A FACEBOOK user from Guam posted this status on her timeline: “Darn! I missed another debate! Thank you all for the varying summaries. What I got from it – a bunch of malarkey!”

This was followed by a thread:

“Biden kept grinning and laughing like a pompous (expletive). Ryan looked like a pretty boy begging to be taken seriously.”

“I don't care much for debates. But I love reading everyone's comments. Grinning and laughing, usually means, oh no, I'm screwed.”

“Actually he was grinning and laughing with contempt while Ryan was talking, as if thinking, ‘hahaha, this kid, someday he will learn.’”

“Biden acted like a total (expletive) during the debate. He laughed giggled and interrupted while Ryan was talking. But I thought Congressman Ryan held his own and was able make great points. Ryan was very respectful, professional a man who showed true leadership. Unlike the idiot Biden ... he was embarrassing.”

“Great choices: An (expletive) or a pretty boy trying to be a man!”

“I don't understand what congressman's Ryan looks have to do with the debate. I think he had great points to make and answered the questions well and he made sense.”

“It amazes me that people are discussing Paul Ryan's good looks and age? Really? That's all you got out of the debate?”

I must admit I learned something from the vice presidential debate: the word “malarkey,” which is now my new favorite word because it’s fun to say. Say it again: malarkey.

But really. For some, the fun of watching a debate is all they get out of it. Some have already made up their mind and would therefore make a case for the candidate they are rooting for. The ideological zealots will stay in their respective camps, where they get their pre-packaged belief systems. The conservatives believe they have a personal contract with God; the liberals believe in Santa Claus; the journalists believe in the code of open bar. The undecided are likely to remain cynical, skeptical and, uh, um, hmm, undecided.

Frankly, I have no clue how they score debates. I have no idea how they can make an objective determination of who wins, especially when the moderator doesn’t hide his or her biases and prejudices.

But we watch debates just the same because they keep us abreast of pop culture. The blunders keep us entertained. I’m not saying we don’t get anything at all. We do. We’ve learned, for example, that Big Bird is a menace who causes a federal deficit. The debates have also fed us a bunch of statistics. We just have to figure out what to do with these numbers and percentage signs and how to make them useful in our daily lives.

Obama and Romney, and their image builders, are obviously well aware that performance in front of the camera earns points, which they thought they could get by padding their two minutes with “a bunch of malarkey.” Hence Tuesday’s more animated presidential debate, which produced the favorite expression of the week: “binders full of women.”

Speaking of which, did the Massachusetts governor really think he could secure the women bloc by over-pandering to this sector like a feminist avenger? Affirmative action is passé. Romney’s idea of hiring “binders of women” because they are women reverses the gains of the movement for equality in America. I’m surprised that Romney’s ostentatious refusal to hire qualified male job applicants just because they’re men has not stirred a misogynist movement.

If anything, it alienates the segment of the female population which believes special favors are unnecessary. They just need to get compensated fairly for what they do.

Politicians are willing to make fools of themselves. And while voters may enjoy the privilege of mocking candidates, they do want to make the right choice – or what they perceive to be the right choice.

At the end of the day, we vote for the candidate to whom we can relate on a personal level. But we live on Guam; we don’t get to vote for president. And if this were a debate, the moderator would remind me my two minutes are up, so I end this malarkey.