Bonnie Ruberg Ponders Whether Video Game Issue Will Decide Her Vote

When you cast your ballot for the next president, will the candidate’s stance on video game issues decide your vote?

It’s a worthy question, and one that Bonnie Ruberg of Heroine Sheik asks herself:

The [presidential] primaries are front-page news even here [in France], and there’s a big election coming up in my home state of Pennsylvania, so French people always want to know, “Do you support Hilary or Obama?” Truth is though, I honestly don’t know…

When I try to explain my dilemma to a French person though, I always find myself falling back on the “Hilary wants to censor video games” angle though. And what do I get in response? Awkward stares that say, “You wouldn’t really vote for someone on the basis of video games, would you?”

The question is, would I? …I really do think Hillary’s approach could be detrimental to our art form–especially if she’s the leader of the whole frickin’ country… Then again, Obama is no shiny light of tech positivism either. Al Gore, I miss you.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Jeremy Tyler Beavers says:

    if  hillary wins shell fuck up  and if she dont get impeached after tht then if she messes with videogames all hell will break loose literally cause her kids will hate her, any other kids or teens who play games will hate her, hell game companies will call her a bitch everytime they see her, you fools on here thk video games arent important damn it accounts for our fuckin economy being fed money face it Hilary you dont know shit bout Americas needs

    in the immortal words of Stan Lee


  2. 0
    PHOENIXZERO ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Apparently some of you don’t think the First Amendment or the Constitution is important….

    It’s one issue of many why I don’t like Hilary and didn’t like Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (who was and might still also be a board member of the PTC IIRC). Then again I don’t care for McCain or Obama either. I think I’ll be writing in “None of the Above” on my ballot this fall.

  3. 0
    Gift ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I know it sounds trivial to vote for someone because of their stance on video games. However, a candidate’s stance on games can be a proxy for many other issues. I suppose it’s a variation on the “thin end of the wedge argument” but if you cannot trust a candidate on relatively “minor points” can you trust them on major ones?

    I’d say no, especially having witnessed the impact of Hilary’s fiddling with video game issues. I’m incensed by her calls to misappropriate CDC time in a obfuscate the issue by medicalising gaming. The CDC is world class but overstretched, there are any number of deadly diseases out there in need of tracking (not least of which avian flu). Why should the CDC divert time, money and effort from serious problems just because Hilary wants to explicitly associate the words “video games” with “disease”? Even if her bill comes with extra money, that cash could be better spent on activities normally within the CDC’s remit.


  4. 0
    Ashton ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Base your vote… on the candidate’s stance on video games? Seriously? Not the war, or the economy, or sustainable energy policy, or even the candidate’s professed religious values?

    I don’t vote for Hillary because this stance pretty much will determine the stances she takes if she’s president. The president is not someone who should concern him/herself with petty things like video games, there are much more important things to worry about in this country, like the falling economy, rising price of gas, unemployment, education, etc. But if a president is going to concern him/herself with VIDEO GAMES and make that part of his or her personal platform? I’m sorry, that just means they’ll spend the next eight years doing nothing but looking for scapegoats whenever something goes wrong.

  5. 0
    Aliasalpha says:

    I’ve just had an epiphany! Its okay for gamers if clinton gets elected (Well okay for the gamers hobby, quite possibly awful for everything else they value).

    You have to remember that what she’s doing when she’s talking about restricting games is making campaign PROMISES. We all know what campaign promises mean: jack & shit. They’re bald faced lies designed to manipulate people into thinking that the candidate is the lesser of two evils (or however many evils there are) and voting for them. The probability of campaign promises actually coming true is about as likely as winning the lottery. The media reactionaries are inciting kneejerk fear in large numbers of people by lying about a new thing that’s not well understood in the hopes of scoring slightly higher than their competition on the “fools duped” scorecard. Like any politician, clinton is seeing the mass potential (NOT the mass effect, after all there’s no explicit interactive mega hot XXX porn) of that group of fools & promising whatever is going to allay their unreasoning fears in the hopes of getting them to not think about anyone else when voting. Basically the exact same thing that the “news”media is trying to do only clinton will have the power (at least hypothetically) to use nukes whereas faux news can only demand they be used.

    I still don’t get why this one is newsworthy, there must be hundreds of such posts on the net each day. As Tristram said, it is indeed bringing up a “Do we vote based on our hobby” question but so do heaps of other pages I’ve read over the last few months, just seems an odd inclusion to me.

    Oooh perhaps there’s a conspiracy! Hmm lets see… ahh yes! I suspect Dennis of trying to get it on with this woman! Possibly they’re going to make a super race of game trained killers designed for the exclusive purpose of thwating jack thompson! (Hey, it may be a wildly unrealistic and moronic suggestion but there’s more evidence than thompson has, after all this article actually exists!) Go on mate, give her one for me…

  6. 0
    Shih Tzu says:

    Base your vote… on the candidate’s stance on video games? Seriously? Not the war, or the economy, or sustainable energy policy, or even the candidate’s professed religious values?

    I would hope that the readers of this site would not be so short-sighted or politically unaware as to think that media issues should be their first priority.

  7. 0
    sbryce ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Based on all the candidates records and statements on video games and technology all together like internet censoring I think Obama is the best candidate. He has made statements to take kids away from video games for and have them read and be outside but I don’t think that is really a statement against laziness. If Hilary gets elected I am moving to Canada.

  8. 0
    Nash ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    If Hillary is voted president games will be outlawed more so than porn..if Obama is voted games will will be regarded as a tool of stupidity and everyone will turn into tree hugging hippies running around in the sunlight instead. I do not know of McCain’s stance so i cant exactly make fun of him.

    Obama is a luddite in many ways, he thinks technology is a waste of youth and makes them fat. The second part may hold some truth for sure but technology is not a factor that causes stupidity and laziness. Gamers are just as smart as those law students who dont play videogames. I maybe wrong but Obama’s stance on letting the children run free on the fields of meadows and creating a bad name for technology such as calling it a device of laziness is probably Obama’s worst aspect in the eyes of gadget freaks and gamers.

    Hilary on the other hand makes Obama look like a gaming fanboy, her views on censorship of the media to protect the kids is like nothing more than scapegoating. Did anyone remember that she fracked up when it came to universal healthcare?

    Yeah she got paid off by the insurance companies, while most people would call that political suicide Hilary is till strong and people actually vote for her. She calls videogames a waste of time and life and calls for government regulation on it. But think about it.. Hilary being the turd that she is does not see the business aspect of videogames, the billions of dollars that can be fed into the economy and she creates a negative image in front of the American population, she tries to look like the parent helping the parent but she’s like Hitler and forgive me if offending anyone, they both like the scapegoat for their country’s social problems.

    And to the person who wanted Gore in office, you havent heard of the PMRC have you?

    Granted the Parents Music Resource Center was about the music industry only but that doesn’t count out the fact that Mr & Mrs Gore were pro-censorship just because their damn daughter heard “unethical” music. The Gores at that time are considered as bad and as irresponsible for their child’s actions just like some parents today. The point is that the music albums were treated like cigarettes and had labels put on them, just like modern day videogames.

    Lets face it, where would you rather be?

    At home playing San Andreas as a gangbanger homie? or an actual gang banger homie that has gats up to the teeth?

    The fact is that the politicians of today are old….even Obama. A politician that is able to see that parents can do their own job and not expecting the government do their work for them is a good politician. A president that can see that the videogame industry as a whole is important to the economy and to the population is a good president.

  9. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oddly enough, Hillary seems like a safe*ish* choice, considering everyone hates her and would be quick to question her. If Obama is against games(still isn’t very clear on that) it’s a problem, because everyone seems to like him(have you heard his supporters chanting his name? It’s kinda spooky). Still, I’ll support Obama over Hillary any damn day. Unless Jesse Ventura runs.

  10. 0
    OmegaWarrior says:

    It isn’t just that she doesn’t like video games, or doesn’t play them, but rather she thinks that video games actually cause people to commit crimes, and that she wants to censor content which is not only unconstitutional, but even if it were, it is beyond the scope of presidential powers, and that itself says to me that she either plans to abuse her authority, or she doesn’t know what her authority is; given her “experience,” I’d be more inclined to believe the former.

    Of course, I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Hillary, and plenty of reasons to vote for Obama. Video games is just one of those reasons.

  11. 0
    xzero87 says:

    I really hope that game legislation isn’t what people will cast their vote for or against, there are much more important issues at hand. Such as “is the candidate going to continue to run our country into the ground or not.”

  12. 0
    Austin Lewis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Both Hillary and Obama are terrible choices.

    Hitlery is a communist who will leave this country deprived of more rights than we’ve already lost.

    On the other hand, Obama will turn us into a subservient nation, and make us answer to nations like Nigeria (nothing we do needs to be answered to the likes of Kofi Anan or however you spell his name).

  13. 0
    TheEdge ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This year’s crop of candidates really sucked.I don’t think McCain would be for game censorsh*t,and not so much Obama either.But Clinton,on the other hand,I’m pretty sure she’d make it a priority.Still,I’m sure whomever won would make the more(prep. for backlash!)pressing issues like our sagging economy and the Middle Eastern theater a top priority.

  14. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    GRIZZAM 512 says:
    “For the record, only the legislative branch can pass legislation. The president can’t really do a damn thing. People like Hillary are more dangerous as senators.”

    True, but a President can co sponsor a bill with any legislator, and as THE PRESIDENT they can get all the press time they want to talk about the issue. Plus, in the modern political climate, most Legislators of the same party as the President will vote for whatever they say.

    So it’s kinda naive and utopian to think the President “can’t really do a damn thing” when it comes to drafting and passing laws.

  15. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m not vioting for Hillary purely because of her video game sense.

    I saw a clip from her(which was in an old back in black segment on the daily show) where she said we need to treat violent viode games like we treat cigarettes and alcohol. (If anyone wants a link I’ll find the video again).

    That statement disgusted me so much that I refuse to vote for her unless she changes her stance.

  16. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    True. I can live without games (Barely, but only if I can keep my comics!), but I can’t live if the econemy sucks so bad that I can’t afford food.’Course, vidja games are one of the few things we still make in the US, so that’s good for the econemy, right? Guess they fall on the same plate.

  17. 0
    Grendal says:

    A canidates stance on games and the net are things I think about but there not the only thing I consider. Setting the whole of your vote on one issue seems dubious to me.

  18. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For the record, only the legislative branch can pass legislation. The president can’t really do a damn thing. People like Hillary are more dangerous as senators.

  19. 0
    Buckeye531 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Considering the horrible job our current president is doing, the candidates’ stance on video game violence, let alone games in general, is nothing as far as I’m concerned. I want a president better than the one we have now, even if he or she pushes for anti-game legislation.

  20. 0
    TheStripe ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “You wouldn’t really vote for someone on the basis of video games, would you?”

    Would you vote for someone who wanted to censor any sort of art?

  21. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Hillary is a liar, Barrack’s a cultist, and McCain is a gun control supporting republican. Essentially they all friggin’ suck. I supported Ron Paul, but that train crashed and burned a long time ago.

  22. 0
    JC ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The video game issue won’t affect my vote. All I know is that all 3 candidates are good liars. So I’m likely to vote Republican this year, surprisingly enough.

    I’m just going to weigh my vote on the truly important issues. It is very likely we’ll hit another great depression and hopefully they dismantle some unnecessary spending.

  23. 0
    shady8x says:

    Al Gore???

    I miss debates about the lock box…

    Hillary scares me, but Obama has been saying stuff recently that is starting to scare me as well… though less then Mcain…

  24. 0
    StealthKnight ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I believe it is an important issue as it is an indicator of how the the candidate’s attitude’s and how they conduct themselves. The way Hillary Clinton as acted towards the censorship of video games shows that she does not look at the facts and will use scapegoats to gain power. She has done this with Obama’s Pastor and NAFTA. She supported NAFTA at first but is KNOW against it. Her bad habit of lying about things like the Misspeak issue, NAFTA, use of republican tactics, clean election, etc. She is just plain too dirty to be worthy of president. Her lack of reliability and constancy will be an serious issue in her potential presidency.

    With Obama, I think it probably is a bad metaphor on his part that could have been worded better. So far, he has not really made any anti-video game stances so we shouldn’t make any rash judgments yet.

  25. 0
    DarknessDeku ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Anonymous

    Voting a politician based on their stance on video games doesn’t make you a “an ignorant, uniformed voter”. How they act about games is how they most likely act about everything else.

  26. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Obama’s stance on games has so far been only expressed as an opinion, not as a platform for change. He thinks they’re a waste of time. So do a lot of people. But at least he hasn’t had his hand in trying to regulate them or their sales, and he doesn’t talk about them like they’re some scourge that’s turning our kids into murderers.

    I don’t agree with everything Obama says. Nobody could agree with any politician 100%. But I back him because he doesn’t back down from his stances, and he talks about what he believes, not about what he thinks other people want him to believe.

    Like that whole thing this weekend about him saying rural America is bitter and votes by issues like religion, immigration, and gun control. Clinton and McCain have been painting him as “out of touch” with Americans. And they’re full of shit. I live in rural America (Southeast Ohio), and when I turn on call-in radio in the morning, all I hear is people complaining about illegal immigrants, religious issues, and gun control. Jobs and economy? Very little, because we’ve been without decent jobs for so long we don’t expect the government to do anything about it. Sure, there are a lot of complaints about gas prices right now. But it’s only because it’s a current problem.

  27. 0
    DarknessDeku ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Shaesyco

    I hated Hilary when she screwed up her chance to fix the health care fisaco by trying to act cool, popular, and funny, instead of working at her goal.

  28. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Adiobam says:
    “Just because he is against making it official does not mean he is opposed to it. As a republican, he believes that each state should make their own decision on things. Obviously, he wants the states to have a say in it.”

    Which is a totally moronic way to handle issues involving the internet, which is not only national, but global. So by letting “the states have a say in it,” that would mean that in some states, Comcast could filter access to the internet to their customers, and in another state, they couldn’t. Top it off with the fact that most voters don’t even understand what Net Neutrality means, and you’ve got lots of ignorant people deciding in each state whether or not they want to pay extra for decent internet service. Most wouldn’t even know that was what they were voting on, they’d think it had something to do with free enterprise and capitalism (which it is, but it’s more complicated than that). But the telecoms shouldn’t be allowed to economically censor information just to turn an extra buck.

    This is an international issue, not a regional one. But since you can only pass laws within your own country, we’ll have to settle for it being a federal issue, not a State issue.

  29. 0
    chris ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Darkness Deku

    Wow, can’t wait to see the day hillary tries censoring gas prices……..How will we know what to pay?

    Sorry couldnt resist.

  30. 0
    DeadJesterx ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It shouldn’t be a deciding issue, but it does hint at how far a candidate is willing to go in terms of censorship. They may not believe in it themselves, but a candidate like Hilary knows that she can get the Scared and Lazy Soccer Mom vote be pretending to “protect” children.

    But this girl is quite naieve if she thinks Gore would have been better in terms of censorship. While I like Gore, both he and his wife acted like a bunch of paranoid idiots in the 80’s over heavy metal music. Perhaps his positions have softned since then, but I’m not too sure.

    The only candidate I really like is Obama. Both Hilary and McCain are phony as hell. I’ve never liked Hilary all that much for a number of reasons. I use to like McCain but not anymore. Back in the day he seemed to actually speak his mind and supported measures that he really believed in. Now, to me anyway, he looks like only a shell of the man he use to be who is willing to bend over backwards for the most fanatical of the right-wing just to get the nomination. I mean he went from calling Fallwell and Robertson “agents of intolerance” (which they are) to being all buddy-buddy with them and having a speech at Fallwell’s joke of a university. Plus his Net Neutrality stance is something I can’t agree with.

  31. 0
    Thad says:

    “Al Gore, I miss you.”

    Between Tipper and Holy Joe, I think the other commenters have done a good job of explaining what is absolutely illiterate about this statement.

    I would say Clinton’s video game stance is far less important than other issues such as her militarism (still defending her Iraq vote with “I didn’t know any better” — I knew better and I was 19 years old, Senator; you’re either lying or stupid, and I don’t think it’s the latter — and sabre-rattling at Iran), but it also bears noting that it’s a small part of a larger and more disturbing pro-censorship stance. Let’s not forget she co-sponsored a bill to ban flag-burning.

    An idea for Bonnie Ruberg: maybe you could find a more thorough set of complaints about Clinton than “she wants to censor video games” if you’d simply do your homework. Your tunnel-vision on Al Gore (who, don’t get me wrong, I agree with on most issues, but media censorship certainly isn’t one of them) suggests you haven’t exactly engaged in due diligence.

    Me? I’m backing Obama. Even though his stance on the media censorship issue isn’t exactly clear, I think he’s the best candidate. In the (decreasingly likely) chance that Clinton gets the nomination, I’ll vote third-party. It’s all moot anyway, as I live in Arizona; McCain could die of a heart attack three days before the election and still win his home state by 20 points.

  32. 0
    Rachel says:

    Look, I care about free speech and the freedom to make and play any video game you want, but I don’t think that it should be a deal-breaker as far as voting is concerned. There is the war in Iraq, corporate corruption, failing schools, and so many, many other things that are on my mind right now.

    I honestly don’t think that the president will be spending that much time on video games, whoever it is. Notice that video game legislation tends to be more at the state level. I am voting for Obama, and I am much more concerned about bringing my friends who are serving in Iraq home safe and sound.

    If we vote based only on this one issue, then we are no better than the people that vote only on abortion and gay marriage. I like to believe we are better and more intelligent than that. I have always been and always will be a vocal supporter of free speech, but that is a battle that I believe will be fought on the state level, not on the national stage.

  33. 0
    AdioBam says:

    “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.”

    Just because he is against making it official does not mean he is opposed to it. As a republican, he believes that each state should make their own decision on things. Obviously, he wants the states to have a say in it.

  34. 0
    AdioBam says:

    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.

  35. 0
    Conejo ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    censorship never stops at just one medium. Hillary wins with video games, then goes on to movies and television. next thing you know, you can’t read certain books or say certain words.

    Hillary is pro-censorship on all levels and anti-Constitution.

  36. 0
    DarknessDeku ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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?

  37. 0
    Ohma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “*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. “

    Because equal protections and rights are SOOOOOooooOOOO unimportant.

  38. 0
    Kawauso says:

    If I were American, I would absolutely allow a politician’s stance on games to temper my vote (meaning I am not a fan of Hillary). Why shouldn’t I? Gaming is one of my biggest hobbies, and I’m starting a career in the industry; why shouldn’t something like freedom of speech, my hobby and my career come into play when making a decision like that? I always get strange looks when I state my stance on video game issues like that because of the perceived childishness of video games, but it’s an issue that revolves around my artistic values, personal recreation and job – if that’s no reason to consider the issue seriously, I don’t know what is.

  39. 0
    Neeneko says:

    *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.

  40. 0
    Uh... ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The fact is that Obama and Hillary are nearly identical political entities. Video game legislation will decide my vote, and I have already cast it for Obama.

    The other problem is that video game legislation is costly, unconstitutional, and potentially a slippery slope. Worse yet, this type of legislation draws attention from the real problems America’s youth faces today, and the real sources of criminal behavior: poverty, low life chances, drug neighborhoods, and domestic abuse, to name a few causes. I see video games as an issue that definitely affects most Americans whether they want to believe it or not.

  41. 0
    Ohma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    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.

  42. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  43. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    I would not vote for anyone that is anti-First Amendment(like Hitlery Clinton).

    @ Bonnie Ruberg(I’m pretty sure she’ll be reading this eventually):

    Al Gore isn’t and wouldn’t have been any better, considering that when he was running for President against George W. Bush, he was heavily promoting that he would legislate against all entertainment(all while collecting their campaign contributions, making him a hypocrite), while Bush was saying he’d work with the entertainment industry.

    Plus, Gore had Lieberman(One of the industry’s biggest critics at the time) as his Vice Presidental candidate, and Gore’s wife, Tipper, was one of the people whining about heavy metal music in the early 80’s, and Al himself held a Congressional hearing on the music industry(the famous one with Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider defending the music industry).

  44. 0
    MonkeyFace ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    well…It’s not the most important issue out there, but I suppose you could argue the whole censorship of videogames could lead to other medias being censored and the total abolishment of our rights.

    Or you could argue that someone stupid enough to really believe videogames cause violence couldn’t be trusted to make any choices about our country.

    Or you could just use the fact thats she has already lied to us so you can’t trust her.
    Sinbad watch out! theres a sniper behind that little eight year old girl hunging the first lady!

  45. 0
    FlyinM_X ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Please help vote to get rid of her, almost no one outside of america wants to see her as president. Actually a lot of them want Obama as president, me included. She is one of the most negative people I have ever seen and has actually indicated that the republican canditate (McCain) would be a better president than her democratic rival (Obama). That’s small potatoes compared to everything else she’s done though. I won’t go into too much detail here, just go to CNN or something.

    Obama 08′ I hope, if only I could be American for a day…

  46. 0
    beemoh ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m gong to say yes, if only for what it meant outside of games- as an example, Hillary’s eagerness to censor shows an alarming disregard for freedom of speech, and the fact that it’s games she’s censoring shows how out of touch with the modern world she is.

    These are two “qualities” I don’t want in somebody running the vast majority of the western world.


  47. 0
    beemoh ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m gong to say yes (if I was American), if only for what it meant outside of games- as an example, Hillary’s eagerness to censor shows an alarming disregard for freedom of speech, and the fact that it’s games she’s censoring shows how out of touch with the modern world she is.

    These are two “qualities” I don’t want in somebody

  48. 0
    Tristram ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Double Post, sorry.

    Aliasalpha, it is not about her, exactly, but the question she brings up. which is a good one. Would we really vote for a candidate based on their video game stance? If a neo-nazi, for example (godwin’s law, I know) came up and supported games, would we vote for him/her for it? How about someone who supported games but was determined to reinstate a draft and stay in Iraq for years to come? Or supported the RIAA? Or had other really negative policies, but supported games?

  49. 0
    Tristram ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think Bonnie could respond as Hillary’s stance on video games to be indicative of something larger. Is she taking video games as an easy scapegoat? Does that mean that she really believes them the cause of societies ills? Will that be her solution to everything, i.e. to just find a scapegoat? If she explained that to her French friends, I think they would understand better.

  50. 0
    Aliasalpha says:

    I have a question for the people in here: Who is Bonnie Ruberg & for what reason should her opinion matter to me? Is she a noted political reporter or activist for expression rights?

    I’m just trying to understand why, aside from the obvious fact that there’s politics & games involved in the story, this is deemed significant enough to post since there’s doubtlessly thousands of other politics+games posts floating around. Many of the comments on GP stories spring to mind and not just those made by me…

  51. 0
    Jack Thompson is a douchbag says:

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

  52. 0
    Tracy says:

    I can’t say video games would be a deciding factor for me. While I agree that it is a barometer for other values, like Are’el pointed out, I’m more concerned about health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

    If Hillary was headlining her campaign with video game regulation, and claiming it was the very first thing she would address in office, and there was nothing else more important than video game regulation at this time in America, then I’d be more concerned. But she is not.

  53. 0
    JB says:

    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?

  54. 0
    KayleL ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Hilary Clinton had full speeches about video games being harmful so that would effect my vote if I was American and not a minor. But Obama said kids should be more active, and play outside. He never applied baning sells to minors, or censorship. If he starts programs to get kids into bike rides, play sports or what ever, I think that would be great.

  55. 0
    illspirit ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  56. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Actually, the Republican party won’t nominate Ron Paul because he didn’t get enough delegates, because not many people voted for him. And I think that’s because the media wouldn’t give him a fair shake during the campaign. So, blame the people, blame the Party, blame the media. It doesn’t matter, in the end no one voted for him.

    As for the issue at hand, voting on gaming issues goes beyond gaming. It’s a barometer for several, more important issues that the general public does care about. If a canidate is against gaming legislation, then it says of them:

    –They aren’t looking for scapegoats to societies problems in the media
    –They are somewhat savy on modern technological issues (like video games as adult entertainment, internet related issues, etc)
    –They are for protecting the First Ammendment, even when it isn’t popular

    And a canidate for legislation is basically the opposite, and pandering to frightened parents.

  57. 0
    Balance ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  58. 0
    JDC says:

    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.

  59. 0
    Cheater87 ( User Karma: 1 ) says:

    I’m not voting for Hilary because of her stance on games. If Hilary came in power she would censor games more then Germany does.

  60. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Think of all the important issues that are part of this election, such as the War in Iraq, our economic crisis, civil liberties, the health care system, and immigration. If what drives you to vote or not vote for a candidate is their stance on video games, then you are an ignorant, uniformed voter that is a disgrace to our democratic system.

  61. 0
    Iliad ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Naive little girl.. like al gore would have been any better….

    I know one of the main reasons I’m not voting for Hilary is because of the video game “angle” Its incredibly important to me and I wouldn’t have any problem telling someone that was the sole reason I wouldn’t vote for her, whether it was or not.

    It pretty much shows she is just like any other two faced politician, doing whatever she can to get elected and in this case hiding behind the age old protect the children/ family values platform. “Why wont anyone think of the children?!”

  62. 0
    kurisu7885 says:

    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

Leave a Reply