FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Worst debate ever....
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3226
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm    Post subject: Worst debate ever.... Reply with quote

yeah, that's all I have to say.

Didn't the whole thing seem rather....staged? I think I saw a few folks drop their cheat sheets, including Ron Paul.

I guess I don't have to present that to the BFN audience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was actually entertained by this CNN/Youtube debate. The Youtube questions chosen seemed more direct (and to the point) than those given by moderators or audience members in some other debates I've seen over the years. It was fun watching the candidates squirming.

Of course, I think my perspective on debates is entirely different than in past years because I watched the movie The Candidate(1972) with Robert Redford http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068334/ for the first time only about a week or two ago. I saw the candidates as workers trying to please a lot of constituents at once. I appreciated the non-answers (like "the military should decide" or a "blue-ribbon panel should decide" on this and that issue) this time as practical answers, answers I would have hated in past years.

America wants a President who can bullshit himself out of any situation, because the ability to sell that type of response to the public allows a wide range of diplomatic options, both foreign and domestic. In 2000, Kerry and Bush were similar bullshitters, so the race was very, very close.

So, considering the limited range of things that is actually wise for any candidate - during a campaign - to actually utter out loud, I thought :

mostly positive reviews
Huckabee came off well (I knew nothing about him at the time),
McCain seemed experienced but also a little old,
Rudy Giuliani did okay as a frontrunner (didn't say anything too stupid)

mostly negative reviews
Mitt Romney is a MASS-HOLE (way too dogmatic)
Ron Paul (too dogmatic,a little scary, not the bullshitter we want or need)
Fred Thompson( old, not the bullshitter we want or need)
Tom Tancredo (who?)
Duncan Hunter (you scare people, too dogmatic, go build your fences elsewhere)
.............................................................

Robert Redford in The Candidate (1972)

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3226
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entertaining, yes.

Bullshit, yes.

So I agree! Funniest debate ever. Not worst perhaps.

And I am a Mass-Hole by the way. Wink


It grinds home the fact that change begins outside of the polls.

Mars, toxic toys?

I certainly have to send in some videos. I have some pretty crazy ideas on how to be subversive but in your face enough to tricking them into letting me on t.v as a snowman or something.

One of my favorites was the NAU question directed at Ron Paul. What a poop-head. I can't wait until his "brilliant" answer is highlighted on you-tube.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bri wrote:
Entertaining, yes.

Bullshit, yes.


It's a bullshitting contest.

I used to be angry or annoyed after these things because of the rhetoric, because I was judging the debate by the wrong criteria. It's a contest...of rhetoric...to see who can keep his cool, while conforming to his platform AND satisfying those that hate parts of the platform by giving the best, smoothest response.

In the past, I was completely misguided; it's like I was judging a (American) football game by counting sacks instead of touchdowns.

I now judge the candidates by the greatest amount of diplomatic flexibility the response gives; under some circumstances, if the answer is completely opposite of what I "sort of" believe, but the answer is smooth and given in a likable and friendly manner(this is hard to do without seeming condescending or artificial) and sells to mainstream America, I compliment the guy and judge the answer as "presidential." Hence, the candidate is doing his job.

I guess I'm using corporate criteria now. Flexibility and likability are keys to any response or viable candidate.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually watched the durned thing, because I was visiting folks who were interested.

As always, I am as interested in the audience response as I am the speaker, and as interested in the followers of a candidate as I am the candidate. Maybe that comes from being a performer and speaker myself. As a performer, I know that the audience makes the performance and the performer (given tens of thousands of hours of practice, and a lot of willingness to give yourself away, of course) is more like a channel for something than an object. Politics is dynamic and interactive, it shouldn't be seen as similar to picking merchandise off the shelf.

Observations -

The only thing that Romney was able to make a strong and decisive answer about was that he "believed in the Bible" - and that got a lot of enthusiastic applause.

Killing Arabs and believing in the Bible were the biggest crowd pleasers. Hippy bashing is still in - after 40 years! - and "we didn't lose the Viet Nam war it was the dissidents' fault" was trotted out by McCain.

Romney was disgustingly racist in his answer to the black-on-black crime problem. The problem with the Black family is a lack of jobs for the fathers, not some moral failing that would be remedied by instilling some of those "good ole American family values" into the colored folk. How can any Republican talk about "family values" with a straight face anymore anyway??

Huckabee was the only one who didn't seem robotic and mechanical to me.

Paul was surprisingly weak. There was a definite divide in the audience - can't remember when I saw that before among Republicans - with a small number of Paul supporters cheering for opposite positions from the rest of the candidates. The Paul supporters are painfully out of step with the Republican party, yet Paul gave a ringing endorsement to the party when asked if he would run as an independent. That means that the Paul supporters are also painfully out of step with Paul. I was embarrassed for them.

All of the candidates were waffling on abortion, weren't they? And “gay” just doesn’t have the thrill it once did, now that Republicans are all busy having gay sex instead of merely denouncing it.

Torture - Romney couldn't bring himself to take a stand - more "family values" I guess - and McCain took him apart on that.

Thompson has all of the pizzazz of a week old bowl of cold oatmeal. Tancredo is a lunatic.

Giuliani gave the best performance, using the method for judging suggested by Cracrocrates - "it's a contest...of rhetoric...to see who can keep his cool, while conforming to his platform AND satisfying those that hate parts of the platform by giving the best, smoothest response."

If Guiliani becomes the nominee, it will take the starch out of the shorts of the rabid right wing. I sense that the audience wanted to get their Bible thumpin' Arab-killin' hippy-hatin' librul-blamin' flag-wavin' party on, but none of those candidates were twiddling their swizzles for them.

Old, tired, uninspired and uninspiring - except mister perky peppy squeaky clean Romney, and he comes across as a light weight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ROFL!

Republican undecided chooses Edwards as winner of GOP debate!

LIVE on CNN. She said none of them convinced her to vote GOP. She's going for Edwards! Also, the rest of the undecideds were not impressed by any candidate on stage.

Edwards Campaign Statement On Romney "Two Americas" Attack In GOP Debate

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement in response to the attack on Senator Edwards in tonight's GOP debate by Governor Mitt Romney:

"In the debate tonight, Governor Romney was caught being deceptive about his own record. He is also being deceptive about whether there are two Americas – one for the most powerful and one for everyone else. News flash, Governor: The 98% of Americans who were not born to great wealth or who have not been given special privilege in our country struggle every day to make ends meet and provide opportunities for their families. No small part of their struggle is because the game has been rigged to protect those on top. It is not surprising Governor Romney proposes additional policies to assist the crowd on Easy Street. Unfortunately for him, the millions of Americans who live and work on Main Street know much more about the reality of where we are as a country."

pres release on Edwards site
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
city trader



Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 373

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
I actually watched the durned thing, because I was visiting folks who were interested.

As always, I am as interested in the audience response as I am the speaker, and as interested in the followers of a candidate as I am the candidate. Maybe that comes from being a performer and speaker myself. As a performer, I know that the audience makes the performance and the performer (given tens of thousands of hours of practice, and a lot of willingness to give yourself away, of course) is more like a channel for something than an object. Politics is dynamic and interactive, it shouldn't be seen as similar to picking merchandise off the shelf.

Observations -

The only thing that Romney was able to make a strong and decisive answer about was that he "believed in the Bible" - and that got a lot of enthusiastic applause.

Killing Arabs and believing in the Bible were the biggest crowd pleasers. Hippy bashing is still in - after 40 years! - and "we didn't lose the Viet Nam war it was the dissidents' fault" was trotted out by McCain.

Romney was disgustingly racist in his answer to the black-on-black crime problem. The problem with the Black family is a lack of jobs for the fathers, not some moral failing that would be remedied by instilling some of those "good ole American family values" into the colored folk. How can any Republican talk about "family values" with a straight face anymore anyway??

Huckabee was the only one who didn't seem robotic and mechanical to me.

Paul was surprisingly weak. There was a definite divide in the audience - can't remember when I saw that before among Republicans - with a small number of Paul supporters cheering for opposite positions from the rest of the candidates. The Paul supporters are painfully out of step with the Republican party, yet Paul gave a ringing endorsement to the party when asked if he would run as an independent. That means that the Paul supporters are also painfully out of step with Paul. I was embarrassed for them.

All of the candidates were waffling on abortion, weren't they? And “gay” just doesn’t have the thrill it once did, now that Republicans are all busy having gay sex instead of merely denouncing it.

Torture - Romney couldn't bring himself to take a stand - more "family values" I guess - and McCain took him apart on that.

Thompson has all of the pizzazz of a week old bowl of cold oatmeal. Tancredo is a lunatic.

Giuliani gave the best performance, using the method for judging suggested by Cracrocrates - "it's a contest...of rhetoric...to see who can keep his cool, while conforming to his platform AND satisfying those that hate parts of the platform by giving the best, smoothest response."

If Guiliani becomes the nominee, it will take the starch out of the shorts of the rabid right wing. I sense that the audience wanted to get their Bible thumpin' Arab-killin' hippy-hatin' librul-blamin' flag-wavin' party on, but none of those candidates were twiddling their swizzles for them.

Old, tired, uninspired and uninspiring - except mister perky peppy squeaky clean Romney, and he comes across as a light weight.


Mike lets get this right, the Book that they read from is not the true Bible.
If you look at recent history the banksters have ruined at least the Christian message in Russia first then Germany with hitler and now America.
But there are many Americans who can see that both the nazi's and comies are athiest with the nazi's playing for the right side team pretending to be Christian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
city trader



Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 373

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double post apologies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3226
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul did indeed look pretty weak up there. Yet everyone I know still blindly supports him, even when he gets p'wned, for better or for worse.

The fact that he keeps name-dropping Reagan is a huge red-flag for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3226
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:


Of course, I think my perspective on debates is entirely different than in past years because I watched the movie The Candidate(1972) [b]with Robert Redford


Ever see the movie "SPIN"? I think you would like it.

"There's no make-up here?"

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

city trader wrote:
Mike lets get this right, the Book that they read from is not the true Bible.

If you look at recent history the banksters have ruined at least the Christian message in Russia first then Germany with hitler and now America.
But there are many Americans who can see that both the nazi's and comies are athiest with the nazi's playing for the right side team pretending to be Christian.


Hey city trader, I thought you might weigh in on this.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

I was paying attention as first a Catholic, then a Mormon, then a Baptist answered that question. I hope I am not being too uncharitable to say that all three of them are full of it. They might as well throw the Bible in the mud and trample on it. It was ugly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:07 pm    Post subject: Look into any mirror.... Reply with quote

Bosses hire people that are as much like them (or seem to be) as possible. (A good tack to take when going thru job interviews...). Everyone, through the process of similitude, feels the least threatened by someone who agrees with them the most. This is the job of the adroit politician. He must be seen and felt to be your best friend.

So, in these "debates", the candidate that comes across as the most amiable and the least contentious becomes the least threatening. Fear is a potent and effective motivator but outright threats and a bellicose nature just engenders a negative reaction. Watch them and see how often they make references that will align and identify themselves with the common man. No one debates policies or ideologies anymore (did they really ever?) as those are way too polarizing and controversial.

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.