Debate Night Open Thread

I followed the debates on Twitter. We watched Happy Days, and ate chicken soup.

Chicken broth with etrog leaves is wonderful. It want’s a bit of acid, something gently, like rice vinegar. If you don’t have an etrog tree, kaffir lime would work well. You want young leaves, still supple. I used just enough… maybe four, six would have been better.

ozy: It’s the liberal media.

David: Were they… were they watching the same debate as me?

Yeah, but pundits and poll-takers watch debates very differently than how most people I know watch debates. They’re not listening for good arguments, or sound policy, or clear positions. They don’t care about whose policies would actually work, or about whether the candidates are communicating actual information. They care who had pithier soundbites, looked more confident, acted more “in charge.” It’s all about style and not substance, and while I loathe Mitt Romney, I think he probably did out-style Obama on this one.

(That said, I’m always amused/depressed by the pundit feedback loop. On almost every presidential debate I’ve watched in my life, and this one is no exception, the commentary immediately afterward goes something like this:

ANCHOR: “So, who won?”
PUNDIT 1: “You know, I think they both had some good points, and really it was very close, but I think I’m maybe possibly going to give the edge to Candidate A, mostly just because of this one line that was pretty good, but Candidate B was also good!”
PUNDIT 2: “Yeah, I agree. Candidate A was just a little bit better tonight.”
PUNDIT 3: “I agree too! Candidate A was better, and I think Candidate B kind of screwed up this one little thing.”
PUNDIT 4: “Like they said, Candidate A was terrific! Candidate B just didn’t bring his A game tonight!”
PUNDIT 5: “Exactly what the others said! Candidate A was amazing! I am in awe of him! All of Candidate A’s supporters are losing their shit right now about how amazing he was!”
PUNDIT 6: “It’s so true! Candidate B is basically going to go commit hara-kiri now in shame for his terribleness! Candidate A has already won the election, and is also the reincarnation of Jesus!”

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the first pundit on a broadcast do anything other than desperately hedge his or her bets in hopes that they won’t end up looking stupid if the other pundits give the edge to the other guy, and I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the last pundit do anything other than hop on whatever bandwagon the rest of them are on with so much enthusiasm that it’s fucking ridiculous. Pundits are sheep when it comes to debates.)

The media was always going to say Romney won the debate, because they need to push the idea that this race is still close so that people will keep watching the election coverage. The last forecast I saw put Obama up in all but one swing state and with something like an 82% chance of winning – those are dismal numbers for Romney. News stations have a vested interest in making what is increasingly turning into a foregone conclusion look like a nailbiter.

Which isn’t to necessarily say that Romney didn’t win – I think he came off as smug and bullying and disingenuous (which might have had something to do with all the lies he was telling), but a friend of mine thought he had better stage presence even though he was full of shit. But no matter how this went, the talking heads were going to congratulate Romney.

I thought Obama clearly won. Everybody is saying Romney won and I don’t see it.

Even backwards clocks are right occasionally, I guess.

I’m very privileged, but Romney’s victory would have distinct negative effects on my life. I have a preexisting condition that may require some form of treatment for the rest of my life; my copay is nasty enough, I don’t want to find out how much meds cost out-of-pocket. I’m seriously considering moving to Canada if he wins simply so I can afford to take care of myself. (If I learn French and get a masters in social work…)

@Gametime

I’m not particularly privileged. I just realize there aren’t any major differences between Democrats and Republicans. If a Republican wins, the same stuff would happen as if a Democrat won.

Both parties are pro-:

-Bailouts
-Cronyism
-Big Government
-Regulations
-Drug War

and they’re in a pissing contest to see who can fuck over the middle class harder, and faster. The only saving grace the United States has is the fact that most European nations are screwing themselves over faster than we are, and that means we’ll be able to invest over there pretty easily. I don’t know what economic school you believe in, but what I’ve learned makes me pretty pessimistic.

I know my guy, Gary Johnson isn’t going to win, but at least what he says makes sense. The Libertarian Party has won only one electoral vote since its inception, so realism, pessimism, etc. sets in. Consistently getting 1% of the vote is kinda annoying.

But its better than supporting the guy who will cause harm to everyone, and a democrat/republican winning is just that. You can accuse me of not giving a shit about whomever, but at least my party is pro-freedom, and not statist.

And hell, if you think backing a liberal candidate gets marriage equality, I’ll call you out on that. The proposed legislation still discriminates against the Mormon guy who wants to have 2 wives.

I’m actually pro-big government, as that usually means good roads, fully funded schools, and a mental health system that doesn’t have to go begging for scraps. The non-profit I work for receives a huge chunk of its money from Medicaid and other federal, state, and local grants. Small government means small paycheck to me, and it (my paycheck) is already small enough as it is. I’ve always felt that if your biggest complaint in life is high taxes, then you’re probably doing pretty well, all things considered.

Romney wants to kill Big Bird. Fuck ’em.

I’m all for efficient, Just The Right Size government. I don’t think that a bloated bureaucracy where everything is not communicating with everything else is a good idea. I also dislike the lack of checks and balances and people who willfully ignore good policy and just do whatever the hell they want.

I work for a local government agency. I make sure that what I do runs like clockwork, and I’m kind of worried about what’s going to happen to all of that when I’m on maternity leave (which is why I have been training people and have left step by step instructional guides). But that doesn’t get past the fact that we’re dealing with REAL PEOPLE here, and for some reason a lot of REAL PEOPLE come into a job and simply think that they “don’t have” to do things that need to be done.

When I started my job, I was just some clerical paper-pusher, but I ended up going through a lot of the files and other stuff and found out that everything was horribly messy and hadn’t been touched or reorganized since like the 80’s. I expanded my job to the point that now I do most of the technical support for my department and I train the whole local government departments on the procurement card system we have.

I think that the main problem with government is that there is very little communication, and there’s a lot of patch-worked services instead of cooperation that seamlessly works together. It’s like someone put together a random machine that technically works but all the wheels are different sizes because different people decided on each wheel and the cogs and the belts are all mismatched and tied together with string because string was the cheapest thing they could find to make it at the time.

The worst part is the whole funding thing. We spend so much time trying to get money to fund basic things like emergency services with complicated federal grant applications and stuff, that it takes a lot of time out of actually preparing for said disasters. And it doesn’t help that our county has one of the largest unincorporated areas and we have…one….staff member taking care of our emergency services- the rest are part time volunteers, who may or may not receive full training because of the lack of funding in general. It’s a mess because we don’t invest in government and we as a culture don’t realize what government actually DOES, and government doesn’t tend to go out of its way to be very intuitive or understandable because each little division is vying for a place and funding to continue to exist.

The system is not just flawed, it’s inherently counterintuitive to running smoothly, efficiently and with clear good results.

BUT, on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that it has become this complicated out of necessity because of the fact that every time some new yahoo gets into power, they want to change everything and tear it down. Complicated governmental structures make this much, much more difficult.

So government has to work badly because people keep trying to destroy it every couple of years when they change power in office. It’s fucking ridiculous.

@captainbathrobe

The vast majority of people would agree with you that government should build roads, and administer justice. That’s not big government. Its governance.

But I’m sure you would be against a ban on large sodas, or gay marriage. Funny how you’ll support big government so long as it benefits you, huh?

I just think that once you consent to statism, its hypocritical to complain about other peoples statism. Just as much as I think conservatives should stay out of the liberals bedrooms, I think liberals should stay out of conservative peoples pockets. Your example of a mental institution is perfect for this. As much as I wouldn’t like mentally ill people in my neighborhood, I still think its unethical to cage them when they haven’t done anything wrong. Involuntarily institutionalizing people is terrible.

But its better than supporting the guy who will cause harm to everyone, and a democrat/republican winning is just that. You can accuse me of not giving a shit about whomever, but at least my party is pro-freedom, and not statist.

Thanks for your permission, because I am, in fact, going to accuse you of not giving a shit about any of the groups I listed, since you conveniently failed to mention any of areas in which Obama is better (or at least less terrible) than Romney, including but not limited to health care access, immigration, bodily autonomy, and marriage equality.

The fact that you can claim with a straight face to not be all that privileged before totally failing to acknowledge the existence of groups who would be fucked over by a Republican administration is mind-boggling.

And hell, if you think backing a liberal candidate gets marriage equality, I’ll call you out on that. The proposed legislation still discriminates against the Mormon guy who wants to have 2 wives.

My thoughts on polygamy are a bit complicated, but two things.

First, saying it would be a waste of time to legalize gay marriage because we wouldn’t also legalize polygamy is fucking stupid even if you are pro-polygamy. It is, in fact, a profoundly privileged position, because you are ignoring the measurable benefits which would be granted by recognizing homosexual marriages in favour of making some weak-ass attempt at a “gotcha.”

You love to talk about FREEDOM and ANTI-STATISM and NO COMPROMISE because you do not recognize the ways in which compromise is quite literally the only thing keeping some people alive. You see legalizing gay marriage as worthless unless polygamy is also legalized because it isn’t an issue keeping you from receiving equal rights right now. In short, you are profoundly privileged. Colour me absolutely fucking shocked that you’re a libertarian. (Fun fact: Gary Johnson is a racist classist douchebag. He’s better than the other libertarian, but he’s still an asshole. You want to avoid voting for Obama, vote for Jill Stein.)

Second, it is pretty telling that you phrase it as a dude “wanting to have” two wives.