display | more...

This is an article I wrote a few weeks ago, when the debates were at their inception. I've since ceased to watch them, but I'm not sure I would anyway.

Presidential debates... don't get me started. I've seen better arguements put together in the space of zero minutes, off the top of stupid people's heads, in my old high school government class than that fucking circus that went on national television last night...

My main problem? People not knowing their damned facts. Okay, the average, between the two people mind you, number of misquoted financial facts was somewhere around 22. 26 misquotes for Gore, and 18 for Bush, if the advocates of the other candidate were counting their mistakes right. Now... this wouldn't seem like even a concern if the two hadn't spent so much god damn time arguing over whose financial plans were better, when they were even misquoting (or perhaps lying? Mmmm?) about their own plans at the same time. You'd expect them to say the wrong thing about their opposition, hoping to catch the gas bag off guard, but to out and out deceive the people who you're trying to get to vote you into office is just beyond rational. It ranks somewhere along the lines of insulting someone with words that they don't know.

There you have it, simple as that, but even worse is when they dwell on a topic. I think it'd be better if quick facts sheets were mailed to the American public, and to the debate-participants as well, so no one would have to worry about the dollar values and whether they were right, because they'd be right there. This would also eliminate the 'playground fight' aspect of debating.

I walked into my room today to find the TV on. My roommate never turns it off until it's time to go to sleep. So CNN is on, and they're running a pre-presidential debate, debate show. It's an old '92 show, I think, because it's got Quayle and Gore and that Block-head back up that was that guy with the big ears' running mate (he didn't say much). Gore was talking about something, and then it was Dan's turn. He looks at Gore, and mentions something about how Gore's intentions were great, except for the fact that he was spending some amount (in billions) of taxpayers' money on some inane purpose. Gore denied the expense. Ensuing is a transcription (almost direct) of their conversation for the next 8 minutes.

Gore: No, I didn't write that in my proposal at all.

Quayle: Yes you did.

Gore: No, I didn't.

Quayle: Yes, you did.

Gore: No I didn't.

Quayle: Yes you did!

Gore: No! I didn't!

(continue for about 3 minutes)

Quayle: Yes! You did!

(silence for a minute or so)

Gore: NO! I DIDN'T!

Then the moderator kicked in (about 5 minutes late, according to my calculations) and got them to move on to the next topic. A few remarks later, they were at it again... The same thing started happening tonight. Although I did get to see a moment of brilliance from Bush when he was asked what he'd do about the financial crisis (he said he'd contact the Secretary of Treasury, no shit), Gore also, had a fun remark "Well, I was there for the fall of the Mexican peso, and the devaluation of the {whatever the fuck asian country's currency it was} and the recent decline of the Euro in value, so I have experience with these situations." You know, it's great that he's got experience with those situations, considering that he's a person who's in a position of authority such, that he should be looking out so that those situations don't even fucking happen.

I left pretty soon after that shit went down, and looking back on it, I wish that Nader, or Sean Connery, or Myself were allowed to debate against these guys. I think that a small forest creature with no communication skills could put up a fight against these jokers without a problem.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.