COLUMN: Master debaters
For those who didn't catch the disaster that was the presidential debate on Tuesday, let me catch you up on what was likely one of the worst debates of the last several decades — or at least the worst since Nixon versus Kennedy.
Between the replacement moderator not having the balls to call out the candidates to shut the hell up when they ran over their allotted time, Obama's almost freshman performance in the debate between fits of defensiveness, and the dominant force that was Romney's blatant talking out of his ass for the entirety of the performance, it could have been played as a Jersey Shore rerun and few people would have noticed or cared.
Yes, yes I know that last statement is a sweeping generalization, but it was an atrocity of a debate when fact checkers can run statistics on both candidates and the winner comes down to the one who can sling bullshit the furthest.
These days it seems like politics are becoming more and more the presentation of the candidates and less about the issues.
I don't want to hear a candidate discussing their solution to problems like green energy without being questioned on the ramifications of their ideas. I don't want to see a debate where candidates are spewing their idealized and demographic focused answers to the masses, I want to see an interrogation.
These people are going to be the leaders of the one of the most powerful nations in the free world, but we're fine electing them to office based on false promises held together by dreams and ambitions that they'll follow through.
But we're content with calling them out on everything they've done wrong the moment they enter office, and sitting on our haunches waiting for them to either mess up big enough to get removed from office or repeat the exact same process four years later.
As for who I plan on voting for come the election, I'll take the candidate that sticks closer to their platform at this point, at least then I can count on some chance of getting something I was promised.
