Summarizing the Gaming Platforms in Presidential Race

In an article titled, Who Is The Gamer’s Candidate?, Edge Online has recapped the positions of both parties’ presidential tickets as they relate to video games.

It’s good to know that none of the four candidates have ever gotten behind a video game ban, although Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin gave consideration in the past to censoring books. Of the four, Barack Obama has said and done the most in regard to games.

While the EO piece offers no new information, it is a worthwhile summary.

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


  1. 0
    oto kirlama says:

    I’m all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there’s one thing about this app that has me scratching my head.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area.  If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what’s stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?

    But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself.  Talk to one of these people and you’ll find they don’t think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children.  Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story.  Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age.  The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself.  Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head.  Not gonna happen.  Yet despite this, they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless… yeah.

    The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can’t figure out the controls for Halo so it’s frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it’s in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status).  In  a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent.  The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child’s life is the real problem to me.  Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can’t be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time.  It’s too hard for her, so I have to suffer?

  2. 0
    JustChris says:

    "The "system" doesn’t favor anybody. The Republicans and Democrats have the largest established bases, so they get the votes."

    Two bases is not enough. For people that don’t like either party, we need a middle ground.

    The social climate of today, the 80’s, the 60’s, the 40’s etc. are all very different from each other. Why is it only that the Reps or Dems are considered the ones that can fully handle each one? Two sizes don’t fit all.

    "This isn’t ice cream. You’re asked to choose your favorite. If you can’t do that, don’t vote."

    So if choosing means either following the masses or picking someone that will virtually have no influence on our government, the solution is to do nothing? What kind of encouraging words are that?

    A proper counter-argument would’ve been to show the disadvantages of instant runoff voting, which you haven’t even talked about.

  3. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    I was unaware of Oklahoma, but Oklahoma does not speak for all the 50. The reason that third parties don’t get much exposure is because 1) They often attract the whackjobs of the world, 2) Their policies are usually something that only a few people will get behind, and 3) They don’t have established bases that are as large as the Democrats or Republicans.

  4. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Tell that to Oklahoma. Oklahoma has the strictest ballott access laws in the US. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are PERMANATE parties in Oklahoma. IF either of those parties all teh sudden lost all their membership they wopuld still be official parties in Oklahoma. If by some miracle a Third party were to gain party status in Oklahoma (which requires a membership equal to 1/10th the voter turn out in the last election) if they fail to gain 1/10th the votes in the next general election, they will cease to be an official party.

    Also, tell it to the media. I have never seen a third party candidate get any kind of media exposure. I have never seen a third party candidate in a presidential election. How is that conducive to third parties?

    Believe it or not, the US and the Republicans and Democrats in particular, have engeneered US politics into a two party system.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page:
    Facebook Page:

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  5. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Dark Sovereign 0-o

    Oh for Christ sake it DOSE FAVOR the 2 parties, what more it favors the "approved" members of said 2 parties and have been paying attention to the Ron paul side of the RNC that almost had more people in it than the RNC!

    You need 3 things to run for high office support of Washington, money and the media without these 3 factors you will never EVER get anywhere, the system in place ensures money is only funneled into the selected candidates of the main parties by the approval of Washington(IE the current "rules" in place)  the media follows the money as well as is influenced where to go by its owners, making the process that much easier to push out anyone who dose not have the money or is selected by their "peers".

    Its a fcking joke!


    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)

  6. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The "system" doesn’t favor anybody. The Republicans and Democrats have the largest established bases, so they get the votes. We aren’t actually a party based system.

    This isn’t ice cream. You’re asked to choose your favorite. If you can’t do that, don’t vote.

  7. 0
    JustChris says:

    People don’t vote third parties because it’s too much of a risk to take, with the current popular voting system. What effect will it have on the nation if your primary choice is not that popular? We need to change that system first. Instant runoff voting allows you to choose several candidates and prioritize them from most to least preferred. This reduces the problem of "breakdown"…where the rules of a system tend to favor one or a few popular choices in the end.

    Let’s say I was asked what my favorite ice cream flavor was. Good, I’m entitled to an opinion, but it’s going to end up being mostly chocolate and vanilla getting exposure when you count in a lot of opinions.

    Now, they ask me what my top FIVE FLAVORS are. With the second example, I get to express more of my views on ice cream flavors. Now, people will be able to put down a few more of the odd flavors and they will get more mention from other people.

    The first example forces an artificially narrow viewpoint from a person, whether it’s ice cream or politics. We need to expand that range, since our views are not black and white. A lot of people act like sheep because there is no incentive for them to act otherwise.

  8. 0
    monte says:

    Censors DO care about what people think, hell that’s half the reason politicans have been trying to censor video games. The gamer voice is not as loud as the watchdog groups and their like, and are not seen as being the majority voters. Politicians believe the majority of voters are older and agree that video games should be censored. The moment gamers stand up and make it known that MOST voters will not support any effort to censor games is the day most politicians will stop attacking them.

    This is where the issue between book banning and video game banning are different. Books are excepted by the public, and much of the public that hates video games hold a double standard in favor of book. They will talk about how evil video games are but they won’t for a second apply any of those beliefs for books.


    When a politician attacks video games, millions cheer, millions don’t care, and millions of gamers groan… When a politician attacks books, millions just groan. Only a minority of people would ever support a book ban and only the most extreme censors would risk political suicide to keep moving with their ban. When the politcians attack video games however, the outrage is nothing by comparision as they hear a lot of support that drowns out the words of gamers(not to mention that they don’t take the gamers seriously)

  9. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    I, personally, often ask questions from simply wanting to have an answer. Again, you do nothing to directly link the firing and the question. Honestly, censors do not care what the people want. They believe that they censor for the public’s own good. Look at Jack Thompson. Politicians are no different.

    Again, it’s basically a tabloid story. If she was serious about it, we should have a list of books she objected to, and a list of books she tried to have removed. We don’t though. So, until we have anything other than vague accusations, and tenuously linked events, we have nothing.

  10. 0
    Monte says:

     The source for the information isn’t just one other politican. Sarah Palin has responded to the "book banning" comments by stating that her question if she could ban books was "rhetorical". Kind of BS when you consider asking WHY she would even bother asking such a question if she had no thoughts of moving foward with it. That alone tells us that the Sarah Palin DID talk about book banning. So we know for a fact that book banning was discussed.

    Next we have the librarian who was asked about it and said she would fight any form of censorship. The librarian was latter fired, but then rehired out of public outcry… question for what reason could the librarian be fired that would be so controversial that it would cause a public backlash that was big enough to get her rehired? Only answer that comes up is that she was fired for an illegitimate reason… considering this all happened after the question of banning books…


    "If she honestly wanted something censored, she would have ignored the protestors."

    Politicians like to keep voters happy. Part of the reason most politicians attack video games is not just their personal feelings about games, but because they think their voters would support them in such an action. Politicians however will not fight a loosing battle no matter what their personal feelings are… that’s like committing political suicide. If she went ahead with a plan to ban books from the library, the public reaction would spark debates and turn into a big controversy… and if she stayed the course you can bet that she would be voted out of office once re-elections rolled around. 

    She DID try to take action when she tried to fire the librarian… only thing is she abandoned ship the moment she realize that the people would not support such an action.

  11. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The problem with these charges is that they are basically a standard tabloid story posted in liberal rags.

    Let’s start with the problems shall we? 

    1) The source of the "controversy" has an axe to grind.

    2) No specifics are mentioned. You have to show what "censorship" was attempted before you have a case. Which books, authors, or topics were they talking about? There were no specific books mentioned. No offended beliefs mentioned, either. Hmmm… I wonder why?

    3) The article links two events without any solid connection between them. You can disagree about something once and then fire the person you disagreed with because they did something else. The articles rely on coincidences to prove the connection. That wouldn’t hold up anywhere.

    4) One person is the entirety of the source.

    5) Even if the statements did actually happen you run into the problem of talk versus actions: Talk is making a gun with your finger and saying bang. Action is taking a real gun and pulling the trigger.

    In other words, there is no reason to believe the source (the librarian). There isn’t a true link between the firing and the "conversation" other than coincidence. And that talk is worthless anyways.

    You assume that a politician who was truly interested in censoring something would restore a person because there wasn’t popular support for the action. If she honestly wanted something censored, she would have ignored the protestors.

  12. 0
    Bill says:

    Oh really?  Palin tried to ban books altogether?  "Down with paper cuts and small print, down with musty paper and cracking spines.  Ban the book!"    It’s like the fucking rumor game, the longer it’s passed down, the more outrageous it gets.

  13. 0
    -Jes- ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    And the chief librarian responded by saying that would be unconstitutional…

    Which resulted with said chief librarian being fired!


    Of course, said chief librarian was later rehired due to Palin suffering form political pressure from firing him/her in the first place!

  14. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    You don’t have to move. Get them to come for you. If you find a corp willing to offer a better deal, get a list of people who promise to take it if the corp will provide service. Businesses want money. If you offer them enough, they will give you what you want.

  15. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:


    So in order to make a "better choice" I have to move to where the corperations are not raping the public, thats a lulzy and arogant statemnt!

    If government can not regulate monopolies and unfair practices then what good is it?
    If it can not do that then it can not handle managing a country nor a war!

    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)

  16. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Then make a new choice. You don’t like the companies in your area? Find a company elsewhere that you do like and see if you can get them to set up shop where you are. Or start your own company. Don’t beg the government to save you like you’re a child.

  17. 0
    Are'el says:

    That’s a fairly ignorant stance, considering that most Americans don’t have a choice of providers.  In most areas, there are only one or two major telecommunication options for internet service.  Where I live, I’ve got one.

    Furthermore, if you consider that there ARE several ISPs out there, then every online company that doesn’t want to get drummed down the the slow lanes would have to pay ALL of them a seperate fee for priority service.  Which would mean smaller businesses are screwed.

    Here’s the thing about "rights."  People assume they have the "right" to do whatever the hell they want, and screw everyone else.  Yet, we have enviromental regulations that prevent us from drinking factory sludge and breathing fumes.  Because that’s what’s good for the community at large.  The same for Net Neutrality.  Access to information is the most important power the average person has.  To have that taken away or even just hampered, is a great disservice to us all.

    And wake up.  For all the talk about Capitalism, we really don’t follow a pure capitalistic philosophy in this country.  If you believe that, you’re a fool.  Such a system could not sustain itself.

  18. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    The creation of choice is what’s needed here. Maybe that will need government intervention, but I don’t think so. Monopolies hurt the consumer. The consumer usually doesn’t notice this problem.

  19. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Who said that you get to decide what is an is not "good for the community"? There’s a reason that this "problem" is mostly raised in the tech communities and almost nowhere else: it isn’t actually a problem for most people. It’s good for you, or you think it is- which is why you support it. That doesn’t mean that it’s what’s best for the community.

  20. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Duuuudddeeeeee….. thats like saying government will now not regulate monopolies and unfair business practices gives the choice between Pequod’s coffee and QueeQueg’s coffe only the prices are set to ensure profiting rates because they can over charge all they want because both companies are owned by the same conglomerate…

    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)


  21. 0
    Michael Brooks ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Obama has also advocated less government intervention, specifically saying in his acceptance speech that parents, not government, should turn off the TV (or something to that effect).

  22. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Except that he has never, ever, been able to refute the charges. And the DoJ isn’t stopping the "libel". He’s going to revive the fairness doctrine, so that ruins your second point, and since he never showed anything to prove the accusations wrong, it suggests that the libel charge is a fraudulent attempt to stop political opposition.

  23. 0
    -Jes- ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    There’s a difference between suing for gross publicated libel, and using governmental resources to "supress" political opinion.

    And Obama’s only guilty of the former, which is A-Ok according to free speech.

  24. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    No. There was a specific incident in which a writer went onto a radio show to discuss the political and personal connections between Barack Obama and William  Ayers, a unrepentant domestic terrorist. Obama had described him as "just a guy in my neighborhood", but others went out and found stronger ties. The Obama Action Plan (I think that’s what it’s called) put out a notice to all supporters to bombard the station to get them to take the writer off the air, or stop the show all together. Many called in, spamming the lines saying that they were going to get the show taken off the air by talking to the studio manager if needed. The Obama campaign also attempted to sue to get the show taken off. Obama’s supporters couldn’t refute anything brought up by the author, simply saying that "we just want it to stop". The DoJ charge didn’t survive either.

  25. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    They never said they were for timelines, Zip. They had to negotiate a deal to pull out the troops by 2011 because that’s what the Iraqis want and what the U.S. governmnet can do. We can’t actually pull out in 16 months. It’s physically impossible.

  26. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Good luck. I just think that there’s just so much going on that it’ll get overidden by other issues, like foreign policy (Iran, Russia) and the economy.

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

    McCain said it was outright the responsibility of the parents (i agree). Obama to my knowledge never said anything about regulating video games but did say the industry needs to do a better job of regulating itself and parents have to turn off the T.V.’s and video games and send their kids outside to play (sounds reasonable). Anywhoo, a least their views on the matter are better then that censorcrat Clinton.

  28. 0
    Anonymous ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The the game has an M or AO rating, it should be banned from minors.  Other than that, no issues…  It is all on the parents IMO, the government has no place to tell people how to parents, and the stupid parents out there need to get with the program and realize it is survival of the fittest, and they are not that fit.

  29. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    It’s a toss up. We’ve already seen distinct thug suppression tactics from the Obama campaign, and his European-style liberalism might very well bring the government interference with free speech that we see in Europe with it.

    On the other hand, the "compassionate conservatism" folks in the Republican camp are not well thought of in free speech circles. I haven’t seen anything to convince me that McCain is going to damage it in any way, but there’s always that slight chance.

    I’d throw the hat to McCain, though. Lots of scaling back government talk, and he’s made a point of praising American creativity. Not much, but there’s not much for either.

    It might fall to judicial choices. Obama: "living consitution" judges. They put everything in "context". Might see "hate speech" suppression with these guys. McCain: Judicial Restraint types. Constitutionalists, not known for expanding government.

  30. 0
    JustChris says:

    Anyone old enough to vote wouldn’t be affected by a ban of games to minors.

    However, as important as it is to protect free speech in video games, the bigger picture is more important. We should be asking ourselves, which administration would be better at preserving the First Amendment?

  31. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Isn’t it obvious? McCain, soley because Obama has repeatedly made it clear he doesn’t like the rest of the consituion or the bill of rights (or capitialism in general if his OWN books are too be belived…), so whats stoping him from ignoreing the first amendment?

  32. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    And Mcain dosen’t like habeas corpus or the rights of the public tonot be spied on via corperations and likes torutering….

    Ah MR’AnonyTroll how I have missed you!

    Mcain turned in his backbone to get nomination and will never be able to reinsert in even with the help of his MILF,hot lobbyist "girlfriend" and drugged "out of touch" beer empress wife!

    I like Omaba and all but the dims have their heads so firmly up their ass they would just fck up whatever a dim president could do, everyone in the US should l vote 3rd party just to vote the current bums out and show the US people refuse to take it anymore… it will enver happen…to many damn witless sheeple in the US.

    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)

  33. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    It doesn’t matter what you want them to do. You have no more right to dictate their actions than they do to dictate yours. You don’t like tiering? Find a new provider.

  34. 0
    Are'el says:

    While I certainly am not going to pick a President on their gaming stance, I do find two of the issues brought up in the article worthwhile.  Cencoship and Net Neutrality.

    Cencorship: Tie

    Obama has nver really said anything about the content of games.  Instead, he’s more concerned with how much time kids wasste playing them.  That’s smething I agree on.  McCain states that it’s the parents that should decide what a child can play, on a game-to-game basis.  Again, I agree with this.  Neither canidate seems interested in cencoring free speech as far as games go.

    Net Neutrality: Obama

    With McCain’s stance that there should be no federal regulation of this issue, I have to side with Obama on this one.  I don’t want the telecommunications companies to sort the internet into tiered priority content.  Which would be bad for games from smaller developers that couldn’t pay the fees for the fast lane.

  35. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    We might if it is pressed enough. I know that as the president of the OKC chapter of the ECA I will be asking all candidates for US House and Senate their stances on the video game issues and broader First Amendment Issues. I will also be working with the members of my chapter to pose the questions to the candidates for State House and Senate.

    I hope we will get something out of it.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page:
    Facebook Page:

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

Leave a Reply