Bonnie Ruberg Ponders Whether Video Game Issue Will Decide Her Vote

I'm not voting for a candidate who's willing to try to pick and choose for me what is and isn't acceptable for me to view in terms of media, or willing to try and blame our national problems on a media format either.

Obama, while stating that he did think that video games are a waste of time, made no indication that he'd seek an outright ban. It rang more of opinion than trying to mandate a fact

Hilary wants to censor games and Obama isn't to far behind saying that games are a waste of time.

I say vote for McCain.

@PheonixZero

How about 'All mangled and killed'

That would be a great option for some elections.

It is a shame that Obama and Hilary are the only ones running...

"Al Gore, I miss you."

Yeah, protecting the world from ManBearPig.

I am Canadian and the same thing happens here. Newspapers flooded with info on the election. My roommate is from the U.S. and I have asked him he same question and he always seems to have a "meh" approach to the question. I think it is due to a lack of meaningful candidates this year. I hate how in your county, Minority candidates not even bother running, because they get s***canned media coverage and no support in a handful of states anyway. The largest disappointment is that there were a few decents among them, this time around.
As far as the video game issue goes, feel it is a very good reason for voting if it is a reason that affects you, which, in this case it seems to affect Bonnie. The problem is all the "video games are evil, Jack Thompsons" who are going to vote FOR her for the video game reason, but on the other, anti-game angle. I bet the amount of the anti-game public who would vote for that reason far outweigh the amount of the voting age who are voting against her because of her stance on games. She doesn't support the outright Ban of games, which is a positive. But she does support a Ban to minors, which, though against the first amendment does keep our antagonists, like Jack T, at bay, and would lighten the load on the issue. She is pretty liberal about the other issues I care about.. but alas, not a resident of the U.S.

Hilary's stance on video games is troubling in itself, but more importantly, it's a warning flag concerning her general attitudes. It demonstrates that she's willing--even eager--to trample the First Amendment rights of a substantial group of citizens for no supportable reason. She doesn't believe gamers represent a large enough voting bloc to be worth protecting, and they are thus fair game for rights violations, especially if she thinks she can wring a few more votes out of it.

I don't want another President who regards the Constitution as nothing more than an inconvenience.

I don't trust anyone that thinks that "Video Games Violence" is a Real Issue...

Hillary hates the rest of the Constitution, so, no, her stance on games hardly matters at this point. That's like asking if rabies would affect my choice of which pack of wolves to be eaten alive by. McCain and Obama aren't much better either.

Well the thing is is if a candidate is willing to censor an entire media based on inconclusive reports (has there ever been a scientific report that really says violent games absolutely cause violence in society) how far would that candidate go under the guise of “protecting society”? Really, what would be next?

GP: Who gets to decide, for example, whether content is “dangerous”? What does that mean, exactly? Does violent content make media dangerous? Is Manhunt 2 dangerous? Call of Duty 4? Saving Private Ryan? Beowulf? The Bible?

Just dont vote for Hillary Clinton. Vote who ever you want to vote but not Hillary Clinton. Vote George Bush if you want LOL!

I've decided my vote, but if I hadn't already, the video game thing would have tipped it.

Small correction hunging=hugging
Curse you no edit feature!

jo says:
"Apparently there isn’t a republican running this year… "

That's not really important at the moment, because McCain is "locked in." What's interesting right now is who he's going to be running against. Obama, or Clinton?

Besides, McCain is not a good choice from a gamer's perspective. He opposes making Net Neutrality official, and believes that the telecoms have a right to parcel up the internet into fast and slow traffic if they want to (or even block content if they so choose). Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton favor Net Neutrality.

Now that I think about it, Ron Paul would probably (I don't know) be against any bills for Net Neutrality himself, if what I know of his stances are any indication.

OH COME THE FUCK ON! VOTING ON FUCKING GAMES?! WHAT ARE YOU TWO?

There are ACTUAL fucking issues you dipshits. Like health care, the economy (FYI it's not doing too hot because for the last half century, rich assholes have been mismanaging it to maximize their profits), oil (y'know, that stuff we rely on for nearly everything right now? well that's running out), climate change, war.

Weather or not a candidate is going to be pissy and impotent about regulating video games is WAAAAAY the fuck down on the list of things you should be wondering about when you're looking at a candidate for president.

*shrug* people vote for all sorts of seemingly unimportant single-stance-issues.

I mean come on, look at the huge numbers who voted for Bush because of the gay marriage angel.... and that was an issue that didn't even effect the ones voting for him.

Hell, people should be glad that voters are paying enough attention to vote on any issue at all.

I'm voting against Hilary because she is threatening censorship on video games. What else is she going to try to censor? Gas prices? The war? Health Insurance?

@Ohma

I ment that the people voting for bush (and thus against gay rights) were generally people not effected by the laws.

The thing is, Obama, whether or not he is opposed to videogames, he is, both economically and socially, a leftist. As an economic leftist, he is more for government regulation of the economy. While he may not ban video games for violent content [if elected], that doesn't mean he and the rest of the government won't stick their noses in the industry.
I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but I'd choose him over Clinton or Obama. Clinton is manipulative, phony, and lacks experience. Obama not only lacks experience, but he also has poor judgement. Look at the people he associates himself and his family with. Plus, he did virtually nothing as senator. He opposed the war from the start, sure, but he did not vote against it, making the point that he opposed it totally moot.
McCain really isn't my choice, but taking a look at who we have running, I'd choose him. But only because Paul won't get the nomination.

I hated hillary long before the video game issue.