Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Watching Tonight's Presidential Debate Online

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the play-the-drinking-game dept.

Government 349

farkinga writes "For those of us that no longer have a television, live TV events can be a challenge to watch. Fortunately, tonight's Presidential Debate has attracted the attention of most US broadcasters, many of whom will provide online viewing options. Leading the way is Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp, who will stream the Fox-branded feed tonight — assuming they worked out the bandwidth issues that came up during the second debate!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Live? (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383513)

I'm more interested in a recorded version, since I'll be busy during the actual debate... :/

Re:Live? (5, Informative)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383575)

Take a look at eztv.it: http://eztv.it/index.php?main=search [eztv.it] - you can usually find debates available for download after the fact; either same day or at the most, the next day.

Re:Live? (0, Troll)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383669)

What the hell is up with modding the parent offtopic? The question is directly related to the summary. Lighten up, mods.

Oh yeah, +5 insightful on this post please.

Re:Live? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383735)

Actually I kinda figured somebody'd tag me offtopic, but I also counted on getting a few responses... my current sources don't seem to have much along the lines of recorded debates. Thanks to everyone who's replied, I'll have to check those out.

Re:Live? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383709)

Why would you watch the illegal feeds when the debates are available 100% legally on Youtube? Not to mention that you can start watching immediately. No need to wait for a Torrent download.

Re:Live? (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383581)

C-SPAN posts the complete debate videos on their YouTube account [youtube.com] . If you ever miss a debate, check there first.

I prefer C-SPAN for live, too. (5, Insightful)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383683)

They don't have "analysts" telling me what my reaction is.

C-SPAN [cspan.org]

Re:I prefer C-SPAN for live, too. (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383871)

I agree. The only issue with C-SPAN is you have to make sure you don't doze off and forget to change the channel before the call-in portion starts. If you listen to that garbage for too long, your brain will start leaking out of your ears in an attempt to escape the inanity.

But yes, it still beats the hell out of every other station's punditry.

Re:I prefer C-SPAN for live, too. (5, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384529)

Then how are you going to know who to vote for? I mean I've seen plenty of sitcoms that I didn't know were funny until I heard the laughtrack. Which kinda leads me to think WTF.


Re:Live? (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383603)

that's where I got the previous debates from

they are also posted to youtube by cspan

Re:Live? (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384581)

It looks like hulu still has all of the previous debates up, so presumably you could go to hulu to watch it live and/or after the fact.

Overdrive (1, Insightful)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383519)

What is with Slashdot going into political overdrive? I know the elections are coming up but jeesh, 3 on the main page right now and we still have weeks until the election.

Re:Overdrive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383607)

And note the distinct lack of Acorn voter fraud stories compared to the flood of blackboxvoter stories we got last election.

Presumably because one is "technology" and the other isn't. But it was always cast as "this is important news because voting fraud is important as a nation."

Except now it's not.

Re:Overdrive (0, Offtopic)

More Trouble (211162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383759)

News for Nerds. Not news for Republican Talking Points.

It must be the liberal bias. Have you noticed that Anonymous Coward is always bringing up Republican Talking Points(TM)? I'm pretty sure your astroturfing howto specifically requested that you go on the record with the Official Talking Points. Posting them Anonymous Cowardly just dilutes the brand.

Re:Overdrive (-1, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384015)

This whole ACORN thing just seems a little too convenient.
It seems like the perfect thing gift wrapped by and for
Carl Rove in order to steal the election and disenfranchise
large numbers of urban blacks in key battleground states. ...the pathetic thing in all of this is if McCain had just
played the middle, then the undercurrents of American
racism would have played out all on their own without McCain
needing to get blatantly about the whole thing.

It's like Republicans are a cabal of wealthy kleptomaniacs.

McCain: The Stepford Candidate.

Re:Overdrive (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384147)

But Diebold "stealing elections" isn't a little too convenient to be the perfect thing gift wrapped by and for Howard Dean?

Oh wait, sorry, that's "truthiness" and Acorn is Republican talking points.

How Alinskyite of you.

Oh and McCain hasn't introduced racism into the political debate. Obama did that all by himself.

Re:Overdrive (3, Insightful)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383859)

The Acorn thing isnt that big of a deal, because "Mickey Mouse" is not actually going to show up to vote. Having your vote manipulated in some blackbox voting machine IS a big deal.

Re:Overdrive (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383899)

It's called absentee voting which isn't checked as stringently as regular ballots.

Why do you think there's all this interest in EARLY VOTING?

I stand by my original post.

Voting fraud is only important to liberals when they're losing.

Re:Overdrive (5, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384141)

Mickey increases the number of registered voters without increasing the number of actual voters. This provides an opportunity for disguising vote fraud by adding votes at the end of the night, but staying under the registered total.

It's not separate from the black box machine, it's complementary to it.

Re:Overdrive (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384533)

Speaking as a non USian, living outside the US, I have to say that the American presidential election is all over the news feeds here as well.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, newsfeeds and syndication. Whatever the American media decides to talk about, the entire anglosphere usually ends up talking about as well. If there's a bus crash or school shooting in the middle of nowhere in, say, Nebraska, its gets on the Irish, and usually English, national 9 o'clock news. This is a symptom of an increasingly monopolised and centralised media in the western world.

Secondly, the US presidential elections are actually very important. I see Slashdotters posting comments to the effect that both parties are equally bad and it doesn't matter which way you vote and excuses, excuses, excuses. I can tell you from the point of view of someone who is very much affected by the results of your national elections, this is a pretty depressing thing to hear. It's clear to anyone who has half a clue that there are very wide and deep differences between the two main candidates, and it's quite irritating to find out just how flippantly many Americans go about voting, or not voting, for their president.

Your election affects me. It affects people around me. My nation's economy, policies, laws, and culture, yes culture, are significantly affected by your selection of a president, through his administration's policies. When the choices made by religious southern fundamentalists end up slowly eroding my way of life because people who should have known better were too apathetic to vote, I get a little irritated. So in my view the more coverage this election gets, the better.

So in short, I would rather these stories on the Slashdot front page rather than have this site ignore or only pay lip service to the issue. This is "Stuff That Matters" to me.

Linux? No CNN. (5, Informative)

arhhook (995275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383525)

I tried during the last debate to watch it on CNN.com/live but it appeared their video player didn't allow Ubuntu/Firefox to connect. After further research, they use some vbscript in their code. I'll definitely watch it, just not with CNN.

Re:Linux? No CNN. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383817)

You don't need to see the debates. You're a Linux/FOSS using pinko socialist. You're going to vote for Obama. Face it, you've already decided when he was nominated.

Just grab some beers and watch your Battlestar Galactica DVDs and jerk off to hot Cylon chicks.

Re:Linux? No CNN. (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383853)

Somewhat unsurprisingly, I found MSNBC's feed to work only in IE (and thusly only on Windows). Didn't work in Firefox 3 or Opera 9.6b on either Ubuntu or Windows.

Re:Linux? No CNN. (4, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384083)

Barack Obama supports Linux. I did some freelance work for his North Carolina campaign headquarters, settting up a gentoo box for use as their intranet server. I met BO and talked about linux and modernizing the Federal Government, access to information, etc. He'll probably be a very linux-friendly administration. It may not be year of the linux desktop yet, but it will be year of the linux whitehouse.

cnn.com/live (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383535)

I used cnn.com/live for the previous debates.

Works great.

This presumes.... (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383555)

This presumes that one would want to subject themselves to a public hanging of rights in effigy.

Re:This presumes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384405)

The real problem with the debates is that they lack depth. The same "big" issues are discussed over and over, rather than moving on to other issues. Look at abortion. Relatively speaking, nothing really changes regarding abortion because changing it is difficult and potentially political suicide. But both sides talk about it as if it is the issue. Gun control? Same. Etc. etc.

Re:This presumes.... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384621)

Because if they talk about real issues, both candidates could lose the election, and the Party could lose its 99.9% majority in congress. Gotta stay "focused".

Much easier at 1.5X speed (4, Interesting)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383579)

I have TV. I still set my MythTV to record it, and started watching about an hour in.

Why ? So I could use time-stretch to watch it at 1.5X speed. They take forever to say the simplest thing.

Time stretch is amazing. Get done in less time, without everyone sounding like chipmunks.

Re:Much easier at 1.5X speed (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383755)

How does time stretch work? (Yes I googled it, all I get is a bunch of how-to about installing myth-tv.)

BTW, /., logging in the new way sucks, change it back to the old way that has been changed for a while now without reason? Used to be able to log-in WHILE making a comment. Now, follow the log-in link, log-in, take you to the front page rather than the comment you were going to reply to. Why make it more of a hassle and less convenient than it used to be?

Re:Much easier at 1.5X speed (2, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383821)

I'm guessing it also does a frequency shift on the audio so it's the same pitch at a different speed.

Re:Much easier at 1.5X speed (2, Insightful)

bugeaterr (836984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384411)

I have MythTV, but it only records what Obama says. ;)


Foxnews.com has it live. (0, Redundant)

bonkeydcow (1186443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383599)

Foxnews.com had the second debate live, i watched it that way because i was recording 2 things already on my tivo.

Re:Foxnews.com has it live. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383761)

That wasn't a bad way to watch it, and I'm glad they added the disclaimer "Flames added electronically by Fox News" whenever Obama was talking. Very fair and balanced of them.

podcasts? audio? mp3's ? (1)

mystik (38627) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383625)

Anyone happen to know where one could pickup MP3's of the event? archive.org has a few debates from last time around, but nothing current, and I have not been able to pick them up.

iTunes used to have them the last time I used iTunes. Sadly, my Mac died a long time ago, and I haven't been able to sign on to the iTunes store in a *long* time.

Multicast (4, Insightful)

mknewman (557587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383637)

This is why Multicast would have been so nice, one feed goes out to anyone who wanted it. The current point to point way of distributing video is a quick and dirty solution, where multicast is eligant.

Re:Multicast (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384055)

The thing I never understood is how do you get everyone watching at the same time? If Antonia starts at 8:00, and Bob starts at 8:04, how is a multicast going to help?

Re:Multicast (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384131)

The thing I never understood is how do you get everyone watching at the same time? If Antonia starts at 8:00, and Bob starts at 8:04, how is a multicast going to help?

It would work exactly the same way that a television does.

That is, a television with several [hundred] gigabytes of storage space, and [usually] over a gig of memory. You'd be able to cache it.

Re:Multicast (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384109)

Could you imagine the elegance that the spammers would be able to manage if multicast were allowed?

Re:Multicast (1)

mknewman (557587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384293)

You have to 'subscribe' to a feed on multicast. All the channels go out but until you connect to your peer and ask for the feed it does not start being sent. Spammers would never be able to use it because they would never deliver any messages. It's meant for audio/video also, not text.

What is this Russia? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383641)

and how many of us "no longer have a tv"?

Re:What is this Russia? (2, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383953)

I only "have" TV because my roommate has TV (because of his addiction to "Deal Or No Deal"). It's generally not worth having because it's content controlled by big corporations, not real people.

Re:What is this Russia? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384397)

If you're going to avoid things that are controlled by huge corporations, then make sure not to use any electricity, fill your car up with gas, or fly on a commercial airplane. Maybe your best option would be to dig a hole, jump in it, and wait for the apocalypse.

Re:What is this Russia? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384113)

In Soviet Oceana, TV watches YOU!

Actually I wondered the same thing. I don't know a single person without a TV. Most people I know have several (I only have one, but there are three in my house, Robyn's is stored and Charlie has one). I don't have cable, but that's no problem as the debates are on half the channels I get.

My problem is I don't know which candidate to vote for, but none of the three who might get my vote are included in the festivities. As I've already decided I'm voting against both McCain and Obama, there's little point in watching them debate.

Re:What is this Russia? (4, Funny)

cicatrix1 (123440) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384359)

It shouldn't be that hard to determine. People without a TV can't seem to go 2 sentences without mentioning the fact. I almost want to buy these people a TV to get them to STFU and reduce their smug levels a bit.

Check Ustream.TV (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383657)

There will be plenty of live streams with it on Ustream.TV

On last debate there were over 4000 simultaneous viewers on a stream and it worked fine.

I don't know anyone who doesn't own a TV!! (2, Interesting)

jskline (301574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383705)

I for one have a High Definition TV receiver plugin for my laptop and it coincidentally can also record and time shift. So I can comfortably place it aside and let it record the thing for me to watch later when I have the time and its in high definition to boot. Online viewing right now just plain sucks.

My challenge (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383715)

My challenge with anything video online is my ISP's bandwidth caps. I am capped at 60GB per month combined download and upload. Streaming video can add up fast! My issues with Firefox only showing a black box for CNN's streaming video was solved. I do not know who solved it...CNN or Firefox folks. But it's good news nonetheless.

I will probably be on the road while the debate is going on...but have Mythbuntu programmed to record the show, including all the pundits' takes after the debate.

The trouble is, MythBuntu creates huge files (2.2 GB for just 1 hr), making disk space run fast. I just wish my man success. Can you guess who it is?

No Hulu for me (3, Informative)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383727)

I'm an American living abroad and Hulu has region restrictions, so it doesn't work for me. Bastards.

Re:No Hulu for me (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384337)

Get a VPN account with a U.S. provider. Not only gives you access to U.S. content, it protects your system when you're using hotspots.

"Presidential Agreement" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383743)

Too bad its written, directed and produced by the republicans and democrats. Its not like the coporate media, who contributes heavily to both parties, will ask any hard questions. There will never again be a third party in the debates. Hardly a non-partisan 'debate'. The last two elections were very likely stolen anyhow. Personally, I can see almost no difference between these republicrats. I hope Donald Duck wins the election. Considering how secure the electronic voting machines are, its not that unlikely.

Re:"Presidential Agreement" (1, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383943)

If you honestly cannot see a difference between McCain and Obama, you might as well write in Palin for president because your IQ would be about the same.

Nader framed his campaigns as "the other guys are basically the same party". As we watch the GOP implode and Bush go down as the worst president in history, are you honestly going to say that there is no difference between both parties, their platforms and their candidates? Seriously?

Do you really foresee an Obama administration twisting words like Terrorism, Freedom (fries), Patriot, etc? Do you foresee him installing crazy supreme court judges that have and will continue to fuck our country until they retire? Do you foresee him installing a vice president who refuses to talk with the press and cannot answer basic questions?

Seriously? Really?

Re:"Presidential Agreement" (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384225)

There are basic fundamental differences between Barack Obama and John McCain in how they will each end up screwing things up. It's really a choice of which way you want to have the country screwed up.

Re:"Presidential Agreement" (1, Troll)

Mustakrakish (1309263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384261)

Do you really foresee an Obama administration twisting words like Terrorism, Freedom (fries), Patriot, etc?

Sure. He's twisted what the word racism means. Under Dear Leader Obama, Terrorism will mean anything conservative, freedom will have no meaning, and a Patriot is the fascist goon squads Obama will create - oh, I mean, "National Security Force"

Do you foresee him installing crazy supreme court judges that have and will continue to fuck our country until they retire?

Why yes, he's already said he would appoint moonbat crazy liberals.

Do you foresee him installing a vice president who refuses to talk with the press and cannot answer basic questions?

Joe Biden lives in a fantasy land where we (with the French) threw Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Biden is a fucking moron.

In conclusion: To Hell With Barack Obama and the Nazis that support him.

Re:"Presidential Agreement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383995)

Personally, I can see almost no difference between these republicrats.

If you really can't see much difference between the two then you aren't paying much attention.

OGG or other? (3, Interesting)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383765)

Anyone ballsy enough to stream using a more widely available, non-Flash codec?

Yes (2, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384011)

Sure, I am. Just hook me up with a few dozen OC-192 connections at each of the largest 100 cities in the country, and set me up with 1000 computers at each site, and I'll stream it in OGG Theora format. Oh, and I'll also need a satellite dish and receiver tuned to the C-SPAN channel.

Re:OGG or other? (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384021)

Are you speaking of MMS? I know we're supposed to hate anything Windows, but that one works well and is implemented in most Linux distros. (It's also relatively easy to capture...)

A OTA tunner for your pc is that hard to get? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383811)

The only hard thing that I see it trying to get CH 2 HD in chicago.

Fox has baseball but it will be on NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS free over the air.

BBC (3, Informative)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383909)

I didn't want to install some stupid plugins and codecs for other networks, so I just hopped over to the BBC for their live streaming web broadcasts. The little screen is not going to be confused for HD but there were no hiccups or dropouts for the other three debates so far. Why depend on US broadcasters when all eyes around the world are paying attention to the high-stakes face off of US political elections?

Re:BBC (1)

Attaturk (695988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384091)

You beat me to it. I just double-checked and according to this page [bbc.co.uk] :

The final US presidential debate will be available live in streaming video on the BBC news website, with full commentary, a blow-by-blow description, and analysis, from 0100 GMT.

MySpace (1)

More Trouble (211162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383975)

Personally, I watched the first two presidential debates and the vp debate streaming live from MySpace [myspace.com] . I don't use MySpace for anything else. Quality was OK. I like that I get the feed from before & after commercial TV picks it up. More like being in the audience.

Silverlight (1)

SuseLover (996311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383983)

Will I be able to watch it without stupid Silverlight? It'd be nice to be able to watch from my Linux box :-(

Moonlight (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384133)

Will I be able to watch it without stupid Silverlight? It'd be nice to be able to watch from my Linux box :-(

What error message did Moonlight [mono-project.com] give, either when you built it from source to get the media codecs[1] or when you tried to run it?

[1] From the page: "These builds do not include media codecs (video or audio), for that, you must currently build Moonlight from source code."

Try Streaming Bittorrent (2, Interesting)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384003)

Hulu should offer a streaming bittorrent feed as an alternative. We discussed the technology here earlier. The client's interface could be better, but at least it's something which might help with the bandwidth issues.

Broadcast TV: Forgotten Already (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384079)

For those of us that no longer have a television,

Who, the Amish? They don't vote.

Almost everybody else has free TV, for now at least. Even if you live in a really bad reception area (as I do) you can probably get one or two network stations. You might need one of those silver wirey things, it's called an antenna.

I have one of those somewhere, but if I decided to watch the debate, I guess it would probably be easier to call up a stream. Still, I hate looking at politicians, so I'll probably resort to another obsolete technology, radio.

Re:Broadcast TV: Forgotten Already (1)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384181)

Yeah, but if you live in an area with bad reception and February 2009 rolls around, your picture is going to be crap even with a converter. If you don't get a decent signal for digital, it's going to be like watching "Lego TV" with all the blocks on the screen.

I was thinking that instead of the debate, we could decide it with them playing "Rockem-Sockem Robots"

Just buy a TV! (1)

CaptainJeff (731782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384095)

Seriously. The question has to do with live events on TV. Live events are (almost always) broadcast on network TV which you can get for free over-the-air. You can walk in to your local BestBuy/Walmart/Target/whatever and buy a fairly small TV set for under $100. Then you can watch live TV events on a TV, and live. Trying to work through all of the hoops that are necessary to do this over the interwebtubes, when you can spend $100 to just do it the traditional way, tells me that you are trying to use your trust hammer to fasten in a screw. Yes, I know this will not work when the over-the-air signals convert to digital. Then you will need to buy a converter, which you can get for almost nothing with the federal incentive program for this purpose.

Why bother? (1, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384107)

Why bother watching? Your vote doesn't count anyway. It's the "swing voters" who decide elections, the uninformed nitwits who don't even look at the policies of each candidate. They're the ones who re-elected Bush. They're the ones who are going to hand the Democrats a supermajority next year, even though the Democrats encouraged the high-risk loans that lead to the financial crisis, ignored the public's wishes for offshore drilling, and voted for the government bailout that the public didn't want. Democrats are on the left side of the political spectrum that dictates an investment of trust and power in the government, which means we're going to get more of the same one-party legislation, big government, big spending, and little oversight that we've already had during the Bush Administration.

Government works best when there is a spread of power between the branches, forcing them to clash with each other constantly until the public overwhelmingly demands something that they're forced to agree on. This keeps them all in check--they don't do things for their party; they only do them for us. However, as I said, swing voters are nitwits, so the current financial news means they blame whichever party currently has the presidency. Thus, Obama and the Congress Democrats have shot up in the polls despite encouraging the very loans that caused the crisis and adjourning the Congress before the offshore drilling problem could be addressed. Hell, top Democrats ran Fannie Mae, and Barney Frank even blocked Bush's and McCain's warnings about Fannie Mae back in 2003! And I'm sure you all saw the news a while back that Obama was the biggest recipient of donations from those companies.

We are screwed. So do what I'm doing. Stay home and don't vote. Why contribute to another supermajority administration that's going to mess everything up? If there was a chance of a Democrat for president but a Republican house, or a Republican for president with a Democrat house, I'd show up. But we're not going to get that. We're getting a supermajority so big that the minority party won't even have enough seats to launch investigations when the inevitable administration scandals come up (as they always do for every President). Swing voters are going to reward the same people who have screwed us over by giving them a one-party government--a party that believes in bigger government and bigger spending. This is the same shit we hated about Bush. We're going to get an EVEN BIGGER government. So screw 'em. Stay home and have nothing to do with it.

I'm very disillusioned with the election and with the press in particular. I say let the media obsess over the debates--all they care about is who "gaffes" so they can have some goofy clip to run the rest of the week for higher ratings, and they're actually disappointed when a debate comes out as a draw. Let each party try to steal the election--for instance, like ACORN is doing by registering thousands of dead people. Let the uninformed nitwits show up on election day and contribute to our country's downfall. Reasonable people don't have a choice.

Just my political rant for the day. Interested in your thoughts, counterarguments, and so on.

George Carlin - I Don't Vote [youtube.com]

Re:Why bother? (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384603)

So you are suggesting that the solution to having two poor candidates is to not participate and yet still deal with the repercussions? Hardly sounds useful to me - it sounds like a lazy way of going about a self fufilling prophecy. You know, even voting for a single topic (which I discourage) is even more useful than not voting at all. Or better yet, vote for a third party. At least you will get something out of it. Somebody is going to get elected and by being passive is not proving a point, changing anything, or even going to be noticed. Your ideaologies will just fall by the wayside in the same category of people who don't vote because of various reasons (too dumb, too oblivious, too uninterested, etc to care).

Or you could... (2, Informative)

rhythmx (744978) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384119)

go to the movie theater. The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin has been showing the debates [originalalamo.com] . There really is no better way to watch them than to have a burger and knock back pitcher of beer.

Why Watch At All? (1, Troll)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384175)

The "debate" is an artifice constructed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is run by both parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates [wikipedia.org]

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.

It is a fraud. And still, people watch this theatrical event and act like it means something. No wonder this country is such a mess.

Sports bars! (1)

fugue (4373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384199)

I think that many of the TV-overendowed sports bars around here (Boulder) will be showing the debate. Of course, this ties in nicely with my theory that Republicans view politics as a sport--forget about who is right or wrong, wise or foolish, as long as the home team wins. Raaaa. It also ties in nicely with the new breed of drinking games that is springing up around this event. Hey, we should call it the World Series!

fox-branded version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384219)

fox-branded version... does that mean they'll be digitally replacing Obama in the debate with a box of exceptionally dumb rocks?

C-SPAN (1)

internic (453511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384257)

I think there will also be a stream available from C-SPAN [c-span.org] , which will probably be preferable to the abysmal journalism of Fox News one may be subjected to at the beginning or end. It looks like a local DC PBS affiliate is also offering a live webcast [weta.org] , but a) I'm not sure how much bandwidth they'll have and b) it looks like it's offered either as windows media video or through silverlight, so this may be tough if you're on Linux.

I think that, aside from questions of capacity, C-SPAN is probably the best option because you can get the debate relatively unfiltered. Looking at analysis can be useful, but do it after you've had some time to digest it and come to your own conclusions. Then getting another view can add some insights you missed. Most networks want to rush on with the "analysts" and interviews from spin alley to tell you what to think before you have a chance to consider it yourself. This can color your whole perception of an event, framing the terms in which you think about, in a way that has little to do with logic or the issues.

Now what seem really hard to find are audio podcasts of the debates. Often, when I miss a debate I just want to get an audio podcast to listen to while I'm going someplace or doing chores around the house, etc. I don't really need to see the debate, if anything that draws focus to irrelevant stuff and away from substantive issues. Unfortunately, these are hard to find, and in the past I've had to grab a video and then make the mp3 for myself.

Works for Me (TM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384259)

..or so it seems.

I don't know, I can watch Hulu videos, I'm using Flash 10 from the Canonical .deb on Adobe's site with Ubuntu 8.04.1

Hack the Debate = debate + twitter (2, Informative)

Mister Furious (413397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384417)

Current does a 'Hack the Debate' live mashup of the debates with users' tweets. Anyone can tweet with #current in the message & current puts as many as possible on-screen during the live debate broadcast. I haven't watched it live, yet, but saw some vid of it and it looks really cool.

http://current.com/topics/88834922_hack_the_debate [current.com]

New York Times Anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25384511)

The New York Times has had the feed online on their front page for all three debates so far (including vp). That's where I've watched them. It's presented in a flash player so it should be cross platform. It's not high def, but it's reliable as long as you've got an internet connection.

Just go to www.nytimes.com when the debate is set to start.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account