Who is the gamer's candidate

Given this is (sort of) a gaming-related forum, I thought I'd post a link to this article about the candidates' stances on issues that affect the gaming industry. Of course no one should base their decision on such a niche issue, but it's an interesting look at part of their policies and opinions:

FEATURES | Edge Online - Who is the Gamer’s Candidate?

It seems the biggest divide between the candidates is in the issue of Net Neutrality: Obama is for, McCain is against. The most worrying comments on both sides are the Biden has acted in support of the RIAA and MPAA, and this bit about Palin (the bit I've emboldened amused me):

Quote:

Photographic evidence of Palin’s flight sim experience aside, comparatively little is known about the governor on any political issue, let alone one as fringe at the moment as videogames. Palin was once embroiled in a non-games related book censorship scandal; as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, she fired (and then rehired due to public backlash) a librarian for resisting a book ban. Palin has since gone on the record stating that her talks of censorship were “rhetorical.”

Honestly, choosing a candidate on the sole basis of "Who will more easily let me escape from reality" shouldn't exactly be encouraged. It's a recreational activity, not a national issue. The optimal gamer's candidate would do whatever they could to ensure that "gamers" are left alone while they escape from reality in whatever ways they choose. But what then? What happens when the "Gamer's candidate" is a complete fucking douchebag in every other area? Net Neutrality is hardly just a "Gamer" issue at that, much of what is brought up in that article doesn't qualify as solely being an issue that should concern "Gamers."

It's not a lifestyle, it's a recreational activity.

Just, god, politics and games... NO.

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

Honestly, choosing a candidate on the sole basis of "Who will more easily let me escape from reality" shouldn't exactly be encouraged.

Hence why I am not encouraging it. Did I need to make this line a bigger font or something:

Quote:

Of course no one should base their decision on such a niche issue

This is entirely for amusement, a way to look at a couple of the candidates policies. Untwist your knickers already.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

Hence why I am not encouraging it.

I did miss you saying it, BUT I clearly did not make the mistake of saying you didn't either! Hah. CYA, niggas. In other words, I responded directly to the article, instead of you this times. Whee.

Touché. I don't think the article is trying to encourage that either though, it's just relating the candidates to the readership, relating policies that might affect them in some way. Anything that might get people thinking about politics and comparing the candidates policies can't be an entirely bad thing can it?

Oh, and on the issue of Net Neutrality, of course it's not a gamer-specific issue, but it's one that could have a knock on effect to gamers as a consquence.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

Touché. I don't think the article is trying to encourage that either, it's just relating the candidates to the readership, relating policies that might affect them in some way. Anything that might get people comparing the candidates policies can't be an entirely bad thing can it?

Oh, and on the issue of Net Neutrality, of course it's not a gamer-specific issue, but it's one that could have a knock on effect to gamers as a consquence.

The article might not be saying "go do this", but that's not what it takes these days. Acknowledging something like that means giving it validation as an "issue." Unless it's satirical or some shit. The same guys who kept Jack Thompson in the spotlight look for shit like this.

And I know Net Neutrality would indirectly affect players, but at the end of the day it also affects people who like YouTube or pirate shit or folks who actually use the internet for business. I know the friend of mine who hosts my site had fun explaining the particulars to me and why he didn't like it. A player should be aware of it, but when it's put under the banner of "Who is the Gamer's Candidate", it just really seems in poor taste to me.

Again, I know what it all might mean, but what they're saying here just doesn't sit well with me.

I can't vote that day, bro, I have a Gears tourney. Don't they have do-overs?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I can't vote that day, bro, I'm in Jap-Mode. Don't they have do-overs, kudasai?

Fixed it for you, fat fat.

Joe Biden doesn't want me smoking weed while I play Call of Duty, and that's why I'm a Republican.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

TAKE IT EASY

I cannot allow it

If the mother (Brad/Fat Fat/ETC) is allowed to grow too large, the birthing process will kill it

IT'S THE ONES LEFT BEHIND WHO ARE HURT THE MOST, FAT FAT

Spoiler:

GOOGLE RON PAUL
THE GAMER'S CANDIDATE

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Spoiler:

GOOGLE RON PAUL
THE GAMER'S CANDIDATE

This is the worst post ever in Political.

Only because the most important message was hidden in spoiler tags.