×

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!

US Election's Only VP Debate Tonight: Weigh In With Your Reactions

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the more-coke-more-pepsi-where's-bloomberg-now? dept.

Government 698

Tonight's debate between the two largest American political parties' candidates for vice president of the United States takes place at Danville, Kentucky's Centre College, starting at 9 p.m. Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will face each other on stage, and are expected to talk about issues "including the economy, foreign policy and the role of the Vice President," according to C-SPAN, which will feature a live streaming view of the event. (Criteria from the Commission on Presidential Debates means you won't hear tonight from other presidential candidates' running mates (like Cheri Honkala, Jim Clymer, and James Gray, of the Green, Constitution, and Libertarian party tickets, respectively). If you'll be watching the debate tonight, please add your commentary below. It would be helpful if you start your comment's title with a time-stamp (to the minute), too, for context. (Like this: "9:08: $Candidate just intentionally mis-repeated the Q on taxes.") And Yes, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight. Update: 10/12 01:18 GMT by U L : If you don't have flash, you can use rtmpdump and mplayer to watch (incantation duplicated below, in case the site is slashdotted).

Via Don Armstrong an incantation to watch the debate without flash:
rtmpdump -v -r rtmpt://cp82346.live.edgefcs.net:1935/live?ovpfv=2.1.4 \
--tcUrl rtmp://cp82346.live.edgefcs.net:1935/live?ovpfv=2.1.4 \
--app live?ovpfv=2.1.4 --flashVer LNX.11,2,202,238 \
--playpath CSPAN1@14845 \
--swfVfy http://www.c-span.org/cspanVideoHD.swf \
--pageUrl http://www.c-span.org/ | \
mplayer -xy 3 -;

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

698 comments

You so funny. (0)

intellitech (1912116) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625779)

Joe Biden and Paul Ryan speaking in the same room? Yeah, I'd rather not.

Re:You so funny. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625829)

Hey man, you see this? Do you see where my tongue is? That's right: at the bottom of your asscrack. What am I going to do now? I'm going to lick all your assfuck all the way to the top until your ass is all wet!

Re:You so funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626353)

Hot.

Why is this on slashdot? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625781)

Why is a story about the vp debate here but you didn't have a peep when the presidential candidates first debated? Anyhow I don't see how this is news for nerds. Stick to tech topics please.

Re:Why is this on slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626545)

Because Obama lost the debate and forgot to show up.

What you saw on the screen going against Romney was just a puppet they use in the window of the presidential limousine in case a sniper with armor piercing bullets tries to take him out.

Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Geeks (-1, Offtopic)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625785)

Will they be talking about Apple or Microsoft or anything of interest in technology? Come on guys, what's this becoming CNN?

Next thing you know we'll have Anderson Cooper or Rush Limbaugh writing articles about how best to clean your hard drive. And no, if Rush were to do that it would be NSFW.

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625799)

They will surely be debating the finer points on Windows or Linux being better for government computing.

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625873)

Windows in the Government? Naw, it'll never happen. It's too newfangled. I hear Ultrix 32 is the latest shiznit over at the IRS.

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (1)

kribby (964773) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625807)

Carbonite Backup Solutions is extremely relevant to technology

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625865)

And for Freezing Hans Solo too?

I prefer backblaze myself.

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (1, Interesting)

MooseTick (895855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626007)

If you stood them side by side, I'd have to guess Biden is the MS guy and Ryan is the Mac guy [cadenhead.org]

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626109)

It is my understanding that Biden is a die hard vi user, who looks down his nose at shitheel emac fairy faggot cocksuckers.

well under the ryan plan tech will look at your he (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626199)

well under the ryan plan tech will look at your health care history.

And soon under that plan DNA testing will be used to pre load on to the pre-existing condition list.

Re:Uh, how is this a subject for Technology and Ge (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626559)

CNN was running a real-time audience response graph on their web coverage, which I thought was an interesting use of technology.

It reminds me of the Live Polling [theonion.com] bit on the Onion.

Name Your Poison (-1, Troll)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625819)

It is always humorous to watch the political fanbois go at it from the sidelines. Seeing people become so impassioned about which set of crooks are going stuff the shirts this time around is a devil's belly laugh. As has been said so many times, when the boot of government is on your throat, it makes no difference if it is a left boot or a right boot.

Gangland Style (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626229)

I admit I didn't watch the debate with an open mind GANNAM STYLE. I have a view of Ryan as a negative for Romney because he's been caught lying too many times WOP WOP WOP.

I've already dismissed Ryan after his 'truthiness' in this OH WOP speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw9uJtBrAw&feature=related

OH WOP GANGNAM STYLE. Then there was the messup with the reporter where he admits tax cuts are the magic fix and his handler has to cut the interview short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDdw20LFFlc

WOP WOP WOP, but mostly it's that I can't imagine him single PSY's song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MQ3AG1c8o

Does choosing a candidate based on whether they can mime to a song, make me a bad person?

Re:Name Your Poison (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626271)

It is always humorous to watch the political fanbois go at it from the sidelines. Seeing people become so impassioned about which set of crooks are going stuff the shirts this time around is a devil's belly laugh. As has been said so many times, when the boot of government is on your throat, it makes no difference if it is a left boot or a right boot.

Both sides may be "crooks", depending on the criteria, but I don't think you can say that it makes no difference who is elected. ie. The Affordable Care Act is an event on the scale of the imposition of an federal income based tax, or the start of the Social Security system. Regardless of your feeling of the act itself, its is highly significant, and its a certainty that it wouldn't have passed if McCain had been elected. So its petulant and intellectually dishonest to say that its "makes no difference"

Re:Name Your Poison (-1)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626461)

Bah, it's all smoke and mirrors. Costs get shuffled around, books get cooked, funds get redistributed, but the bottom line is that somebody always pays. That somebody isn't Santa Claus. Affordable Care my foot.

Re:Name Your Poison (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626503)

Doubtless that someone always pays. The act changes who is going to be directly paying. That's significant.

And there's other examples, some of them quite easy. Gore likely wouldn't have put troops into Iraq, again supressing your feelings of the event itself. What would Carter have done with the air traffic controllers, and would it have precipitated or acted against the rise of anti-union feeling in the country since? Would Nixon have initiated the Great Society and all its culteral consequences?

Re:Name Your Poison (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626569)

I used to think that, until the Iraq War. That disaster made me much more partisan. I really think hundreds of thousands of people died because Gore (barely!) lost that election.

Re:Name Your Poison (4, Insightful)

CRC'99 (96526) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626603)

Even more concerning is the callers at the end.

Not being an American, it was rather a shock to hear a member of the military calling up after the debate that America should invade Iran and they they urge people to vote for a certain candidate so nobody touched the military. The justification? "We have to get them before they get us".

Great work America - fix your shit up by going to war. That worked so well last time.

Logical Fallacy Bingo (5, Interesting)

Ryanator2209 (1577631) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625821)

I'll be playing Logical Fallacy Bingo [lifesnow.com] against my friends. I personally expect it to be a fast bingo game.

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (4, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626219)

I'll be playing Logical Fallacy Bingo [lifesnow.com] against my friends. I personally expect it to be a fast bingo game.

I just feel I should point out that simply because someone is using a fallacy, doesn't make them wrong (the fact they are politicians does that... but I digress). Fallacies are commonly used rhetorical methods to convince... lets say, more emotional audiences... and practically nothing gets people more emotional than politics (religion can be more heated, but not nearly as commonly). Which is not to say it is acceptable to use them, just, well, using them shouldn't be taken as proof against the position espoused by the person who uses them (doing that is, in itself, a fallacy, though I don't care to look up the name... guilt by association? Close enough).

The best Joe Biden speech (5, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625827)

Is this one where he talks about when his wife & daughter died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GwZ6UfXm410 [youtube.com]

His humanity is the opposite of Robomittens. /stupid onions.

Re:The best Joe Biden speech (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626179)

He is good speaker, no doubt. Connects with his audience. Debates are different though, thinking and speaking at the same time, does not come naturally for most people.

9:01, 9:02, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:07, 9:08, 9:09.. (5, Funny)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625833)

$Candidate intentionally lied to the public

Re:9:01, 9:02, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:07, 9:08, 9:09. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626619)

You missed 9:04

And if you're going to be watching the debate... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625855)

You might want to check this [politicald...ggames.com] out. Don't blame me if you have a hangover in the morning.

Waste of time (0)

tehlinux (896034) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625859)

Vice presidential candidates are meaningless.

Re:Waste of time (5, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625905)

Just ask Lyndon Johnson? Harry Truman? Andrew Johnson? Chester Arthur? Gerald Ford? Teddy Roosevelt?

There's been 14 VPs who became president but not all became president when the incumbent died in office. That's why I believe the country was holding its breath that Dan Quayle didn't get the job and that GB Sr. Had excellent health care.

Re:Waste of time (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625969)

Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney were the best assassination attempt prevention ever.

I'm thinking McCain was going the same route, but shot too far.

Re:Waste of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626611)

what's funny about assassination?

Just wondering...

Why do people watch?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625871)

watching is just a waste of time. We already know pretty much all there is to know about the candidates is not like they will disclose some new information.
I know already who I am voting for as I am sure most of you already made a choice.

Go watch honey booboo

What's the value here? (3, Interesting)

MooseTick (895855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625889)

Does anyone pick the president by the VP they choose? Do they think, "I like the other guy more for president, but I'm voting for this guy because he will be a better VP"?

Re:What's the value here? (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625933)

You should expect that if something happens to #1, #2 will take over and if we have a lame idiot, we'll all be in #2.

But then again, Fox News takes great joy in pointing out the foibles of Biden. [foxnews.com]

Re:What's the value here? (4, Interesting)

MooseTick (895855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625961)

I understand that, but does that actually drive anyone's choice for #1?

Were there people who were actually going to vote for McCain, but once Palin was selected they decided Obama/Biden was a better ticket?

Re:What's the value here? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626073)

Yep. I'm one of them.

I was turned off by an empty platform of "hope and change" when I could select a candidate with more experience both as a representative and a reformer. I wasn't happy that he was starting to kowtow to the extremists a little too much but it was the early days of the Tea Partiers.

But he's an old man and not in perfect health. I'm not putting that woman one heart attack away from a presidency. Now 4 years later I'll be voting for Obama based on his performance and strong loathing of Mittens.

Re:What's the value here? (2, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626369)

Now 4 years later I'll be voting for Obama based on his performance

What performance? He took credit for a preexisting withdrawal timeline in Iraq. Gitmo is still open. He sent a surge into Afghanistan. He had a friendly Congress for half his term and got nothing done. You must have a really low bar when it comes to performance.

Re:What's the value here? (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626387)

Now 4 years later I'll be voting for Obama based on his performance

What performance? He took credit for a preexisting withdrawal timeline in Iraq. Gitmo is still open. He sent a surge into Afghanistan. He had a friendly Congress for half his term and got nothing done. You must have a really low bar when it comes to performance.

I think the logic is, it's not getting worse as fast as it was under the prior regime.

Re:What's the value here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626487)

saying goes better stupid and lazy then stupid and energetic

Lets get something straight now (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626459)

I feel like Obama was put in the drivers seat just when the car we're in has come under attack by drug cartel because some idiot drove us into a warzone, so now when he's trying to get us out of there, the previous driver is in the passenger seat complaining about following the speed limit and all traffic laws and grabbing at the steering wheel and brakes. and the passengers in the car are saying..why aren't we going anywhere?! we're so mad we're going vote the original driver back in..

Re:What's the value here? (5, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626571)

He also started a new (unauthorized!) military action, after years of complaining about unauthorized military actions.

Going to Libya I might have possibly been able stomach, if it hadnt been for the utter hypocrisy of it all and the declaration that "UN approval is enough".

Re:What's the value here? (0)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626119)

Most people makes their vote based off of party line. Not only do most people not really care who the VP is, they don't really care who the President is. As for the 5 or 10% that tip the scales one way or the other, I would say that the VP ends up being a nudge. If there are 10 issue the voter cares about, the VP as a whole might be 1 of them.

Re:What's the value here? (4, Insightful)

lexman098 (1983842) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626175)

If the 2008 election is any indication I'd say people at the very least will *avoid* a candidate based on the VP they choose.

Re:What's the value here? (3, Informative)

religious freak (1005821) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626181)

The role of Vice President has changed quite a bit over only the past couple decades. Vice Presidents take an active roll in policy implementation and even decision making. They also do quite a bit diplomatically and even a bit of PR.

Re:What's the value here? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626399)

I still argue that Palin lost it for the Republicans in the last election. You had an option of a guy that spoke his mind and OMG NO.

There was no reason to pander to the super far right, but they did it anyway.

Re:What's the value here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626403)

If a Pres picks a lousy VP, can't you expect him to make other lousy choices, if elected?

Re:What's the value here? (1)

Malenx (1453851) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626447)

Actually, there is a good chance that people who are on the fence about the president will vote for the other guy if a VP really disagrees with them.

At least I know I'm in that boat atm.

It's time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625893)

we get rid of the "INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT" requirement of 15% by the polls to be included in the debates. This is just so messed up. How are they suppose to increase poll numbers without being able to get into the debates? It is almost catch 22 for third party candidates.

Personally, I think they should change laws so the top six vote getters of the last election, by party and independent status, automatically get ballot access nationwide let alone automatically get into any debate to be seen by more than 50,000 expected viewers.

"Commission"... right. (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625911)

Commission on Presidential Debates

a.k.a. the Republican and Democratic parties [wikipedia.org]. They will never allow a third party to debate; if they happen to meet the criteria, they'll simply increase the threshold(s).

This is one of the major issues preventing any real change from happening in the US federal government, simply because new ideas are being suppressed by the incumbents.

Re:"Commission"... right. (5, Informative)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626125)

The problem is, while the spotlight is on the national stage, real change happens from the bottom up. That means running for, and voting 3rd party at the city, county, or even state level.

For example, if you're interested in digital freedom, and curtailing "IP" laws, participate in and/or donate to your local Pirate Party (and many states do have such an organization). That's just one of the many numerous smaller political parties out there that might better represent your views.

If you're wondering what the immediate effects of doing such a thing are, since "IP" is a federal thing, the answer is that there are no immediate effects. But the extra help and/or money increases exposure. And like small businesses with an interesting product, getting the word out is the most important part. Only once people start hearing about it is the brand image important.

Sound too much like a business? It's because parties really are run like businesses, except as they don't make a profit, they're non-profit. But if you think non-profits aren't run like businesses internally, you've got another thing coming.

Re:"Commission"... right. (2)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626269)

I say we make the criteria 50% so that only one person is allowed in the debate. Anyone polling lower than 50% is clearly going to lose, and why waste the American voter's time with losertalk? We can't have these fringe candidates messing everything up. They might spoil the election. /s Maybe if we are lucky a 3rd party can take enough votes from both major parties to ensure nobody meets the criteria, and we won't be subjected to these "debates". This system is fucked.

Re:"Commission"... right. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626351)

a.k.a. the Republican and Democratic parties [wikipedia.org]. They will never allow a third party to debate; if they happen to meet the criteria, they'll simply increase the threshold(s).

Except in 1992, when Ross Perot was running for president, and there was a 3-way debate vs Bush and Clinton? http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5532

Re:"Commission"... right. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626529)

They didn't add the 15% support threshold until 2000. Presumably they added it because of Ross Perot.

Re:"Commission"... right. (5, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626477)

This is one of the major issues preventing any real change from happening in the US federal government

I genuinely do not understand why americans, particularly the ones who frequent tech boards, think a third party would actually be helpful. Well I understand why it's on tech boards, there are the automated shills and a particular ideological attraction to a point of view, but in practical political terms it's silly. I live in canada, we've had at one point 5 parties holding federal seats, and now have 4. 60% of the population *doesn't* like the current government, but he has essentially absolute power (within the confines of parliamentary power) because he has a majority of seats. The 'extra' parties just divide the vote up, and whether you do that as a proportional representation and require pork project trading by MP's across party lines or do it at a smaller level of pouring resources into contested districts the net effect of bad federal policy (or at least inefficient policy) is the same.

Third parties, or more, simply lead to horse trading and pandering to try and bribe or coerce the smaller parties into a mainstream voting block, and in exchange they end up with something that's usually crazy or generally bad policy, but that's the price to be paid to govern at all.

Government only really can do 3 things, tax, spend and make laws. The vast majority of actual issues are either binary or on a 2 dimensional spectrum (you support the death penalty, oppose it, or you narrowly support it for certain things. You support a defence department somewhere on the spectrum of 500 billion dollars to 1 trillion dollars and no one serious is talking about anything outside that range, etc. I realize the tech community in general have latched onto some ideas about 'liberatrianism' but that is, in the US, on the slant of smaller government republicans.

The US government only spends money on a handful of things of any significance:
Defence related spending ~ 900 billion.
Healthcare/social security/social safety net stuff (broadly social programmes) ~1.7 trillion (not counting the healthcare spending done under defence)

That gets you to 2.6 trillion dollars. there's some interest payments on debt. that gets you to 2.8 trillion. And then there is

Coordination and support of things that effect multiple (or all) states or that are too big or variable to be left to individual states, insurance on education healthcare etc. (most of discretionary spending in the US, though I would count veterans affairs and homeland security as really defence related, the term 'discretionary' is a legal budget term, not a practical 'what is this spending supposed to be for' term).
Which takes another 400 or 500 billion. Over a lot of different programmes none of which are individually very big.

And lastly, what I would call 'other'. Stuff the government has agreed to pay for that isn't under the umbrella of any specific category, but people decided they want, and a lot of stuff here would be needed to be done somehow, it's matter of how you count it. Think agriculture, NASA, Energy, EPA etc. Again, lots of little pieces of things that have some national significance.

So you've only really got 4 things. No one sane (or who can do math) is going to toss ~230 billion dollars in interest payments off a 3.6 trillion dollar budget. So what do you want?

More or less defence? Republicans vs Democrats.
Social safety net stuff:
More: Democrats. Less: Republicans.
Pet projects or 'national significance' stuff?
Everyone wants more of whatever they stand for.

Except that neither of them really do much of that when they actually get into office, and no other political party in the world is much different. Democrats don't want to be seen as soft on terrorism so they waste some money on defence for theatre, republicans don't want to alienate the crazy old man with medicare vote so they won't actually cut medicare much, and well, that's pretty much the entirety of politics. Some 3rd party guy who decides to come in and cut some of everything isn't going to last very long because he's going to piss everyone off, and someone who comes in and spends more money on everything well, actually they could do that for a bit while the US catches up to european government as a percent of GDP, but after about 4 years everyone would be sick of those guys too.

Now you could make up a complex matrix of all of the different issues and the varying degrees to which you support other things. But then you're not talking about 3 parties, you're talking about 300. Which is the exact opposite of helpful.

The US at one point had a 3rd party - the republicans, who emerged by having a firmly different position on a major political issue than the other 2 parties: Slavery. Republicans were against it. Democrats and Whigs, half and half confused mindless waffle. And sure, a 3rd party could emerge if there was an issue with a clear moral choice of great national importance where the democrats and republicans didn't have a difference, but really there's nothing like that right now. In part because they pick their positions to intentionally oppose each other on major issues, death penalty, abortion, healthcare etc. You'd be hard pressed to find an issue that has broad public awareness that the two parties both agree on and that disagreeing with them would be sane. They both oppose slavery, and I guess a 3rd party could run on a pro slavery platform, but it seems unlikely to get far. And even then, as with the Republicans and the whigs, a 'third party' may simply pull the rug out from under the party who who are clearly wrong and you're back to a 2 party system.

* Sure you can say that you want a 3rd party that doesn't lie constantly, but well, they will lie constantly, and if you believe differently you're living in a fantasy land. All politicians are basically the same, even if they stand for different things they care primarily about getting elected to do the things they want, and demonstrably the way to do that is to lie. Repeatedly.

American's most damaging monopoly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41625957)

The stranglehold that the so-called two party system has on the public is unbelievable but somehow these dogs have figured out a way to fool the man on the streets that they have a real role in their future.
 
Your future, as a citizen, in politics is one of getting fucked by the man and hoping the next administration will at least give you a reach around.

My reaction? (1, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41625985)

No matter who wins this debate, or the election, Americans have lost.

Number Two (1)

dccase (56453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626061)

Number Two.
That's what they are. Both of them.

Re:Number Two (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626233)

You mean they're shit!?

Chicken or bull?

8:06 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626065)

while we argue over 3 deaths in a foreign country, 45 people were murdered in this country today

Great, another US politics article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626111)

I come to /. because there isn't a nerds section in Google News.

Tie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626143)

They both suck big wet ones and so do their masters.

9:21-9:23 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626165)

Are you smarter than an Ayatollah?

watch the VP debate or baseball (0)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626195)

Yankees vs Orioles and Tigers vs A's tonight

who gives a shit about a debate for a job that has no constitutional power

Re:watch the VP debate or baseball (1)

vandelais (164490) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626541)

Didn't pay attention in civics class, did you?
V.P. gets tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate.

Re:watch the VP debate or baseball (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626621)

you need 2/3 the senate to pass a bill. that's how much it takes to break a filibuster

50/50 vote is just looking good for the peons back home and/or voting in line with what the party boss tells you

Mod article (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626221)

Can I mod this article "-1 Flamebait"?

The Biden Smirk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626223)

Is Biden taking this debate seriously? Why isn't he taking his opponent seriously?

I don't understand his attitude. If he disagrees with Ryan shouldn't his reaction be concern? Why is this man smiling?

Doesn't Biden give a damn?

Waste of time. (0)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626231)

Ruling Party douchebags pretending there's a difference between their brands.

-jcr

So far Biden is doing really well (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626253)

You won't read anything about Biden not being engaged tomorrow. So far he's making Ryan look like an amateur and he's not letting Ryan get away with lying.

Biden is crushing it.

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626327)

Too much eye rolling from Biden and big "Are you freakin' kidding me" grins. He's still doing better than Obama did, though.

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626329)

By interrupting, and cutting Ryan off, facial antics, etc... Moderator is not doing her job at all. Surprise surprise....

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (0)

skipkent (1510) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626423)

On Thursday, the Morning Joe panel focused its attention on whether there’s the potential for a conflict of interest given tonight’s vice presidential debate moderator, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, counted Barack Obama — then a Harvard law student — among the guests at her 1991 wedding.

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626339)

Dude, are you watching the same thing I am???

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626431)

All Biden is doing is LYING. And the BIG LIE technique at that. Plus he is very very rude about it. Ryan is CRUSHING... unless you are dumb enough to believe his lies. I'll bet you still believe that Biden and Clinton put 100,000 cops on the street.

Re:So far Biden is doing really well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626561)

Is Biden still peddling the lie that a drunk driver killed his wife?

Behavior and integrity (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626273)

I just need to comment on Biden' disrespectful manner in which he is handling this debate. He is rude, interruting, laughing during Ryan's floor time. President O'Bama this man is n idiot and a poor representative of your office and the office of VP of these United States. I would say this to his face on the air. I am embarrassed that the world is seeing this man's immature and unprofessional handling of the debate. If I were the president I would dismiss this embarrassment of public office.

Thanks Dan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626303)

The rtmpdump works beautifully! I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near these debates without it, whether I wanted to or not.

Obama versus Romney? (0, Flamebait)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626345)

One thing I've always wondered about is the apparent logical inconsistency of political opinions.

Lots of people here have noted the equivalence of Republicans and Democrats - self-serving corrupt parasites who sell favors to special interests, in total disregard of the welfare or wishes of the people. They're the same - either side will screw the people.

Yet whenever the president comes up it's "Your guy is worse than my guy". Obama is a man of the people, but Romney is a financial predator, Romney is a financial genius while Obama is a profligate wastrel.

Can anyone identify an issue - not an opinion or a general feeling or a policy goal, but an actual issue - for which Obama and Romney are on opposite sides? Something for which Obama would veto and Romney would pass, or vice versa? (Note: It's not health care.) Does such an issue exist? Is there any concrete way to differentiate between candidates?

Another aspect is the image of the man versus the actions of the man. Obama has continued and extended most of the odious practices started by Bush. Attacking Libya, assassinating an American citizen, voting telecom immunity, increasing drone strikes, running up the deficit - types of actions which were roundly decried when Bush did similar, but Obama seems to get a pass. Are we voting the image or the actions? Ethics is supposed to be absolute - are there different versions for red and blue states?

Everyone yells how great things will be when *their* candidate gets elected. "We can do so much to change the world, but first we have to get elected".

Quick question: if Obama will be so great once he gets reelected, why can't he do some of that great stuff *right now*? This is his employer mid-term review. How about showing us what he can do in the 3 months running up to the election? Sort of a "try before you buy" kind of thing. Ryan's a congressman - how has he voted in the last 3 months? What legislation has he proposed in that time? (Romney's hard to judge with this, usually it's a congressman running for president.)

A president cannot instigate many changes, that's true. He can't unilaterally pass legislation, for instance. However, a president has the power to stop bad things from happening. Like when the president told the Justice department not to oppose challenges to the Defense of Marriage act. He can veto things, he can suggest legislation, and he can negotiate for outcomes. He can tell the executive branch what to do - why can't he just tell the TSA to stop violating our rights?

(Oh, and incidentally: if he tells the military to do something, they *have* to do it. He doesn't need permission from Congress to close Gitmo.)

The information available about each candidate is noise and randomness. Each issue is a labyrinth of mis-quotes, mis-information, and nuance. Did Obama double the deficit? Or is it the debt? Or did he double it, but it's Bush's fault? Or was it the Democratic Congress? Did Romney pillage the retirement funds of Bain companies? Was it just one company or all of them? Was it actually Romney or the company owner? Was Romney even aware? Should (or shouldn't) either of them be held responsible?

Candidate choice appears to be an emotional decision. It certainly follows no discernible logic.

The only realistic reason for voting one way or the other I can think of is this: vote the incumbent out. We know for certain that "his way" isn't working. If we vote for him again, nothing will change.

Maybe that's the rule we should follow - if things aren't fixed, vote the incumbent out. That sounds more in line with the ideals of democracy.

Regardless of the R or D after the name, how about we just vote the incumbent out?

Taxing rich people (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626483)

I think the defining issue is ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. If you watch Fox, they've tried all sorts of talking points to try to kill this issue and they keep trying new angles:

Remember, 'taxing job creators'? As if taxing rich peoples personal income will cause their companies to fire lots of people.
Remember 'dividing American?' i.e. claiming that singling out rich people for more taxes is dividing American!
Remember '53% vs 47%', the flip of dividing America, where they claim the majority are against the minority who don't pay direct fed taxes... that one died when it was pointed out a lot of the top 1% don't pay any taxes at all.
Remember 'the haves and the soon to haves?' i.e. you'll be rich soon, and then you'll get to pay less than 13%!
What about 'Robin Hood on Steroids'? The latest one, the 'income redistribution is bad', as if taking their tax cuts away from them is some sort of highway robbery!

You can see just from watching Fox, what the Republicans feel their defining issue is. It's tax cuts for the rich.

Welcome to the Vice Presidentual debate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626349)

Where the answers are made up and the points don't matter!

Here's what I do to watch the debate without flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626367)

i watch on ip0ad

Vote against the bad guys (4, Insightful)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626379)

In the colonial Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my vote does not count. I'm not far from Plymouth Rock, the place where pissed-off subjects of King George landed after betting their lives that there was a better way to civilize.

I have voted for Republican candidates in the past but I'm done with them. GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld fucked us hard. That bastard Romney came here to my state, where he doesn't fucking belong, and fucked us over. Now he's attempting to take over the Oval Office on the grounds that what he did to Massachusetts should not be done to the USA. He should be swimming with the fish in Boston Harbor.

If there was a candidate who ran on the platform of tearing off Romney's head and shitting down his neck, he'd get my vote.

I'm Alien Being and I approve this message.

Body Language (2)

Idetuxs (2456206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626417)

What does it mean in body language terms to repeatedly tick the table whit the index finger, Biden is over doing it. Like reaffirming what he is saying. May be there is something else with that gesture, this is /. so I'm assuming someone will know (and that someone will answer to FTFG).

Ryan looks really calm about everything, he for sure know about non-verbal communication.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626429)

Why in the world would I watch a show who's only purpose is to lie to me?

The moderator sure had better control this time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626521)

But like the last time, the missing subject?

Civil liberties... Oh well, gotta keep that prison population up to pay the rent...

major Raddatz fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41626547)

At about 9.48 PM Eastern Time, Ms Raddatz characterized the Romney Tax cut plan as a 20% across the board cut
This is a major fail
It is a 20% cut in the top marginal rate, which is very different.

Perhaps she just mis spoke, but this is a major sleaze thing by Romney - by saying everyone gets a 20% cut, he is hiding that a 20% cut in top marginal rate is overwhelmingly tilted to the wealthy

Ryan never said anything, BUT.... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626567)

he also out-spoke Biden. The fact is, that Ryan worked hard to not say anything. He spoke about balancing the budget, but would come up with nothing. He spoke about troop pull down, but continued to ignore the fact that Afghanistans were replacing our NATO troops, etc. etc., etc.
OTOH, Biden really just kept saying the same thing over and over.

Debates biased against third party participant (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#41626607)

Except for #1, the debate participant rules (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process) do look biased in favor of the ruling parties:

2) Mathematical chance of securing a majority of the Electoral College votes. This doesn't take into account the possibility of say a three-corner fight where nobody gets the desired number of votes.

3) 15% popular support. Why is this set so high when a majority or significant plurality of Americans don't vote?

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

Loading...