Have The Presidential Debates Imploded?

Delta*RandyShugart* · 10-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Is it me, or have the debates between mccain and obama turned into a match to see who can blame who the most?

Though I did agree with McCains view on how healthcare should be a responsibility rather than a right, overall i felt that the two candidates did a horrible job, it was all about blaming one thing on the other person, and after watching for quite a while i had to turn away, even during the debates when each candidate started blaming each other etc, i flipped to other channels or even went back to gaming.

It seems that the blame game/trash talking that ran rampant between hillary and obama has made its way to the debates.......but then again, American's for the most part enjoy that, for example take a look at all the tabloid magazines, even people magazine etc.

Personally though the moderator was much better than the moderator between the VP candidates, nothing was really said, no real points were addressed in a civil "debate" type of atmosphere, it has all turned to finger pointing, and it is getting down to the wire with less than a month to go.

Besides hitting an all time low one word summed up last nights televised debates for me: Abysmal

**War.mongeR1** · 10-08-2008, 03:14 PM

I'd have to agree. For the most part I was playing on my computer while I glanced over at the tv, which was muted and had closed-captioning on. The debates were indeed, totally lame. WAY too much finger pointing, not enough solution or substance. While Obama is a better speaker by far, he played the blame game way too much. McCain wasn't much better. Both lose in my opinion.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 10-08-2008, 03:19 PM

I might have to jump on the nader/Gonzalez bandwagon - ha

**tau_neutrino** · 10-08-2008, 04:06 PM

Do you think that most Americans, who have the attention span of a 3-year-old child and the inability to think critically, can sit through a 'real', substantive debate?

**Mosely** · 10-08-2008, 04:08 PM

The 'debates' will keep getting dumber as long as the public (or perception of it) keeps getting dumber. There's a strange lag time that seems to exist between the corporate/political perception of public sentiment and actual public sentiment as well. The vast majority of the public wants the Iraq war to end and is sick of negative politics. You would never know that after watching last night's meet-and-greet, which mostly consisted of two men quibbling over their falsely represented voting records.

I watch these things because they are major political events, but I too have been severely dissapointed with all of the debates thus far, especially the VP debate, where one candidate actually said "you betcha."

This is seriously getting a bit too close to the movie Idiocracy where the President is not only a pro wrestler but actually appears in costume at the state of the union.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 10-08-2008, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by tau_neutrino

Do you think that most Americans, who have the attention span of a 3-year-old child and the inability to think critically, can sit through a 'real', substantive debate?

I would hope so since the candidates are supposed to educate us on why we should vote for him/her as well as educate us on the issues in which they stand both for and against. But in reality no, most likely the majority would rather watch a reality show or bridezillas.

**Greasy Mullet** · 10-08-2008, 05:23 PM

It was just aweful. Both did nothing but used their talking points and speechs over and over again. Neither talked to each other or really debated anything. They evaded questions while giving vauge answers. At the end of the night we learned little if anything new.

With modern campgains being so scripted and structured almost like a Hollywood movie, neither party is willing to risk a real debate to have a miss step be the new "clip" in a 24/7 news cycle... unless of course you are Obama and claim we have 57 states with only a few more to visit or Biden saying FDR was POTUS in 1929 and went on TV. They of course get a pass.

really it matters not because IMO there is little difference between these two losers. No matter who wins, the American people lose and we have a Democrat as POTUS.

**ScratchMonkey** · 10-08-2008, 06:06 PM

It's always been like this, since at least the 1980 election, the first one I voted in. It's likely been this way since democracy was invented.

And as long as people want to vote themselves other people's property and rights, it's always going to be like this. The Constitution was supposed to minimize the influence of the FedGov, but it's been usurped as a "dead document" and the people have now got their way, back to voting themselves whatever they want, and selecting their candidate based on who will get them the most loot.

**snooggums** · 10-08-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

It's always been like this, since at least the 1980 election, the first one I voted in. It's likely been his way since democracy was invented.

And as long as people want to vote themselves other people's property and rights, it's always going to be like this. The Constitution was supposed to minimize the influence of the FedGov, but it's been usurped as a "dead document" and the people have now got their way, back to voting themselves whatever they want, and selecting their candidate based on who will get them the most loot.

The debates were interesting during the 92 election when a third party candidate (Perot) was involved.

**ScratchMonkey** · 10-08-2008, 07:05 PM

We need to eliminate parties from the "official" system. Let the candidates affiliate with whoever they please, and if that's with one or more parties, fine. But don't let the parties become part of government by running official party primaries at public cost.

There is a fiction that the debates are run by independent groups, but they're really run by the party leaderships, and hence it's natural that they lock out upstarts unless there's a huge outcry. That's why Ron Paul was locked out of many Republican debates. The party leadership didn't care about those who backed Paul, and could safely snub him.

**Greasy Mullet** · 10-08-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

We need to eliminate parties from the "official" system. Let the candidates affiliate with whoever they please, and if that's with one or more parties, fine. But don't let the parties become part of government by running official party primaries at public cost.

There is a fiction that the debates are run by independent groups, but they're really run by the party leaderships, and hence it's natural that they lock out upstarts unless there's a huge outcry. That's why Ron Paul was locked out of many Republican debates. The party leadership didn't care about those who backed Paul, and could safely snub him.

Really good points about the way both parties control things. George Washington warned about parties, here is what he said. I think his words are as true as ever.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
— George Washington, September 19, 1796

**Switch** · 10-08-2008, 10:48 PM

I heard a lot of unsubstantiated Mcblame.

Remember that 3 million dollar projector he kept accusing obama of hunding: A lie.

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pres...boutdebate.pdf

Delta*RandyShugart* · 10-09-2008, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Switch

I heard a lot of unsubstantiated Mcblame.

Remember that 3 million dollar projector he kept accusing obama of hunding: A lie.

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pres...boutdebate.pdf

what about obama saying that all business would have to adhere to his healthcare idea, and if not would be fined in tens of thousands of dollars........

there is a thing called medicad which is very cheap and easy to get, but most people are so damn lazy that they don't take advantage of it.

**206 Wolfpack** · 10-09-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

Is it me, or have the debates between mccain and obama turned into a match to see who can blame who the most?

Was feeling that a lot... Like a lot..

and I don't know about you but I don't want to see some mellow old folk debate for who will become next president.. Would much rather see them trying to pump up the crowd, not like all start QB or RB/WR does to his team before a game but more get more emotion into their voice instead of being bland. It doesnt show me at all that your motivational when you can't speak with any emotion, Would be a lot more believed (or fooled into believing) that the person who speaks more deeply and passionately about becoming president will stay on task a lot more and be thinking about the job 100% of the time instead of even just 90% of the time.