The Great (yawn) US Presidential Debates of 2004 (no spam)
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I noticed that Bush stopped beating his flip-flop horse into the ground, and now has a new one to kill: the ultimate liberal tag. It's kinda funny, because with the exception of one year in his nearly 20 years in Congress, Kerry's been far less liberal than Kennedy--though of course, Bush had to say otherwise. Caught another "let's twist a lie into the semblance of truth" from Bush: his comment that he'd met with the black caucus. Actually, Bush never answered their request for a meeting over Haiti (I remember when they were getting coverage for that), so they went to he White House unannounced and caught him flatfooted. Yeah, he met with them, alright. After they'd cornered him.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=InfiniteNature]Kerry yes kinda of skimmed over some issues, just kept saying he had a plan.
I mean how can you lose to such a blatantly obtuse and incompetent person.
[/QUOTE]
Explain how anyone can comprehensively set forth a plan inside the 2 minutes or less the Press typically gives the "debaters" to answer?
I mean how can you lose to such a blatantly obtuse and incompetent person.
[/QUOTE]
Explain how anyone can comprehensively set forth a plan inside the 2 minutes or less the Press typically gives the "debaters" to answer?
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
[QUOTE=Sojourner]Explain how anyone can comprehensively set forth a plan inside the 2 minutes or less the Press typically gives the "debaters" to answer?[/QUOTE]
That will always be problems with such debates.
The pace has to be fast enough to not loose the people that listen/view's interest (which in the modern day of zapping is very short) all the while having to give the impression that a solid plan exists.
If politicians started to descripe their plans (many) people would soon loose interests because of the amount of figures and details. Personally - I'm sick of hearing about plans and I want details but I know I'm not average when it comes to that.
Such detabing in regards of plans is impossible, in my opinnion, and only benefits the more "charismatic" person that can throw around some buzzwords and look convicing. It dosn't favor the one with the best plan at all.
That will always be problems with such debates.
The pace has to be fast enough to not loose the people that listen/view's interest (which in the modern day of zapping is very short) all the while having to give the impression that a solid plan exists.
If politicians started to descripe their plans (many) people would soon loose interests because of the amount of figures and details. Personally - I'm sick of hearing about plans and I want details but I know I'm not average when it comes to that.
Such detabing in regards of plans is impossible, in my opinnion, and only benefits the more "charismatic" person that can throw around some buzzwords and look convicing. It dosn't favor the one with the best plan at all.
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I'll gladly accept plans explained in detail, provided they're not fairytales that imply I'm stupid enough to accept whatever BS is handed out. This is one of the major reasons I loathe listening to politicians: they explain things, not in dumbed-down terminology, but in a world view that is dumbed-down for children and idiots. When I first heard the neo-con rhetoric about the MidEast and Asia in the early 1980s (courtesy of Reagan's cabinet), I thought to myself, "Are these people fools, or do they simply think I'm a fool, and will accept such a blatantly inaccurate, unresearched, one-dimensional view of reality?"
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Well, Fable, I see all this criticism of Kerry's "nuanced approach", so I've got to wonder.
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Sojourner]Well, Fable, I see all this criticism of Kerry's "nuanced approach", so I've got to wonder.[/QUOTE]
No need to wonder, @Sojourner: you're perfectly right, there. Most Americans--most people--have never been trained to demand answers from politicians in all the complexity required, and seriously evaluate the results. I know I'm in a minority (though almost certainly not on this board). And politicians know they can get away with condescending to the electorate. I think this is especially true in nations like the US and Canada, where there is an anti-intellectual tradition and a feeling that somehow, people are less honest if they can't give an answer to any question in less than ten words.
No need to wonder, @Sojourner: you're perfectly right, there. Most Americans--most people--have never been trained to demand answers from politicians in all the complexity required, and seriously evaluate the results. I know I'm in a minority (though almost certainly not on this board). And politicians know they can get away with condescending to the electorate. I think this is especially true in nations like the US and Canada, where there is an anti-intellectual tradition and a feeling that somehow, people are less honest if they can't give an answer to any question in less than ten words.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]I think this is especially true in nations like the US and Canada, where there is an anti-intellectual tradition and a feeling that somehow, people are less honest if they can't give an answer to any question in less than ten words.[/QUOTE]
Hmm... I'm not completely convinced...
Certainly he had his opponents and critics, many who did bridle at this very trait.. but the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau managed to successively and successfully achieve re-election despite, and in some cases because of, his intellectual character.
Hmm... I'm not completely convinced...
Certainly he had his opponents and critics, many who did bridle at this very trait.. but the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau managed to successively and successfully achieve re-election despite, and in some cases because of, his intellectual character.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
I hope this isn't considered spam, but I found today's issue of Sinfest to be extremely appropriate for the current situation.
/spam
/spam
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=dragon wench]Hmm... I'm not completely convinced...
Certainly he had his opponents and critics, many who did bridle at this very trait.. but the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau managed to successively and successfully achieve re-election despite, and in some cases because of, his intellectual character.[/QUOTE]
Trudeau is a rather curious case. I'd call him an exception to the general rule about North American politicians. Another wold be Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate whose misfortune it was to run against a popular general for the US presidential post after WWII. Despite losing, Stevenson came off extremely well. I suspect it was because of his focus, modesty, and sense of humor. These are characteristics I think he shares with Trudeau (well, all except the modesty point). But in general, US and Canadian politics is all about seeming to be like the person-next-door, rather than like the extremely competent, affluent lawyer, academician or industrialist that they usually are.
Certainly he had his opponents and critics, many who did bridle at this very trait.. but the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau managed to successively and successfully achieve re-election despite, and in some cases because of, his intellectual character.[/QUOTE]
Trudeau is a rather curious case. I'd call him an exception to the general rule about North American politicians. Another wold be Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate whose misfortune it was to run against a popular general for the US presidential post after WWII. Despite losing, Stevenson came off extremely well. I suspect it was because of his focus, modesty, and sense of humor. These are characteristics I think he shares with Trudeau (well, all except the modesty point). But in general, US and Canadian politics is all about seeming to be like the person-next-door, rather than like the extremely competent, affluent lawyer, academician or industrialist that they usually are.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable] But in general, US and Canadian politics is all about seeming to be like the person-next-door, rather than like the extremely competent, affluent lawyer, academician or industrialist that they usually are.[/QUOTE]
It would probably be interesting to look into the whole Trudeau era from a sociological angle; in Canadian culture, at the time, he very much epitomised a new and progressive sense of national self-awareness, and identity upon the global stage... No doubt such has been done, but I have not really spent any time there myself
I do agree, though, that there have certainly been an overwhelming number of North American politicians who have cultivated the folksy 'guy next door' image. Ronald Reagan had it mastered down to a fine art form as I recall, and Dubya, while he has had limited success in this regard, has also attempted to emulate the simple, neighbourly persona. Even Jean Chretien, despite his reputation as shrewd, wily and controlling went to considerable length to convey the image of "Da little guy from Shawinigan."
Sorry, if I got a tad off-topic there
It would probably be interesting to look into the whole Trudeau era from a sociological angle; in Canadian culture, at the time, he very much epitomised a new and progressive sense of national self-awareness, and identity upon the global stage... No doubt such has been done, but I have not really spent any time there myself
I do agree, though, that there have certainly been an overwhelming number of North American politicians who have cultivated the folksy 'guy next door' image. Ronald Reagan had it mastered down to a fine art form as I recall, and Dubya, while he has had limited success in this regard, has also attempted to emulate the simple, neighbourly persona. Even Jean Chretien, despite his reputation as shrewd, wily and controlling went to considerable length to convey the image of "Da little guy from Shawinigan."
Sorry, if I got a tad off-topic there
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12