***** Debate thread two*****

[MADem]

181. First of all, I am not a "big deal around here" and secondly, I am not

"insulting" you.

People who are adults are responsible for educating themselves on current events. Should we have readers read the paper to everyone of voting age, so they are abreast of the issues?

Never have I heard it suggested that people be coddled in terms of obtaining information that is so READILY available nowadays, it's embarrassing.

Back in the day, if you had to work during a debate, you had to work. You could maybe sneak a transistor radio and an earpiece into your job, and hope you had good reception, or even put it on the office radio if your boss was "cool," but if neither of those options were viable, you picked up the New York Times and (horrors!) you READ about it afterwards, and talked to friends and family about how this one or that one came off.

If you lived overseas--as I did, often--all your news came via the written word, pretty much. European, Asian and Middle Eastern TV didn't cover the US elections with much thoroughness. If you wanted to be informed, you had to do the work. Nowadays, "the work" is opening up a screen and clicking a few times.

The process--thanks to "the internet"-- is better now than it has EVER been in the history of American elections. There's just no excuse for not being informed. Even poverty is not a barrier if you have a library within a walk or a bus ride of your home, or a smart phone. There are already several dozen copies of tonight's debate up on Youtube, without even having to navigate over to CNN.