So...

[Dragon Star]

Anyone watching the Republican Debate?

Within the first five minutes, it was already the best debate I have seen yet.

[Lance]

Why? Did they all exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

Who was left standing?

[Dragon Star]

lol, no, not exactly. But there was more flaming then I had seen in the past right from the start, low blow after low blow. I must say though, some of the attacks were quite witty. The crowd was cheering.:)

(and ironically, there was a good bit of discussion about the 2nd amendment rights...likely a subconscious desire :P)

One of the candidates (don't remember which one) kinda blew up for a while, he was spitting all over stage and smacking the desk a lot. Don't believe that gained him many votes from the non radicals...

But over all, I was kinda impressed with Rudy. Throughout the entire debate, he remained calm, cool, and collected even under fire. Many of the others showed signs of weakness when their soft spots were poked. John also did very well under ridicule. (not saying I agree with all of their points, only they held composure better)

Based on what I saw last night (which is ALL I'm including) Rudy should be president of the Republicans.

Thoughts?

[Superluminal]

Well look at the job he did in NYC, survived 911 and has the balls to wear a dress on SNL. Anyone who does all that should be POTUS.

[Enzo]

Well, when we start making folks president based upon their demeanor on an artificial debate stage, Rudy might be something.

[Мастер]

Well, when we start making folks president based upon their demeanor on an artificial debate stage, Rudy might be something.

What do you mean, "when we start"? I thought this had been standard practice for many years!

[Enzo]

Good point.

I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.

My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good

[Мастер]

Good point.

I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.

My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good

Before my time, but I remember reading articles about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy is described as a modern, media-savvy politician, with Nixon criticized as old-school, for example, Kennedy would look at the camera while speaking, whereas Nixon would look at the debate moderator, etc. :)

When it comes to politics, it is hard to top Sir Humphrey Appleby :)

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Good point.

I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.

My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good

Before my time, but I remember reading articles about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy is described as a modern, media-savvy politician, with Nixon criticized as old-school, for example, Kennedy would look at the camera while speaking, whereas Nixon would look at the debate moderator, etc. :)

Kennedy also just looked better.

From Wikipedia:

Nixon was generally considered to be the “loser” of that first debate, mainly because he did not prepare for the possibilities and peculiarities of the medium of television. His poor makeup, haggard appearance due to a knee injury and hospitalization earlier in the month, and his grey suit, which blended into the backdrop of the set, contributed to Nixon's poor showing on TV, although his performance came across much better on the radio. While the consensus on the three subsequent debates was that Nixon clearly performed better and even won in some cases, his TV performance in that first debate haunted him for the rest of the season.

Considering that Kennedy won by only a 0.2% margin appearances definitely changed history.

When it comes to politics, it is hard to top Sir Humphrey Appleby :)

Here are some Sir Humphrey quotes for your enjoyment.

[KLA2]

Good point.

I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.

My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good

Before my time, but I remember reading articles about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy is described as a modern, media-savvy politician, with Nixon criticized as old-school, for example, Kennedy would look at the camera while speaking, whereas Nixon would look at the debate moderator, etc. :)

When it comes to politics, it is hard to top Sir Humphrey Appleby :)

A trick of the eye; in context, as I scanned that, I saw Sir Hubert Humphry.

Hope you find that as amusing as I did.

[Dragon Star]

Well, when we start making folks president based upon their demeanor on an artificial debate stage, Rudy might be something.

Care to explain?

[Мастер]

A trick of the eye; in context, as I scanned that, I saw Sir Hubert Humphry.

But if he is American, he can't be "Sir," can he? Not even Canadians can be called "Sir," right? Or do I know understand the protocol of nobility properly?

Hope you find that as amusing as I did.

Not nearly as amusing as "Dalton McGuinty" :P

[Enzo]

I have no idea either. Can the queen knight someone not a citizen of the empire?

But assuming she could, I don't know why we couldn't refer to one as Sir. The title would have no effect here. We have Dr.Phil on TV, I think it would be kinda like that. Dr. Demento on radio and TV. And Dr.Pepper in the cooler.



Explain? Sure. I don't consider demeanor to be an indicator of leadership and wisdom. Nor an indicator of how good a decision maker one would be under fire. Remember after 9/11, Rudy was the guy yelling about maybe not letting the new mayor-elect take over.

Both Tom Landry AND John Madden were effective, winning football coaches. If public demeanor determined leadership, ONE of those guys would have been a loser.

[Мастер]

I have no idea either. Can the queen knight someone not a citizen of the empire?

Yes (e.g., Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush), but my understanding is that they don't acquire the title "sir." I'm not absolutely sure though.

But assuming she could, I don't know why we couldn't refer to one as Sir. The title would have no effect here. We have Dr.Phil on TV, I think it would be kinda like that. Dr. Demento on radio and TV. And Dr.Pepper in the cooler.

We can call them whatever we like :) But my understanding is that in the official royal protocol, non-British citizens who are knighted are not "sir." But again, this is just something I picked up somewhere, it could be wrong...

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

But my understanding is that in the official royal protocol, non-British citizens who are knighted are not "sir." But again, this is just something I picked up somewhere, it could be wrong...

Almost.

Most members are citizens of the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth realms of which the Queen is Head of State. Citizens of other countries, however, may be admitted as "honorary members". They do not count towards the numerical limits aforementioned, nor are holders of the GBE, KBE or DBE addressed as "Sir" or "Dame". They may be made full members if they subsequently become British citizens or citizens of other realms of the Queen.

Which means that 'Sir' Bob Geldof (an Irish Republic national) isn't officially called Sir.

But:

We can call them whatever we like :)

IIRC Bill Gates is a Knight of the British Empire.

[KLA2]

^ Lighten up, folks! Seeing "Sir" before I did a double-take was part of the humour.

I do know that Lord Black of Crossharbour (nee Conrad Black) had to give up his Canadian citizenship to receive a peerage (from Britain), a decision he has come to regret. :wink:

[Dragon Star]

Explain? Sure. I don't consider demeanor to be an indicator of leadership and wisdom. Nor an indicator of how good a decision maker one would be under fire. Remember after 9/11, Rudy was the guy yelling about maybe not letting the new mayor-elect take over.

Both Tom Landry AND John Madden were effective, winning football coaches. If public demeanor determined leadership, ONE of those guys would have been a loser.

Oh, I apologize Enzo, I mean can you explain as to what you believe would make a good president?

Anyone can say "I don't consider *insert anything here*", but what DO you consider?

I'm not calling you out, but trying to get some decent discussion going.

*Based on the lack of what I thought would exist in this thread, I'm moving it where it belongs in the Politics section.

[Enzo]

I often hear remarks after these "debates" that so and so "looked presidential." That to me means nothing other than that the observer was focused on inconsequentials and superficiality. Presidents are supposed to look thus and so, otherwise they don't fit my Hollywood image of what they ought to look like.

A $4000 suit does not make a man a better president.

One should not vote for or against H. Ross Perot because he is loud squeaky, brash, and so on. We shoud vote on him either way because of the type of decisions we think he would make when it mattered. Standing there stolid, strong and silent in the face of oncoming enemy attacks looks great on the screen with John Wayne, but give me the guy who ducks and is already on the phone planning our response.

I have a number of views on superficiality in AMerica. Not that I am not guiulty of it myself, I am sure I am. I read the human resourse stuff in the paper. There is always a self-help column or two on how to land a job interview, what to say there, and so on. They almost never focus on how to actually sell yourself and how to make best use of you experience. they wory about what paper the resume was on, what the follow up letter to the copmpany should say, and so on. I used to fly around the country myself hiring local staff for our operations. I assure you I was not interested in people because they were real good at looking for a job. I wanted people who know how to DO the damn job. If the candidate did not know the latest on body language and what color tie to wear, I cared not.

One column recently proposed that your follow up letter thanking the company for the interview should be hand written! "It shows you are willing to make that extra effort." Bull. My reaction would be, "What, this guy can't find a typewriter or word processor?" Just an example of someone rationalizing theri idea. Hand written my ass.

Just so, presidential candidates. All of these presentations are cynical exercises in marketing. ANyone who thinks that cell phone call Rudy took in the middle of one of these debates wasn't planned should call me and we can discuss sale terms on a great brdge they have there in New York. Of course they want us to see that as Rudy always having time for loved ones or something. Fooey - total stunt.

Stern ruler of state. Sure. SOmeone like Fred Thompson wants us to think of him as his TV characters. So he acts like them.

I want wisdom, not a perfectly done necktie. I want compassion, not a stone faced far off look into that big future in the sky.

In fact, I rarely watch the debates, since I expect to only see something real there by accident. Every question is anticipated, and every response practiced. Opponent remarks are anticipated and zingers are made ready to hurl at them. None of this is insight into the leadership of these people. Anything actually unexpected that comes out of it will be in the papers tomorrow anyway.

One of my favorite bits on the Daily SHow was the tape put together of George W Bush contradicting himself. On a split screen they had Governor Bush making statements while running for president, then on the other side they had President Bush making contradictory statements AS president. For example Gov Bush telling voters the USA shuold not be in the business of nation building, then as president telling us it is our duty as the world's superpower to engage in nation building. OOOOO K.

I look for someone who I don't think is pandering to me. I want to hear consistency. I don't want someone like John McCain looking good one day talking about how the world will judge us by how we mistreat our prisoners of war, then turning around and supporting how we treat them. You let me down JOhn, I thought you might be someone we could trust. I don't agree with his politics, but John seemed at first like a straight shooter.

I remember a guy a while back named Paul Tsongas running for president. I liked him. I thought he made a lot of sense talking about the economy and tax policy. Reagan told us what we wanted to hear - he was going to lower taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. No Ron, you're not.

I want to see someone do what they say they will. I don't want to see this COnservative Correctness that we have now. That is where we say the "right" things but don't really do them. Education is important, No CHild Left Behind. Uh huh, except we never provide the funding for the program. We support the troops. yep, hear that every day, usually the same day we hear of another benefit cut, extended deployment, or other smack in the face. I want to see a person with a record of getting done what he claims to do.

2600 soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard returned from Iraq. At 22 months, the longest consecutive deployment of a unit. They do not qualify for education benefits. WHy? Law allows benefits for only those on active duty 730 days or more. The Minnesota Guard's orders were specifically written for a 729 day deployment. SImilar limits on some other units were also so written. Clearly they meant to screw these people from the beginnning. A total slap in the face to the guard, and frankly to all of us.

I would expect a leader to end such practices, or at least point out that he opposes them. I would expect a leader to look at Walter Reed and be apalled, and then DO SOMETHING about it.

Now some people at this point might say "Yeah well, they are all crooks and liars, you can't believe any of them." OK, fair enough. If that is the case, what difference does the debate make and who cares how they look?

[Dragon Star]

Now THATS a response, thanks! :D

Does a persons history directly, and I mean directly represent every action they'll have in office? It seems to me we play too much into this as an American body. "Did drugs 30 years ago?!! OMG they can't be president!" Well why the hell not? Pay attention to what they are as a human now and what they plan to do, not particularly their personal history. This is a real pet peeve of mine.

People vote for someone who looks good because no one can truly read the intent of a person inside. So they go with the only thing they can see, the better that is, perhaps the reflection of intent and word lines up. Otherwise the only thing we have to go by truly is the crap that spews out of their mouth.

Here is my position, I won't vote for anyone I don't totally stand behind. To date, there is only one person that I would vote for, and it's not anyone who is running now. So therefor I simply won't vote. I think it's silly for everyone to vote no matter what they are voting for. I know lots of people who said "yea, I voted for Bush because I hated the other guy even more." Sure, that's a great reason.

It's like being given the choice to give all of your money to either a drug dealer or a robber. Uh, don't believe I would pick either one, actually. I think I'd rather burn my money.

For a country that demands perfection, we sure don't enforce it very well.

[Enzo]

I may not like any of the choices, but I always vote. It is more than just supporting someone, it is also selecting which undesired choice it will be. ONE of those people is going to be it. Maybe you don't want Hillary, but you really really don't want Rudy. That there is a choice to be made.

Besides, there are always many other things on the ballot. Senators and congressmen, judges and state reps, ballot initiatives and referrenda.

I get to vote every so often to renew the millage - property tax - that pays for having an ambulance in our rural township. I vote on how 911 phone service is paid.

The ROmney versus Obama choice is only one line on the ballot.

Got some judge in your district who never takes women's issues seriously? VOte him out. GOt some law and order forever bastard who locks folks up forever and refuses to consider any alternatives or circumstance? Vote him out.

I got one asshole now I can't wait to vote against. SOme guy shows up in his court for jury selection and when asked he tells the court he feels all these people suing other people are "sue-crazy" and he doesn't trust them at all. Judge decides the fellow is just trying to shirk his citizens' duty and instead of holding him in contempt or something, the judge calls his boss where he works and suggest the boss chastise him. This went back and forth and the judge instead of moderating his view says that now anyone not eagerly cooperative can expect to be held in court and forced to participate in trials they are not empanneled on. The potential non-jurors will have to take copious notes on the trial procedings, and write up a report for the judge including an explanation of why they might still think the people were sue-crazy. To me this is over the top judicial arrogance. I can't wait to vote for his opponent, I do not want such trash on our bench.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

If you don't vote, you don't count.

[Мастер]

If you don't vote, you don't count.

Even if you do vote, you don't count sometimes :P One has to be a swing voter to count...

[Dragon Star]

If you don't vote, you don't count.

Even if you do vote, you don't count sometimes :P One has to be a swing voter to count...

Exactly my thoughts.

Yea, it goes both ways, voting against just to eliminate has advantages.

[Мастер]

Exactly my thoughts.

Yea, it goes both ways, voting against just to eliminate has advantages.

In the 2000 US presidential election, Nader supporters set up this arrangement whereby, if you were a Nader supporter, but lived in a state where the Bush vs. Gore outcome was in doubt, you could trade your vote with a Gore supporter in a state that was safe for Gore. The idea being, to express their support for Nader, but recognize that he's not going to win, and avoid having your support for Nader throw the election to Bush.

So what lesson do I learn from this if I am Al Gore? These Nader people won't vote for me, unless they live in a state where the outcome is in doubt. Then they'll vote for me. Why should I change my policies to be more attractive to them, since, when the chips are down, they'll abandon their principles and vote for me anyway?

As it happens, not all Nader supporters in swing states traded their votes away. The Nader vote count in multiple states was greater than Bush's margin over Gore, so if most of these people switched to Gore, it would have changed the outcome of the election. (One of the most die-hard Republicans I know firmly believes that many Nader voters would have voted for Bush if Nader dropped out. I guess righties do drugs too...)

But, in any event, this trade-your-vote-away-if-it-might-actually-matter program struck me as one giant campaign to make sure politicians ignore the traders next time around. Perhaps it worked. Blacks in the US often complain that the Democratic party takes them for granted, because an overwhelming majority of black voters go Democratic no matter what. There is probably a certain amount of truth to that.

If I'm a politician, it seems to me there are two kinds of people who can't influence my policies - the people who will never vote for me, and the people who will always vote for me. The people I have to worry about are those who might vote for me :P

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

If you don't vote, you don't count.

Even if you do vote, you don't count sometimes :P One has to be a swing voter to count...

Every system has it's drawbacks. Some more than others.

Over here every vote does matter.
A party requires only 2/3% of the vote to get represented.
It's usually less then one percent that votes on parties that don't make the threshold.

If I'm a politician, it seems to me there are two kinds of people who can't influence my policies - the people who will never vote for me, and the people who will always vote for me. The people I have to worry about are those who might vote for me :P

QFT.

However, it is possible to alienate your base to the point that they might decide to stay at home rather then vote for you.
There's no such thing as unconditional support.