Like many people, I watched the Presidential debate. Ironically, my biggest concern was not the debate itself, nor the views held by the Republican or Democrat candidate; my biggest concern was that it seems we are entering an era where people are being conditioned into placing an exaggerated value on who is a better debater rather than placing value on the ideas themselves that were presented.
The truth at least for myself, is that my vote isn't determined by "who won the debate" or someone's debate skills. I fully understand that sometimes people who have the better ideas may not have the same level of skill in making their case to others as someone else.
This is compounded by the fact that "who won the debate" is subjective to our own views on the role of government. Its like picking pizza toppings, its been said that no two people can agree on them. Some people love anchovies; others get sick at even the thought of them. Its simply not a fair question to ask because its relative to who's asking and who's answering.
The first Presidential debate, which occurred earlier today did not sway me at all from who I plan to vote for come November. Granted, there is something to be said about how well someone can convey their thoughts, especially in a position of leadership, and I suppose that everybody weighs that characteristic differently in their assessment of candidates for public office. That characteristic holds very little weight with me - some, but very little.
I am concerned, however, that there seems to be a conditioning to make an individual's debating skills more significant; as if debating skills are more important than policy and fundamental beliefs about the role government.
So who won the debate? I'll leave that to those who care about an individual's debating skills. I think both candidates didn't really win over many undecided voters but went par for the course for their constituent base. In the end, at least in my case, my vote will go to not the best debater but to the one that shares views that are most closely aligned to my own.
I watched the debate but found reading the transcript with fact check and annotation to be even more interesting in that it really highlighted Trump's lack of experience, knowledge and diplomacy. http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate
I think a lot of voters are more concerned about perception than facts, and we all know that facts can be interpreted in many different ways, so I don't hold a lot of value in fact checkers.
Often, when I do take the time to read some of the fact checking they write all this stuff about the facts and then slap a rating on the statement or statements (or past actions), but when you read the stuff prior to the rating you see that they made an interpretation based on their world view to come to that rating. A lot of this stuff stuff is subjective but requires an objective view. The fact checking phenomenon fails at this, which makes them untrustworthy.
I was more interested in seeing the tweets and interviews that contradicted Trump's claims that he "never said that." I suspect he says a lot of things without really thinking about the long-term implications.
I think Trump is a person who is often misinterpreted if you are not from or not familiar with how people from the Northeastern region speak and I can see how that could pose an issue. He's definitely a New Yorker and more generally a New Englander, and not everyone in the United States is familiar with how they communicate / convey their thoughts to others in that region.
He says stuff, yes, but I can see how some groups of people (or people from certain regions of the United States) don't get it when he's joking or intentionally exaggerating for emphasis or to make a point. If Trump is guilty of anything, its assuming that all the people in the United States, regardless of which part they are from or have lived in, understand the cultural, linguistic and personality (with respect to communication) differences from New England to other parts of the country.
Applying Occam's razor, I just think he's opportunistic and intellectually challenged.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. :)
Most of the comments I've seen on the debate start at "ewwwwwwwww" and go south from there. It would appear that there are only losers....
Three Hundred plus million people in this country and those two are the best we can come up with?
The biggest losers in last night's debate are we the people. Oligarchs disgust me.
Perhaps we just need to take a wrecking ball not to our Constitution, but to the political process. Thing is, its just so difficult to change things now in order "to form a more perfect Union".
Yeah, I'm definitely not getting into the mess of the candidates themselves. My concerns start at the top of the world economy (the World Bank, IMF and BIS). National politics, in any country, are inconsequential to me and will probably continue to be until we sort the world's financial mess out.
what evidence do you have to support the idea that the world economy (any economy) can be managed?
That's what the World Bank, the IMF and BIS do.
I found it interesting that it looks like they are going to go ahead with "expanding the use" of special drawing rights (SDR), whatever "expanding its use" actually means. They're adding China's currency to the SDR basket in what, a month or two, which will most likely help stabilize things given China's influence in the world economy now - as long as China plays nice, of course.
Additionally, banks in the United States (from the Federal Reserve all the way down to the local banks) will be running on Basel Level III regulations soon (from the BIS) so clearly they are being managed. How well are they being managed? Well, that's left to be determined by history.
The BIS has told central banks to shape up for years now, but they have not complied. They seem to be on the road to complying now given that one by one they are becoming insolvent.
It also helps that there are decentralized currencies popping up all over the place, like Bitcoin and Steem that are based upon transparency due to the definition and nature of what a blockchain is.
In politics, debating is about spewing mantras, getting the upper hand and scoring points with voters. A person is the winner.
Discussions are about listening, speaking, reasoning, being intellectually honest, and finding good solutions. Everybody wins.
Politicians should be judged on their honesty, intelligence, good will, ideas, immunity to lobbyists and willingness to admit mistakes, to name but a few, and those are not things they can show in these "debates".
As long as the audience, the voters, are too thick to realise that a debate doesn't in any way show who is the best person for the job, and keep watching debates on television and talking about them and basing decisions on them, they run the risk of putting the less-than-optimal politicians in power. Mind you, they deserve what they get.
I am actually surprised not all of your post-WWII presidents have been shady and dishonest.
FYI: I'm Dutch, and following USA politics. Our own political discourse is rapidly moving in the same direction.
A lot of great thoughts in there, @ocrdu, I appreciate it. I'm not sure a debate has to have a winner (I think the media has played into conditioning that it does, at least here in the United States), but distinguishing a difference between a debate and a discussion makes a lot of sense.
You're right, politicians should be judged on the things you mentioned and it would be difficult to demonstrate or illustrate those in a debate - at least a real debate.
I hope the direction changes across the pond in the Netherlands. I almost said Denmark, I always get "Danish" and "Dutch" mixed up. We have a tulip festival here in Holland, Michigan every year. Lots of dancing wooden shoes, beautiful flowers and of course the windmills. :)
No marihuana then?
Heh, well, I've never smoked marijuana (or any narcotic) but I'm sure that if anyone wants marijuana here in the United States they would have no problem acquiring it. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether or not that is a good thing.
I just mentioned it because it seems to fit in the wooden shoes, tulips and windmill category 8-). Image is hard to shake off, even when marihuana use in The Netherlands is far lower than in the USA.
I do admit, hesitantly, that I have owned a pair of wooden shoes and that there are tulips in my garden.
Isn't that interesting, that when something is made legal its usage tends to go down dramatically? Maybe there is a psychological thing going on there, where something is more attractive if it is difficult or illegal to do.
There is no debating that Trump has the sniffles. Perhaps he is a coke adict? or maybe he's allergic to smart women ;-) How about take some claritin! Blow your nose, dood! Sniffgate!
lol, sniffles or not, Trump's body never went stiff and never was dragged into a car by assistants. There is no comparison. This whole "sniffgate" thing that's going around the Internet is so juvenile that its actually worse than Trump's own behavior.
It really discredits anyone who is trying to make the case that Trump is the worse candidate because they're making themselves look worse than him.
Nobody posting that type of junk is building their case to convince others to jump off the Trump Train. Quite the opposite, actually - stuff like this actually validates what Trump is saying, which is more scary than him (or someone else) just saying stuff, because what he's saying now has validity and is legitimate.
that doesn't make any sense. I get it, you like Trump. But no one is 'making a case' against trump by discussing the sniffing! It's a funny response to all the people imagining that HIllary has some disease because they saw her practically faint from exhaustion/pneumonia. Meanwhile, the list of Trumps actual unpreparedness to be president is huuuuge!
Neither of the two major party candidates are qualified. One is unprepared, the other one has a track record of experience that leaves a lot to be desired.