very troubling that Romney specifically sought out some special woman as if he were trying to fill a quota or you might be so pleased that the guy you heard was anti-woman was trying to keep female company in his workplace.

 

Our society values fun and that's awesome. Not only do we encourage open discussion about politics, we discuss it so much that we have to digress into humor to keep it fresh. We can make fun of people protected by the Secret Service and not find the Secret Service knocking at our door.

 

I also don't think that all of these things are trivial when you look into them.

 

"47%" - this was a huge thing going around and what an important thing to talk about. Am I in the 47%? What did he say about them? Do I like a system that results in such a number being able to be thrown around?

 

"Big Bird" - Romney wants to cut PBS. By itself, this may be very important to some people and to others they will find it troubling that that is the largest specific budget cut he had shared to that point.

 

"Binders full of women" - I touched on this. This will inform your opinion of that candidate's gender views one way or the other.

 

"horses and bayonets" - This throws a wrench in the way we judge our military. It's an apt point that our military strength isn't so easily counted in numbers of things or dollars spent. It may also characterize one person as out of touch with the needs of our military if you see it that way. I think it summarized the debate very well as the two agreed on most everything, but at this moment and others it seemed they agreed because one person was simply learning from the other.

 

These are the things that encourage discussion, turnout, thought, you name it. You might not like that everyone that participates in these catchphrases and buzzwords knows much, but they will know MORE as more of these things happen. To think that these things are the only things being talked about after the debates is also an oversimplification -- yet I'm happy that for the low-information folks, they're at least thinking SOMETHING about the debates and the election.

 

Like I said, disingenuous at best.

 

Romney doesn't want to cut PBS and only PBS, he wants to cut spending in areas that can easily sustain themselves without public funds, because...well...we don't have money as it is for basic services such as the homeless, starving children, or health care. Maybe when those far more important problems are solved we can start funding things like PBS again.

 

THAT was his point.

 

His point wasn't that he wants to cut Big Birds head off as you -- and many others -- keep making it sound.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Like I said, disingenuous at best.

 

Romney doesn't want to cut PBS and only PBS, he wants to cut spending in areas that can easily sustain themselves without public funds, because...well...we don't have money as it is for basic services such as the homeless, starving children, or health care. Maybe when both of those problems are solved we can start funding things like PBS again.

 

THAT was his point.

 

His point wasn't that he wants to cut Big Birds head off as you -- and many others -- keep making it sound.

 

And why was he being mocked? Because that's the only specific he's actually bothered to mention.

[Y2HH]

And why was he being mocked? Because that's the only specific he's actually bothered to mention.

 

He's mocked because democrats want to ignore the boarder point he made. And in this case, he actually DOES have a valid point.

 

We are borrowing and spending on things like PBS that don't actually need help. It's corporate welfare.

 

Sesame Street alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

But that malnourished kid that hardly eats when schools out...f*** him/her, we need to to fund Big Bird.

[StrangeSox]

For those who are interested in viewpoints outside of Romney's and Obama's, DemocracyNow! has been running an "Expand the Debate" segment.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/special/expandingthedebate

 

They run the debate, pausing the tape to give the candidates an opportunity to respond to the question

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/exc...bate_with_third

[StrangeSox]

He's mocked because democrats want to ignore the boarder point he made. And in this case, he actually DOES have a valid point.

 

We are borrowing and spending on things like PBS that don't actually need help. It's corporate welfare.

 

Sesame Street alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

But that malnourished kid that hardly eats when schools out...f*** him/her, we need to to fund Big Bird.

 

If we're borrowing money, we're borrowing money. That malnourished kid isn't suffering because PBS also receives funding. If anything, PBS is likely the only source of educational programming that child has access to. While PBS and NPR would survive without the CPB and larger public stations like WBEZ and WTTW would continue on, many smaller stations would go under, depriving many Americans of access to some of the only decent programming on TV.

 

Romney is mocked because his plan is a joke and his numbers are nonsense. He refuses to release any details except for cutting PBS.

[southsider2k5]

No, not at all.

 

Population growth should nullify that in every regard. There are more people in the workforce now, in spite of the retiring boomers. For every boomer that retires, they're SHOULD be 8 people to replace them.

 

So again. No, we shouldn't be seeing workforce participation dropping.

 

Not to mention that participation has largely been following due to people involuntarily dropping out of the workforce, not retiring.

[Y2HH]

To make it a finer point, it's not that we're mocking one or the other. Both parties take part in this kind of nonsense. They take something Romney or Obama said, ignoring their boarder point, and focus on the words they happened to use, even if they KNOW what they meant/how they meant it.

 

This is what "political discourse" is today...then again, it's always been this way, I'm simply old enough to realize that now.

 

That doesn't mean I have to accept it, just because it's long been accepted by people of the past.

 

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappear...regardless of Democrats or Republicans having control. And the entire time, the politicians are part of the rich getting richer. Because, you know, they care about you.

 

Keep voting them in, sheep.

 

I'm not saying don't vote. Vote. Just don't vote for democrats or republicans. Start showing both parties how badly they're wrecking the place and SHOW them that a third party CAN and will take them down. Nope. Instead, what we get is more of the same.

[Y2HH]

Romney is mocked because his plan is a joke and his numbers are nonsense. He refuses to release any details except for cutting PBS.

 

There is no denying that.

 

But even if his numbers weren't nonsense, he'd be mocked. Because that's what we do now.

[Y2HH]

If we're borrowing money, we're borrowing money. That malnourished kid isn't suffering because PBS also receives funding. If anything, PBS is likely the only source of educational programming that child has access to. While PBS and NPR would survive without the CPB and larger public stations like WBEZ and WTTW would continue on, many smaller stations would go under, depriving many Americans of access to some of the only decent programming on TV.

 

Romney is mocked because his plan is a joke and his numbers are nonsense. He refuses to release any details except for cutting PBS.

 

This is the new modern American attitude that got us where we are.

 

Beneath a mount of unsustainable debt.

 

We shouldn't be borrowing money for these things, that's the f***ing point.

 

Keep racking up that credit card debt, citizen...you're doing an awesome job...just like the government you elect. That malnourished kid SHOULDN'T f***ING GOD DAMN EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY. That's the point. Spend the money we were going to give to PBS on feeding that kid. And while you're at it, buy him/her a stack of educational books. They don't need PBS to learn.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

There is no denying that.

 

But even if his numbers weren't nonsense, he'd be mocked. Because that's what we do now.

 

No, that's what the smarmy liberals in this country do. Obama says stupid s*** all the time but conservative point it out, they don't make a joke about it. Thanks Jon Stewart.

[Y2HH]

No, that's what the smarmy liberals in this country do. Obama says stupid s*** all the time but conservative point it out, they don't make a joke about it. Thanks Jon Stewart.

 

Jon Stewart is a comedian, the problem is a lot of people take him as a journalist. He's not.

[StrangeSox]

To make it a finer point, it's not that we're mocking one or the other. Both parties take part in this kind of nonsense. They take something Romney or Obama said, ignoring their boarder point, and focus on the words they happened to use, even if they KNOW what they meant/how they meant it.

 

This is what "political discourse" is today...then again, it's always been this way, I'm simply old enough to realize that now.

 

That doesn't mean I have to accept it, just because it's long been accepted by people of the past.

 

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappear...regardless of Democrats or Republicans having control. And the entire time, the politicians are part of the rich getting richer. Because, you know, they care about you.

 

Keep voting them in, sheep.

I'm not saying don't vote. Vote. Just don't vote for democrats or republicans. Start showing both parties how badly they're wrecking the place and SHOW them that a third party CAN and will take them down. Nope. Instead, what we get is more of the same.

hi kap!

 

You don't necessarily need a third party to shift ideology. Look at the success the Tea Party had in shaping Republican ideas these past several years. You want more progressive (or conservative or whatever) politicians? Start local, start at the state level and begin building a bench of qualified, experienced politicians that share your positions. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Obama or not, but I have that 'luxury' being in Illinois. A protest vote for the President could assuage my conscience, but it won't really send any message.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jon Stewart is a comedian, the problem is a lot of people take him as a journalist. He's not.

 

He's a comedian with a larger voice/audience for political commentary than anyone not on Fox. Every democrat/liberal I know loves him and watches his show religiously. And guess what he does? The same smarmy mockery bulls*** you're complaining about.

[Y2HH]

hi kap!

 

You don't necessarily need a third party to shift ideology. Look at the success the Tea Party had in shaping Republican ideas these past several years. You want more progressive (or conservative or whatever) politicians? Start local, start at the state level and begin building a bench of qualified, experienced politicians that share your positions. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Obama or not, but I have that 'luxury' being in Illinois. A protest vote for the President could assuage my conscience, but it won't really send any message.

 

And that's a big problem. You're vote, by and large, doesn't matter here.

 

And start local with what? I can't form a political party that share my positions. That's not even a suggestion, so much as it is a brushoff because you have nothing to actually say here.

 

That's like say, oh wow, you don't like Google, go build your own search engine! People that make suggestions like this should f***ing stab themselves in the neck.

[StrangeSox]

Jon Stewart is a comedian, the problem is a lot of people take him as a journalist. He's not.

 

I think Nate Silver had a good line about this on the show:

 

A lot of news is just entertainment masquerading as news.

[southsider2k5]

And that's a big problem. You're vote, by and large, doesn't matter here.

 

And start local with what? I can't form a political party that share my positions. That's not even a suggestion, so much as it is a brushoff because you have nothing to actually say here.

 

That's like say, oh wow, you don't like Google, go build your own search engine! People that make suggestions like this should f***ing stab themselves in the neck.

 

If you aren't willing to invest any time in the process, past b****ing about it, your opinion doesn't really matter.

[Jenksismyhero]

hi kap!

 

You don't necessarily need a third party to shift ideology. Look at the success the Tea Party had in shaping Republican ideas these past several years. You want more progressive (or conservative or whatever) politicians? Start local, start at the state level and begin building a bench of qualified, experienced politicians that share your positions. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Obama or not, but I have that 'luxury' being in Illinois. A protest vote for the President could assuage my conscience, but it won't really send any message.

 

Really though the beginning of the Tea Party was bringing back the 1980's early 1990's conservative talking points. It wasn't some new idea, it was more of a "hey let's stop being weirdos and get back to what we used to be like." Then the extreme right came crashing in and took it over.

[StrangeSox]

And that's a big problem. You're vote, by and large, doesn't matter here.

 

And start local with what? I can't form a political party that share my positions. That's not even a suggestion, so much as it is a brushoff because you have nothing to actually say here.

 

That's like say, oh wow, you don't like Google, go build your own search engine! People that make suggestions like this should f***ing stab themselves in the neck.

 

I guess you can't vote for local and state politicians in Bridgeport? Weird!

 

edit: or run for elected position yourself!

Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I guess you can't vote for local and state politicians in Bridgeport? Weird!

 

I live in Clearing, so no, I can't.

 

And not to spoil the ending for you...but the democrat will win, regardless if they even campaign or not. Hell, if a dead body could get a D next to his name on that ticket, they'd win.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Y2HH