April 14, 2008 -
Bonnie Ruberg's recent Heroine Sheik post, which detailed her quandary over just how important the video game censorship issue would be when she casts her presidential vote, got us thinking, too.What, for instance, will GP do? (and I've got to decide quickly, because the Pennsylvania primary is just eight days away)...
More importantly, what will you do?
Given the situation with Iraq, with the economy, with environmental issues, with Homeland Security, with energy, the credit crisis, the housing market, etc., will your choice come down to a candidate's stance on video game issues?
How do we place video game issues in their proper context?
We'd like to know what you think.
Make your opinion known by voting in today's GamePolitics poll, located in the upper right sidebar, and feel free to offer additional thoughts by commenting to this post.
Comments
free speech,
individual rights,
free markets,
parents rights,
monetary policy (costly and foreseeable appeals),
double standards (other media not include shows a lack of willingness to consider obvious double standards.)
ability to act on information and consider the problem vs. opportunistic pandering to public fears
****************************************************
a cannidates' stance on video game legislation can easily show what kind of president they will be and should be considered when you choose any politician.
The question with obama is will anyone vote for him due to his latest blunder. No I'm sure I am just too bitter...
"For other issues like Tibet Vs China and Global Warming, they are pretty much hot topics that will get thrust around more in the Mainstream Media with both sides of politics."
The problem with those popular issues is that China vs a province it will never allow to leave is not an issue since we moved all the manufacturing business to China and now dependent on it...so all posturing aside there is no chance of this being solved any time soon...
and
Global Warming has not been scientifically proven, it has just been accepted the same way that we accepted nukes in Iraq in 2003... The huge amount of scientists coming out against GW are ignored. now they are labeled neo-cons or crazies... so while this has become a major political issue it is not a proven scientific fact and should be ignored until it is proven scientifically not when some political party accepts it... but if it is true then I vote to kill all the cows since they produce the vast majority of greenhouse gases...
The main issues for me are economy, health care, smart/humane laws(some laws are simply insane, cost billions, create criminals and break the 8th amendment of the bill of rights), switching away from oil, Iraq, first amendment of the bill of rights, second amendment of the bill of rights.
In that order...
Defending the indefensible, thats fine. This comment of his really shows you the kind of man he his and that is an elitist business as usual politician (make no mistake all three of them are) Saying that people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter is an absurd notion and while you cite your town there are hundreds if not thousands of towns that would disagree with Obama's ignorant claim.
The said fact of the matter is that no matter who is elected president we are going to see a growth in government, taxes, and a loss of more freedom all in the name of trying to help and care for you.
(Not that my vote really matters, being a Greenie)
Still, I don't like hilary cause her stance on games, among a number of other things is well known. Barack? Well, lets just say he needs to make some better choices in what he says, what he does, and who he associates with.
As for Mccain, tough on. Don't like some of his ideas, don't like the idea of sticking around in Iraq for longer then we need to, but on the other hand, I think a conservitive approach to the economy and healthcare, instead of stealing money from the middle class to give to the poor and lazy, seems like a better plan.
Still, I'm divided. Hillary and barack are to socialist in my view, but Mccain may wind up wasting millions on a pointless war.
It really is a question of the Lesser of three evils.
And with Australia talking about an R ratings for Videogames so soon after the election, I feel that as a gamer in the land downunder, it has been a positive step since the last government had no interest in Videogames.
Although I could be wrong though, as the new PM in my country is wanting Laptops in every school, I am still conserned about his and his parties stances on the Videogame issue and how there is still no proven link between violent videogames and violence in real life.
it is just the South Australian AG that is the main problem here, and he has been in power for more than 10 years or so. And that has nothing to do with the Australian Federal Government.
But yeah, looking at what is happening in America and the UK and looking at the extreme politicians there, I will keep an eye on what the Australian Government of today says about Videogames.
For other issues like Tibet Vs China and Global Warming, they are pretty much hot topics that will get thrust around more in the Mainstream Media with both sides of politics.
So I try to hear about the smaller, but still important issues that involve within the country.
How does the canidate feel about free speech?
Are the knowledgeable of modern tech issues?
Do they look to cure society's problems, or blame them on easy targets?
When you think about it, even though video games seem trivial in light of war and economics, there are several social issues tied to video games' fates. So you probably shouldn't completely dismiss a canidate for their gaming policies, but you should take notice of them.
No, it's a useful factor for deciding, as it does tend to help show their priorities and views on other matters.
For example someone pushing censoring games, and making a big deal about games causing violence ain't too likely to do a good job in office. They're likely too far to the left or the right in regards to speech to be someone we'd want in office. Likewise if they're busy making any sort of deal about videogames, they probably don't have their priorities in place, and will waste time and money doing things that will make them look good, as opposed to actually getting useful stuff accomplished.
@GP, it would be so nice if you could find and post a list of the candidates and their views on games (or if you already had, either update or link to the archive).
Be happy we still care at all. I wasn't even registered till last month. I didn't want to vote. I've been screwed over by more politians, regardless of well I research the campaign. It's easy to say,
"What's the point? This world is beyond redemption; let the [heathen] cattle have it."
The hope, that our generation can help change the world, is not easy to come by. It seems a fantastic dream, like winning the lottery. No matter how hard you fight, everything just seems to be slipping backwards faster. It's frustrating. Sometimes, it feels like you've just run out of faith. At least I'm voting. So, you're welcome.
In MN voting against the video game law supporters coincides with my political view in my area, but it is not what decides my vote.
On the national level there is little reason to bicker over video games (or other luxuries) when economics and other serious concerns remain. Besides, whoever is the next president (or possibly whoever wins the election after that) will be appointing judges who will determine if video games fall under free speech or not. We are a long way from have a set decision on the issue at the national level.
Like many, I regard the video game stance as a barometer vis a vis other issues. I've said before that Hillary displays an attitude that she wants to be everyone's mom, and I don't like that. Others have seen this too. Someone on another thread pointed out that her stance on the issue shows she's willing to disregard the First Amendment when it suits her and violate the rights of a group of people whom she thinks aren't large enough to be worth protecting if it means getting easy votes. I've seen that level of arrogance refelected in almost everything else she says and does.
McCain I'm not so sure about. He doesn't seem to be as arrogant or a censor-happy as Hillary, but as was said here earlier, I remember him being right up there next to Lieberman and echoing his sentiments with regards to video gams. At the same time, though, I think he's aware there are much bigger and more relevant issues at stake, which is why he's never addressed it really. And yes, I'm one of those people who would sooner vote for McCain than Hillary if Obama didn't get the nomination. But that' a discussion for another time.
1. The video game industry will survive whomever we elect. They've survived multiple presidents, they'll survive this one.
2. Bi-partisanship is largely extinct. If we elect a majority democratic congress, we cannot elect a republican president if we want to get anything done. They'll quibble for years, and we have to assume that whomever we elect will serve two terms. They do.
3. I'm sick to death of Iraq. It has officially gone on longer then the civil war, and I'm tired of politicans who think it's OK to keep us that at enormous cost when it's not working. More specifically, I'm tired of politicians who think it's OK to spend more time and resources on international policy then domestic. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think we should spend a little less time trying to police the world and fix a few of our own damn problems. Accordingly, I cannot support a candidate who supports Iraq. Period.
4. I can't support Hillary, if only because I spent a little time looking over her healthcare proposals and she's frigging nuts. As messed up as our healthcare system is, her stuff would be like trying to fix a traffic jam by adding a few jackknifed semis. Besides, it drives me nuts when she argues about how "experienced" she is. Excuse me, since when is first lady a position of any actual power?
In short. I'm praying Barak wins the democratic primary - because if he doesn't I have no idea how I can vote.
Those polticians that chose to make a platform out of attacking games instead of addressing larger problems are open to blantant contempt and disgust and should expect nothing more.
four years of "record profits" and yet gas prices are still climbing AND they continually request further government money for "research"
Have you ever heard of the military industrial complex?
Presidents, governors, senators, judges, mayors, and other assorted political figureheads come and go, but the military industrial complex stays. It is forever. And BTW this isn't some conspiracy BS. Eisenhower and George Washington both warned us of standing armies and private bankers. You all should watch Zeitgeist. That fleshes out my argument better than my writings.
Even more so when the lesser evils are so alike your screwed no matter what you do, from what I have seen and read,Obama is right of Hillerys left on most issues, his plans might be reaching seem to be better balanced than hers, Mccain is a fcking sell out and his neo reaper leaders are as scary as theneo dims palying petty politics while they are in power.
What I would not give for Ron Paul or a old style money conservative even a good solid blue collar democrate would be nice but all we seem to have now adays are soulless neo fck wads.....
I am leaning to Obama if not him then Mcain maybe.... I hate throwing my vote away but I might just do that and vote or a 3rd wheel.
At this point there's no way Hillary can get the nomination, but if she did, you can be damn sure I'd be voting for her, no matter how much anti-game political pandering she'd done. This country can't afford another four years of Republican incompetence. There are too many issues that actually matter in this world to make video games anything close to a priority.
I am not an economist. I am not a diplomat. I can't tell if the proposed plans from these yahoo candidates will improve the economy or our world standing. And after being lied to by every candidate for the past 20 years, I think we're boned either way.
But I do know that the Bill of Rights is important. I also know that if a candidate is stupid or malevolent enough to try and strip those rights from it's constituency, dictatorship and revolution are not far away. I may not know much, but I know how to watch the History Channel.
However, since the two candidates who I know have railed against video games in the past aren't going to win no matter which one I vote for, the point is moot.
In case you can't tell, I'm saying that Senator John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Why? Because his opponent in November will be either a black man, or a woman, and as much as I don't like it, the voters of the U.S. are not willing to elect a non-white or a female.
Not that I think Obama or Clinton should get votes based on their skin color/gender, I'm saying that it shouldn't condemn them to failure. Their inner flaws should do that.