Obama - Romney debate
 

Will you watch the debate tonight, DVR, or wait to hear what the pundits say tomorrow?

I'm a firmly decided voter so the debate doesn't matter to me but I'll be watching!

I already know who I'm voting for, and for the first time the state I'm voting in will most likely overwhelmingly vote for my choice.

I'll probably watch just to see what's said.

I'm watching. I'm socially far left, but fiscally conservative and consider myself an independent, but Romney lost me with his comment about the 47%. Also, I sneer when I hear that he won't release his taxes. I hope it's interesting and that one or both of them says something that isn't "canned."

I too am socially far left but fiscally conservative. Undecided at this time but leaning towards Obama. I will be watching.

I'm not sure if I will be able to watch, but I will definitely be following the pundits. My mind was made up months ago. I'm generally too left of center on too many issues (even if most are social issues) to feel comfortable with the Republican party on a national level. Local is different- I live in the state senate district of one of the three Republicans who crossed party lines to pass gay marriage in NY last year- any politician who will vote with his conscience even in opposition to his party absolutely has my vote. I even wish I had registered as a Republican when I moved so I could have supported him in what was a very close primary.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

This.

Its must see TV. I know who I'm voting for but I am a debate geek.

Every teardrop is a waterfall

Ill be closed captioning it for CBS.

I just want to see what stupidity falls from Romney's mouth.

I already know who I'm voting for, but I'll definitely be watching.

I'm watching with my son.

I'll be watching with my boo if I finish my chores in time. I'm guessing it's on at 8 or 9.:D I'm more excited to see him than the actual debate. And I already knew who I was voting for long ago.

You might check out Gary Johnson - he's the libertarian candidate and is getting shut out of a lot of debates. He is fiscally very conservative but is pro-marriage equality and pro-choice. He is also pro-legalization of marijuana and has some less traditional (but in my opinion, quite logical) views on immigration, which also tie into his views on legalization of marijuana. He was New Mexico's governor for 8 years, and re-elected for his second term (as a Republican!) in that majority-democrat state. I don't love every single one of his policies, but he is far more in line with my beliefs than either of the major party candidates.

That's so cool.

Every teardrop is a waterfall

Gary Johnson is not pro-choice. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He's not pro-gay-marriage either. He's only pro-civil-union. Not the same thing at all.

A vote for a third-party candidate is usually considered a waste of a vote....but if a person wants to waste their Romney vote on Johnson, I'm all for it.

I will be tuned in as well. I know nothing Romney says will make a difference to me though.

It's too bad the other candidates won't get to participate.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I feel a vote for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote also.

You are mixing up what Johnson believes should morally be permitted and what Johnson believes the role of the federal government should be. He would like to overturn Roe v. Wade not for pro-life reasons but for limitation of federal government - that legally it should be decided on the state level. He has said in many arenas that he believes in a woman's right to choose up to fetal viability. And he believes that government should stay out of "marriage" altogether - allow that to be defined by private religious/social groups and allow civil unions with all the legal rights that entails for all consenting adults of any sexuality. I would encourage you to watch his responses to the primary debates (he was shut out but answered all the questions on a YouTube video). His opinions are nuanced and well thought out, even though they are not straightforward. Which, in issues as complex as abortion and sexuality, I think is very appropriate. Would much rather have someone who really considers these things than someone who makes a blanket statement to keep the most vocal of its party members happy.

Whether or not a third party vote is a waste depends on where you live - my state will almost certainly go red regardless of my one vote, so I am choosing to use my vote to say that I dislike the direction my former party-of-affiliation is headed rather than just vote for (in my opinion) the lesser of evils. But those who live in a heavily contested state may not want to use their vote that way if they have a strong opinion about who should NOT be president.

Then I definitely won't like him. Abortion used to be governed by the individual states, but the states were so descriminatory against certain groups of women (mostly poor and minorities), and those women were DYING because of it, so the federal government had to step in. I'd prefer not to have dead women in anti-abortion states.

As for marriage being the property of religion...I'm against that. Marriage has historically always been a legal agreement, not a religious one. Let the churches have civil unions and the gov't can keep marriages and make them legal for all consenting adults.

Wow, that is entirely the opposite view of "marriage" that I have always had. I think this is likely just semantics, but I have always viewed "civil unions" as the legal bond between to people,which gives them rights as spouses, next-of-kin, tax credits, etc etc, and marriages as a bond between to people recognized by a spiritual group of some sort. I mean... that's why a "civil" union is "civil"... it has nothing to do with religion. I have been to many weddings where religion plays no part whatsoever. I would loosely use the term "married" for anyone who has entered into a civil union, but when it comes to the law, what really matters, I would think, is whether or not every spouse, gay or straight, has the same legal rights, and that should be what is afforded in a civil union. I think the semantics are silly, but people seem to want that. I honestly don't understand why the issue is so complicated (except that some people seem to want to legislate morality, which I am firmly opposed to).

If that isn't the issue, then, well, you had best wage war on every church that doesn't recognize the marriage between divorcees or non-Catholics or... you get my drift. As a heterosexual woman I can't get married in a Catholic church, but since that is their own personal belief and doesn't affect my ability to get married in other churches, I'm not protesting that...