This was a great night to donate platelets. I may schedule donations for every debate presidential debate for the rest of my life... Watching the Twitter feed was plenty good enough.

But these people who complain about the moderator... Does that mean that the discussion was in some way immoderate?

Because that seems unlikely. These guys are more afraid of offending voters than of their own deaths.

I just couldn't watch it. I can't stand the thought of my head exploding before election day and not being able to vote.

Exactly.

(Only I may not vote anyway... At least for the presidency and selected other offices. It only encourages them. There are people who, because you voted, assume you want more from government.)

I didn't watch it because I already knew I was voting for Gary Johnson and I could not listen to the festival of stupid.

I will say this. All of you who say not voting for the big two is wasting my vote - why?

VOTING FOR WHAT I WANT IS NOT WASTING MY VOTE.

A third party is going to happen. I call this the year it starts. JUST WATCH.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Obama and Romney both are bad, but Romney is far worse; if I lived in a competitive state, I'd vote Obama. But if my state is competitive, we're talking about a Romney landslide.

I wish more people would vote their conscious instead of feeling like they are being forced to vote for the big two. I think a third party candidate would come closer than people think.

Granted, I live in CA, so by the time the vote gets to us, it hardly counts.

I'm stuck in red country, and Johnson isn't even on the ballot here (we have an idiot state attorney general and associated office).

Still, I'm going to have to say I'd rather have Romney than Obama (since that's my only choice here).

Neither is all that much good, but if Romney is elected, the press will at least attempt to do their job and properly cover the presidency, instead of covering for it.

Bad as it is, that's better than nothing.

Bad as it is, that's better than nothing.

Why vote for the lesser evil?"

Seriously, both major parties are so extraordinarily bad - a vote for *anyone* else is not wasted. Imagine the message if, say, Obama wins with 40% of the popular vote, Romney gets 35%, and 25% is distributed over third parties. That would give third parties and their supporters a huge boost!

I'd vote for Johnson (or any other good libertarian leaning third party candidate) if the option was available.

We don't have the option here. The powers that be here seems to be actively opposed to a third party on the ballot.

I'm in a red state (no swing here), and Romney will win here, no matter what.

And that brings us to the real world.

When the piper gets paid, we get either Romney or Obama. It's nice to have the choice of (and to vote for) a third party candidate, but he ain't happening this time around, no matter how nice it sounds in theory.

So, what's worse?

A loser government centric idiot who gets a free pass from the press, or a loser government centric idiot who gets scrutinized by the press?

Arguably, the second is better, as it offers at least some hope that people will see it for what it is, and maybe learn to choose better (no real hope there, though).

In this case, I'd rather vote for Cthulhu. Maybe he'd eat congress first.

In this case, I'd rather vote for Cthulhu. Maybe he'd eat congress first. -- Darth Helvetica at October 3, 2012 10:51 PM

He'd have to eat the politicians first. Otherwise he would never get the bad taste out of his mouth. ;-)

I'd rather vote for Ron Paul, but he was fucked by the Dumboacrats, the RINOs and the major media. And I'd rather have RINOs that can have their re-election held hostage by the Tea Party and major media rather than Dumbocrats who have major media ignoring it.

"I'd rather vote for Ron Paul, but he was fucked by the Dumboacrats"

When you write things like "Dumboacrats," you can't expect to be taken seriously by anyone that isn't coming from your exact same perspective. It's like when people write "Rethuglicans". -- Persuasive!!!

I registered a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries here. Also used the opportunity to remove my phone number from my voter registration – what a horrible and annoying oversight including that was. Weeks of robocalls every election, and it seems like that's about every 6 months or so.

Yes, it's a shame Johnson isn't getting more respect in the political press. He's a truly credible candidate – a successful governor from a swing state. The sort of guy the media usually swoon over, and who has a solid case for himself. Though, I gotta bang the libertarians a bit for their lack of coordinated action in these days of Super Pacs ;) Where's the group running ads on his behalf. Even also-rans and never-weres like Gingrich and Santorum had people spending mad cash on them.

When you write things like "Dumboacrats," you can't expect to be taken seriously by anyone that isn't coming from your exact same perspective. It's like when people write "Rethuglicans". -- Persuasive!!! -- doggone at October 3, 2012 11:21 PM

You did not quote the entire sentence.

Do you happen to know what "RINOs" mean? Do you think members of the Republican party like that name?

Please learn to read and comprehend an entire sentence before jumping.

I'm a libertarian and more a small "r" republican. The post was intended to be semi-humorous and semi-sarcastic.

I said that Ron Paul was fucked by the Democratic party, the Republican Party and the major media.

I refuse to consider ABC/CBS/NBC and most major newspapers mainstream media. They do not really reflect the demographic markets anymore.

Yes I insulted the Dumbocrats. I also insulted the Republican's In Name Only party as well.

All I'm asking is reading comprehension and thought.

No, I didn't watch the debate. I won't watch TV until tomorrow, when the playoffs start.

I'm not the first to say this here, but if the big-L Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they'd better start at the bottom and get some candidates elected to local and state governments. All that would require organization, patience, and a lot of work. Are the Libs up to it?

I don't really know if they are -- my only experience with the Libertarians is Reason, which is great fun, but kind of reminds me of dudes bullshitting in the dorm. I'd be happy to hear other perspectives.

That was just great to watch. I've heard some Obama supporters saying ti wasn't fair Romney didn't let him talk. I'm sorry, who do YOU want handling foregn powers-someone who cowers and waits for someone to rescue him for his turn, or someone who controls the room?

Romney wouldn't have been my choice, I'm socially conservative but don't vote on that, but he's the man now since he's the only one who can get Obama outta there.

I'm really hoping these last 12 years will break the main parties. Awful, awful choices for pres. I do hope that most dems do not want to see their party turned into the socialist worker party. I also hope repubs do not want to see their party turned into a crony capitalist party. The tea party was a good start. I hope they break off.

> I've heard some Obama supporters saying ti wasn't
> fair Romney didn't let him talk.

Tally.

OTOH.

Actually, Jim, once i got to the word Dumboacrats i skipped the rest of your first comment.

I watched about half the debate. Romney made himself look really good compared to Obama. Romney was right on top of it, had clear answers, and was able to defend his position. Obama, not so much.

> Actually, Jim, once i got to the word Dumboacrats
> i skipped the rest of your first comment.

How much to make you go away completely?

Where are my doilies?  What's become of my nosegay?
Don't people understand that policy is supposed
to be a gentle, inclusive, team-building enterprise
in which nothing counts more than popularity?

Has anyone seen my lavender cleavage moistener?
I keep it in a darling little glass atomizer
(shaped like Peter Lorre) that I tote in my
leatherette clutch, but it seems to have fallen
away from me!

Oh dear...!

I will never understand comment's like SSGB's. Not that a particular kind of expression was off-putting... That happens to all of us everyday. But to boast, with an extended pinky and womanly legs crossed at the ankle, that such things are beneath you... Well, honey, just how adorable do you think you are?

If you want a world without conflict... Well, there's nothing we can do for you. You're fucked, absolutely doomed. This is the century of the super-empowered invidual. When you see the enemies of freedom and progress marshaling their forces to strike out from poverty and disorder, how polite do you imagine they're going to be about it? Do you think they're going to ask nice, so that you'll be more inclined to consider their perspective?

Or will they just think you've got your head up your ass? And will they be right?

Growth is challenging, always.

"Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder" is a name with many shades of secret meaning, right? A rarefied allusion, I'm sure...

I did not watch, but recorded it in case commentary made it sound interesting.

So far it seems that Pres. O. suffered by refusing to listen to any non-supporter for these years, and was surprised that anyone cold actually think his reign could be less than perfect.

Heck, when you lose Bill Maher...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bill-maher-thinks-obama-lost-the-debate-needs-a-teleprompter/article/2509808#.UG0CSxhSlew

Obama's debate performance illustrated the basic problem underlying his presidency. To wite, he isn't on the job full-time. Obama has never stayed at a job that required more than a 40-hour per week commitment. He always puts in the minimum. And, in the types of jobs he's had in the past, that was enough.

Recalling his time as a lecturer (not a professor) at the University of Chicago, students and colleagues say Obama never did extra work or stayed longer than he had to. The law school professors used to have a roundtable on Fridays in which ideas were fiercely debated (participation in this might have helped Obama last night) and, according to one participant, you had better have come prepared. Obama always skipped it.

Obama has never had to have a stable of facts at his ready command. He's never held a job that demanded he be up-to-date and ready to recall bits of information that might be vital to explaining his strategy or postiion to someone he needs to win over. He's always held jobs in which glib platitudes would suffice as persuasion.

Obama beat McCain in their debates because neither candidate ever ventured into factual territory (and McCain was falling apart as a candidate by then). It was a debate format (and opponent) custom-built for Obama's style-over-substance method of persuasion.

Mitt Romney has been a CEO and a governor. He's had jobs in which he'd better know the smallest detail about his organization when someone in the audience (whether Wall Street analyst, company director, or employee) asks him about it.

CEOs get grilled by Wall Street analysts about their company's performance 4 times a year (quarterly earnings calls), their boards of directors at least twice a year, and many have townhall meetings with employees throughout the year. The worst thing one can say about the company's CEO is that he doesn't know his business. When I worked for a major bank, the career-ending assessment of any manager was that "he doesn't know his numbers."

It used to be my job to help put together the information package the CEO would study before and use during these meetings. I know how detailed they are. And most CEOs I worked with asked some very detailed questions to further their understanding of the material.

It's like going from college football to professional football - the playbook gets bigger. Obama was using a college-level playbook and looked like he'd only skimmed it.

This debate showed that Obama is indeed over his head. He's a part-time guy in a full-time job. And he looked for all the world last night like he really wished he was back in a less-demanding job.

momof4:

"I'm sorry, who do YOU want handling foregn powers-someone who cowers and waits for someone to rescue him for his turn, or someone who controls the room?"

Man, I so agree. The office of President is NOT for shrinking violets, wallflowers, etc. The President needs to be someone who can take control and lead. Doesn't mean he (or she!) has to be rude; but someone who can take control of a situation and convince others to do what needs to be done is what is needed for such a powerful position.

While many say presidential debates don't really matter; I think they can help show the undecided voters someone's abilities to articulate their ideas without the aid of a teleprompter. And isn't that a skill set needed when dealing with congress and even more needed when dealing with foreign heads of state?

While agreeing with Charles in spirit...

>The President needs to be someone who can take
> control and lead

I think the President needs to be someone who can SERVE. Like, SERVICE serve. Like, do things for ME.

We are far, FAR too promiscuous with chatter about "leadership" in this country, especially as regards government.

The only people I want the president to lead are the other government employees.

This is not nitpicking. It deserves to be said aloud and consciously registered in all instances.

Crid;

I agree.

And sometimes the way that the President can serve is to shut the f*ck up, and get out of the way!

Seriously, I don't need to know what he thinks of the Cambridge police, I don't need to know what he thinks of the football refs, I don't need his wife (an unelected person BTW) telling me what to eat, etc.

And God help us if nanny, "lock up the baby formula", Bloomberg ever runs for higher office!

Bloomberg is so naive he's almost cuddly. When these impulses are expressed by products of the Chicago machine, you feel a phantom punch to the kidney every time the talk.

But yes, you're right.

I was thinking the other day how Hillary was from Chicago... NOT Arkansas, and NOT New York.

That she & (Chicagoan) Obama contended for the Dem nom in 2008 ought to mean something to people.

I mean, people actually watched this horrible thing. I tried to read the transcript, but it was just too much.

They were saying they were going to do the exact same things, and arguing about it at the same time.

If I lived in a swing state, I'd guess I'd consider voting Romney, but since I see no way Texas electoral votes going to Obama, I have no doubt I'll be checking the box beside Gary Johnson.

For libertarians in swing states thinking of staying home, remember this: in every state of the union *whether* *or* *not* a person goes to the polls is a matter of public record. We know whether or not you get out to the polls, and we're confident of which way you'll break once you're inside the voting booth.
Now be sure to get out and vote, if only to prove your reliability.

Leadership or Serice? Tough choice. Maybe I will go with grand poohba mediator.

Heck, just give me someone who can actually make an F-ing decision when faced with three choices.
Obama is the guy on Let's Make A Deal, who is always looking for door Number 4.

Leadership or Serice? Tough choice. Maybe I will go with grand poohba mediator.

Heck, just give me someone who can actually make an F-ing decision when faced with three choices.
Obama is the guy on Let's Make A Deal, who is always looking for door Number 4.

"the Chicago machine"

Can someone explain to me what they mean by this? It's not like Obama's part of the Daley shop, or particularly rough with people, crooked or thuggish. Is it just "politician I don't like from Chicago"?

I thought it was a draw.