Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

I've watched the US Presidential Debates

by vroom (His Eminence)
on Oct 06, 2000 at 07:48 UTC ( #35534=poll: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Vote on this poll

Yes
[bar] 68/23%
No
[bar] 37/13%
I don't live in the US and don't care
[bar] 59/20%
I live in the US and don't care
[bar] 37/13%
This poll sucks
[bar] 19/6%
Larry for President
[bar] 74/25%
294 total votes
  • Comment on I've watched the US Presidential Debates
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
3rd Party Candidates.
by rlk (Pilgrim) on Oct 06, 2000 at 07:56 UTC

    My college newspaper ran an amusing cartoon about the debates, which, though it loses a bit in conversion to text, I will attempt to share with you

    Panel 1
    Caption: "Gore's Canned Answers"
    Picture: Caricature of Gore, standing at a podium, saying "Blah Blah Blah"

    Panel 2
    Caption: "Bush's Canned Answers"
    Picture: Caricature of Bush, standing at a podium, saying "Blah Blah Blah"

    Panel 3
    Caption: "Nader and Buchanan's Canned Answers"
    Picture: Nader and Buchanan sitting in a trash can outside a door labeled "Debates: Keep Out".

    Hmm, perhaps you had to see it. Anyway, I'm voting for Harry Browne. *shrug*

    --
    Ryan Koppenhaver, Aspiring Perl Hacker
    "I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave."

RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
by Jonathan (Curate) on Oct 06, 2000 at 15:53 UTC
    Being English this issue normally wouldn't concern me much (other than hoping the liberal wins) but Bush scares me even more than Reagan.


    "We are all prompted by the same motives, all deceived by the same fallacies, all animated by hope, obstructed by danger, entangled by desire, and seduced by pleasure." - Samuel Johnson
(ar0n: go nader) RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
by ar0n (Priest) on Oct 06, 2000 at 14:38 UTC
    I watched the debate on CNN the next day, as it was on at 3:00 AM here.

    I really wish Nader and Buchanan would've been allowed to debate alongside Bore and Gush.
    Oh well.

    I like Nader; I like what he stands for. I don't think he'd be fit to be president, but it would be nice to see the Green Party gain some momentum.

    I'll be voting Green in 2004...

    [ar0n]

RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
by adamsj (Hermit) on Oct 07, 2000 at 04:28 UTC
    Okay, so I impulsively voted "Larry for President" but, on further consideration, why waste his talents?
RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
by ybiC (Prior) on Oct 06, 2000 at 15:37 UTC
Living in the USA, don't care
by Zarathustra (Beadle) on Oct 08, 2000 at 04:33 UTC
        Thus spake Zarathustra... :-)

        Okay, some of what I'm going to say is, I think, pretty objective, if it's understood to refer to the situation in America. Other bits of it will indulge my particular political bias. Oh, well; not like the rest of the posts here are any more objective...

        Consider that, along with the illusion of having only two choices, the mass media also pretty much sponsors the illusion that there is only one decision that matters: who gets the presidency. And that the two political parties each stand for something simple and definable. And, for that matter, that your only choices for finding out about such things are NBC or CBS, or FOX, etc.

        In fact, none of this is true. You know darned well there are more than two guys running for president, and you know you can get your news without kneeling before the Television Gods.

        But in truth, you know too that there are more positions being contested than the presidency. Most of us can, if we choose, at least influence who gets into our state House and how they vote. Hell, lots of these seats go uncontested... and these are the people who have to vote on things like UCITA.

        Furthermore, the very idea of a political party is kind of a joke. You don't seriously believe there's any cohesion amongst either party, do you? Go to some local political function, and tell me that what you saw there looked more like a giant thumb than a zoo where all the cages got left open. Political parties are vehicles for individuals to pursue their political goals, nothing more.

        Interestingly, this is why they're effective. A unified group is almost inevitably too small; they provide no opportunities to make mutually beneficial alliances with people who, in part, disagree with you.

        Anyway don't believe the centralization scam. And don't vote for a third party. Don't vote for any party. Vote for a person.

        So much for objectivity. Now a word from Petruchio.

        Zarathustra: "that giant red, white and blue star spangled thumb that continues so relentlessly to snuff any real change"

        And what change would that be? Where do we all want to go together? I maintain that there can hardly be a better point of consensus reached than right where we are now.

        The key word being, "consensus". Why do we have to go anywhere together? Really, we don't. It's all part of that simplistic illusion, the product of the 20th Century's mass media, mass production, mass education and mass consumption.

        I wish to see the system decentralized. This is, to a great extent, possible. The internet has already gone a long way towards setting us free, and tools to preserve our freedom (such as it is), like strong crypto, are in our hands. Progress can be made both within the political arena, and by taking the important issues outside the political arena.

        TIMTOWTDI, in life as in code. I don't want to live by consensus... I want to be left alone.

    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by little (Curate) on Oct 07, 2000 at 07:35 UTC
      Just b.t.w, I'm missing the option to vote "I don't live in the U.S., but I do care !"
      Hopefully one day ... :-)
      Have a nice day
      All decision is left to your taste
    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by runrig (Abbot) on Oct 07, 2000 at 21:29 UTC
      Just once I'd just like to see a poll question along the lines of "if a third party candidate had a chance in hell of winning, then who would you vote for?"

      We have only two bad options to choose between, but everyone knows it'll end up being one of them. Just wondering how many people just don't want to 'throw their vote away' on a third party candidate.
      I'd be leaning toward libertarian myself.
        DAMN PLURALITY VOTING!

        it does not have to be like this, but the "Major Parties" don't want anything else because they can manipulate pluralities so easily through their media ties.

        imagine not having to "throw away your vote" on the "lesser of two evils" while still being able to express your relative approval of all candidates. oh, how i wish for an electoral process in the U.S. that satisfies the Condorcet Criterion (i like Tideman's method in particular). alas!

        (you have my most sincere apologies for the lameness of the provider hosting the linked pages.)

    "T" Party 2000!!!!
    by Mork29 (Scribe) on Oct 07, 2000 at 22:18 UTC
      First there was the Boston Tea Party. Now, there is "T" Party 2000!!! Thats right, the "T" party has nominated Mr.T as our president elect and we're starting a write in campaign. SO VOTE FOR T!
    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by MadraghRua (Vicar) on Oct 12, 2000 at 08:16 UTC
      Good one Petruchio!
      Actually an even more worrying thing was the fact that the VP debates were cogent, reasoned and addressed real questions with real numbers, stats, etc. Why is this? Are we to believe that the President is only about surface and VP about substance?

      It totally sucks how we are left looking at these two daddies boys for only three debates. I much prefer watching the pols battle it out on the English House of Commons broadcasts - then you see who is who and what is what over six to seven years. The nature of infotainment here means that unless you're a dedicated CPAN viewer (and lets face it - who isn't) you really have no idea what these characters are.

      It seems that so much information is spun and massaged that you really are reliant on a ton of research to get an idea of what Bush or Gore have been up to.
      I'm voting for the first time this year and I think I'll go with Nader - at least he hasn't been bought and paid for by the Zaibatsu.

      MadraghRua
      yet another biologist hacking perl....

    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by AgentM (Curate) on Oct 07, 2000 at 00:04 UTC
    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by TStanley (Canon) on Oct 07, 2000 at 06:35 UTC
      I thought that Bush held his ground against Al the bore,
      and I thought it was amusing for Al to bring up his family
      again to make a point, whereupon Bush slammed him on the
      issue they were debating over, asking him where he gets
      his figures from. Al Gore scares me silly, because you
      wonder why he lies or distorts the truth, then acts surprised
      when someone calls him on it.

      TStanley
      There can be only one!
        "Al Gore scares me silly, because you wonder why he lies or distorts the truth, then acts surprised when someone calls him on it."

        OK, can you prove that Gore said something untruthful in the debates? Moreover, can you name an instance in which Bush called Gore on anything beside "Washington style fuzzy math"?

        Each time that Gore named a figure, Bush would respond with either a personal attack, or he would call Gore's numbers "fuzzy". Not once did Bush provide statistics or any other form of verifiable proof that Gore was lying, bending the truth, or misrepresenting himself.

        Gore also ACTUALLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS, something that Bush didn't think was neccessary. Bush just stood there and stuttered, repeating the same hackneyed phrases over and over.

        Besides, I would rather have a boring president, than a president that says thing like, "...a school that works with at-risk children (that basically means that they can't learn)."

        redmist
        redmist.dyndns.org
        email::redmist
          OK, can you prove that Gore said something untruthful in the debates?
          Give me a transcript and I'll show you. both candidates lied but Gore does so far more, or would you have us believe he DID invent the internet There was also the issue of the lady who picks up cans to pay for her medicine. and the schoolgirl who had to sit on a box, where he neglected to mention that it was for one day because the room was full of brand new computers that hadn't been unpacked yet. There have been so many of these completely bogus stories lately it's not even funny I could go on for hours but I have better things to do.
          Moreover, can you name an instance in which Bush called Gore on anything beside "Washington style fuzzy math"?
          Bush proposes $1 trillion in new spending and tax cuts, Gore is proposing $3 trillion but Gore claims that Bush will put us back into deficit spending, but his plan won't.
          math="fuzzy" if 3 < 1

          Each time that Gore named a figure, Bush would respond with either a personal attack, or he would call Gore's numbers "fuzzy". Not once did Bush provide statistics or any other form of verifiable proof that Gore was lying, bending the truth, or misrepresenting himself.
          Statistics can be made to say anything, to say that statistics are proof is just plain wrong. And did you bother to check them? Alot were exagerated.
          Gore also ACTUALLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS, something that Bush didn't think was neccessary. Bush just stood there and stuttered, repeating the same hackneyed phrases over and over.
          Maybe you just couldn't hear Bush's answers over all that sighing and ruffling of papers. And Gore won the repitition contest, say that the evil "...richest one percent..." 15 times according the wall street journal.
          Besides, I would rather have a boring president, than a president that says thing like, "...a school that works with at-risk children (that basically means that they can't learn)."
          Can you say the words Out of Context. also when you cut someone off in a quote you HAVE to put three periods or it's an inacurate quote.
          "...a school that works with at-risk children (that basically means that they can't learn the same as other children)."
          I think is the correct quote. can't cut people off midsentance like that.
          And I saw no personal attacks either way. Just because Gore says it's one doesn't mean it is.
          I also have one great fear with Gore and Clinton. If they knew it or not the Chinese who consider us enemies gave funding to their campaigns. This troubles me greatly.
          And no I'm not going to vote for Bush either.
    RE: I've watched the US Presidential Debates
    by Anonymous Monk on Oct 06, 2000 at 23:53 UTC
      Who's Larry?

          And here I thought it was McLean Stevenson ("Colonel Henry Blake")'s character on his post-M*A*S*H sitcom. Just goes to show what I know =)

          Not-the-AM

          Philosophy can be made out of anything -- or less

    View List Of Past Polls


    Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Domain Nodelet?
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others meditating upon the Monastery: (3)
    As of 2022-07-07 00:46 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      No recent polls found

      Notices?