It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Presidential Debates Are Nothing But Scripted Beauty Contests

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:32 AM
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
in Politics

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by Vitruvian
I'll take that as you have nothing of significance to add, and intentional avoidance of a direct question I had asked. Good job.
By the way, please don't use my signature to prop up your own delusional argument when you clearly have no idea of its origins and/or its context.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And who would know better. Dont you have anything else to do besides bother me? Go on home and tell your mother she wants you.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Vitruvian

Speak too soon and you look, well, wrong.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Vitruvian


GUESS WHAT O-Barma fan - antics?

This message will be duly noted by the "[The] advocate documenting the loss" of Barack Hussein Obomanator

edit on 23-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)

Too bad your guy couldnt maintian it. You realize that everyone else is saying that Obama won dont you ?

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM
Please note:

Members are asked to confine their remarks to the topic... not each other.

Dialog is not about the person you are talking to, it is about the topic the OP is sharing...

for those of you who may have slipped beyond the topic, it is:

The Presidential Debates Are Nothing But Scripted Beauty Contests

We will not tolerate further personal jabs...


First, last, and only warning you will get... from here on out their will be consequences for anyone who can't follow this simple function of discussion... starting with, but not limited to being barred from discussions until you affirm the understanding that is embodied in the T&C.

Thank you.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:55 PM

We're not allowed to verbally abuse each other so we won't speak about the OP at all?

That is a clear indicator of intransigent bias.

And what about... the two ken dolls?

Speak to the effect of how important it is to have a 'celebrity personality' president?

These are professional entertainment productions.

The underlying reality of the provisos and agreements seem to indicate a disconnect between presentation and fact.

They are cookie cutter "fits" to what the party wants to pay to have the media 'market.'

Judge them by what you know about them... and don't forget how much it of you were "told" as opposed to what you have actually seen.

Eventually you must come to the conclusion that the presidency has become a political "product" not a job. He (perhaps some day 'she') is there to be the face of the nation.... we are supposed to lead ourselves.... it's our civic duty... reject that one American value, and everything about our nation weakens to exploitation.

edit on 23-10-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:36 AM
After watching the third-party presidential debate and seeing the discussions about deep issues such as the NDAA, the main party debates look even more unsubstantial. I watched the whole of the first one and couldn't go on with the second because I got bored. I didn't bother to watch the third one. Am I right in assuming that they didn't talk about deep issues there?
I'd be surprised if they did. Their popularity would probably go down the tubes if people were exposed fully to the prospect of getting a lifelong prison sentence for nothing, which I admit would contradict the predictable craving for safety over liberty.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by EllaMarina

Actually not one of the "duopoly debates" actually informed the electorate in any way.

It is a pageant of rehearsed charisma and memorized celebrity wit.

You missed nothing in the third debate.

However, we should remember that the purpose of the debate is not aligned with the actual act of debating. These debates are produced to impress the convinced... not persuade the unconvinced.

The media talking heads which follow the so-called "debates" are more important to the commerce of it than the the debates themselves.

RT's small investment into irritating the duopoly may have interesting ramifications in the future,,,,, if the media has anything to say about it.... (assuming they can make money out of the reaction.)

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Impressing the convinced...
It's better than risking turning them off completely, I guess. Still, there's signs that the convinced voters' opinions kept changing based on how well each candidate did. Risky business, heh.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:09 PM
I came across this really strange story on reddit about Romney winning the election and getting inducted into the Illuminati by Obama himself. Not sure what to think:

I'm definitely voting third-party this year. I had almost been frightened into voting for Obama, but I decided after watching the pitiful debates this year that none of the issues important to me were being addressed. Not that it will have a huge impact, but voting third-party is the only way I have of delivering a message that I'm unsatisfied with the direction of the Democratic party.

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
I agree, it's a big scam.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:48 PM
Panem et circenses, or bread and circuses, said already the ancient Romans and watching any politic debates in any country in the world while having TV-dinner is textbook definition of the phrase.

The US elections however have some characteristics in the process which are not used e.g. in Europe (or that were used in the past but have been abandoned since). The most interesting part for an non-US person is without doubt this one:

The right to vote for President is not given to the citizens by the federal government, but rather by the state or local government. This means, that despite the popular belief, the right to vote for President is not constitutionally protected and individual states do have a right to bar its citizens from voting for President.

Link to source

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in