Expaticus
Sep 5 2008, 10:37 am
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 11:20 am)
[What do the Amis think? Will this count against McCain?
I thought he sounded like he was on
Thorazine. He made Al Gore look like Robin Williams.
Ironically, since some people are concerned that he's a hothead, this might have actually helped him. Probably a neutral when averaged against Palin.
I get the feeling that they're engineering this McCain/Palin ticket to look like
a sitcom with the slightly befuddled husband and firecracker wife.
Melia
Sep 5 2008, 10:38 am
Will it count against McCain? Did it hurt Bush, not exactly known for his oratory skills?
I think many will see it as evidence of McCain's "everyman-ness" (despite owning more homes than he can count).
eurovol
Sep 5 2008, 10:45 am
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 11:20 am)
What do the Amis think? Will this count against McCain?
Not to much cause no one was watching it. 40 mil plus watched Obama, I doubt McCain broke 15 if that. Also, the right will be voting the Party and not the man. Dems and Indies tend to vote the person. It is one of the reasons that the Dems always look a little wishy washy. That is why I was so proud of Obama's speech because he hit on issues that most Dem politicians shy away from.
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 10:51 am
Bah. that's all you can really say. Dems think Reps are drowning in ignorance, and how do you have a discussion with such folk? Reps are mostly scared and defense oriented. When you hear the extremist viewpoints I don't understand how people can vote for that.
But anyway, american politics in my view are always going to be ridiculous until (if ever) a 3-5 party system can be established to remove the tug of war that has always been prevalent.
With us or against us
Black or White
Republican or Democrat
Christian or non-Christian
Team player or not
is anything in america done in a non-superlative way?? I think being given more than 2 choices would help moderate that.
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 10:52 am
@eurovol:
No, Dems and Reps both vote the party lines - if you claim membership of or identify yourself with a party it is pretty common you are going to vote for that party's candidates.
I don't understand why people get excited about speeches that are written by people other than the candidate.
eurovol
Sep 5 2008, 11:06 am
The number of people voting strict Party lines has decreased greatly since the '60s/'70s. Reps are harder in their support of the Party than Dems are. Kerry lost in 2004 because 10% of registered Dems did not vote for him. There are more registered Dems than Reps, but unfortunately that doesn't always show up in the vote.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 11:19 am
QUOTE (lilplatinum @ Sep 5 2008, 10:52 am)
I don't understand why people get excited about speeches that are written by people other than the candidate.
Because, when the candidate becomes president he will be delivering speeches written for the most part by aides too. In the end, the content of McCain's speech was okay - it was the delivery that was astonishingly bad. Does America really want someone who makes such a hash at public speaking being their representative on the world stage?
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 11:20 am
Well considering who we had for the past 8 years, that question may answer itself...
I dunno, as an ex public speaker myself I guess I am not easily sold as I know how much bullshit it is.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 11:33 am
bullshit you may think it but rhetoric is a key attriubute of state leaders, one that inspires the nation etc etc
TBH, I think that even Bush Jnr has an edge on McCain on this score.
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 11:35 am
Okay, let me rephrase it, I don't understand why educated people get excited about rhetoric. Everyone from Cicero to Hitler knew that oratory is a good tool to harness the mob, but I would like to think that some people can see past it.
Exile
Sep 5 2008, 11:37 am
Don't republicans just let their fists and guns do all the talking?
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 11:52 am
QUOTE (lilplatinum @ Sep 5 2008, 12:35 pm)
Okay, let me rephrase it, I don't understand why educated people get excited about rhetoric. Everyone from Cicero to Hitler knew that oratory is a good tool to harness the mob, but I would like to think that some people can see past it.
Yes but to be so sceptical to completely dismiss it? Not saying you dismiss the contents of all these speeches, but do you really think Obama's rhetoric is complete bullshit, and that he doesn't have these visions of a new America, and that he, like everyone else, is just in it for the power?
I dunno. Obama's the only politician ever who comes across as different, for that reason alone he'd get my vote (if I had one that is). He'd get my vote for other reasons, but that one alone is enough. American politics up until now make it obvious as to why there is so much voter apathy. It's basically been a coin toss / propaganda war. For example, why did Bush make it for 2 terms. First was a scandal, second was a smear campaign and he was riding on the collective post 9/11 fear. Has anyone ever seen the post-vietnam hearings involving John Kerry? Probably not, it wasn't in the media much. If he spoke in 2004 like he did then, he would've won. If people saw him speak like he did then, they'd have had more people voting for him, IMO. But whatever, past is the past.
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 11:57 am
Complete bullshit? No. Carefully crafted propaganda? Yes. My basic lack of faith in humanity leads me to believe that people who run for office are in it for the power. I don't know if i'll drink the Obama kool-aid or not. I think he will do less damage, but rhetoric doesn't convince me of much.
Voter turnout and apathy is a far more complex issue than being a result of a bi partisan system. I would say it stems more from the electoral college and the fact that in many states like mine it really doesn't matter who you vote for as the outcome is pretty much a given. (Even if that isn't technically true, it is a prevailing attitude).
BattalionBoy
Sep 5 2008, 12:00 pm
If the Democrats get in they will srew up in Iraq and Afghanistan just like they did in Vietnam.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 12:06 pm
Churchill is an example of a truly monumental world leader whose skills were largely in rhetoric (all the more remarkable, given his speech impediment).
Several US presidents were also notable as skilled orators and are remembered as great leaders in part or because of that:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- JFK
- Ronald Reagan
eurovol
Sep 5 2008, 12:22 pm
QUOTE (BattalionBoy @ Sep 5 2008, 1:00 pm)
If the Democrats get in they will srew up in Iraq and Afghanistan just like they did in Vietnam.
Got your hip boots on I see.
BTW, your posts sound all too familiar. Who were you before you turned British and BB?
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 12:27 pm
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 1:06 pm)
Churchill is an example of a truly monumental world leader whose skills were largely in rhetoric (all the more remarkable, given his speech impediment).
Several US presidents were also notable as skilled orators and are remembered as great leaders in part or because of that:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- JFK
- Ronald Reagan
Exactly, in the last two cases (especially JFK), the presidents got credit for being great leaders they did not deserve because they were charismatic.
Motivating your population in a crisis is one thing, but a cult of personality is another.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 12:40 pm
having a leader that makes you feel good about your country is one of the intangible benefitts that JFK and Reagan brought to the USA. It really is nothing to be sniffed at.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 12:43 pm
we are experiencing that in the UK at present actually. In many ways Gordon Brown is actually a more intelligent and capable leader than Blair. But Blair was the greater orator whereas Brown is a shy self-effacing man with an unfortunately overintellectualised delivery. Conmsequently while Blair had Cool Britania and the nation felt proud when he came into office, Brown has delivered a slough of despond where pessimism rules the roost.
BattalionBoy
Sep 5 2008, 12:46 pm
QUOTE (eurovol @ Sep 5 2008, 1:22 pm)
BTW, your posts sound all too familiar. Who were you before you turned British and BB?
Most British always supported the Republicans. If you are not a Republican then you are not an American.
Let Obama goof off back to his job as a Community Organizer or maybe since he is such a celebrity maybe he could start a TV show with Oprah Winfrey. Did you notice that all the supporters of Obama are celebrities – what a bunch of commies. They could even play Madonna’s (typical Democrat) dumb McCain Hitler video on there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/...634981020080827
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 12:47 pm
QUOTE (BattalionBoy @ Sep 5 2008, 12:46 pm)
Most British always supported the Republicans.
Since when? You are the only Brit I know of who does.
Schotte
Sep 5 2008, 12:49 pm
I'll be the 2nd. Sure there are countless others!
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 12:52 pm
Isn't that just great. You talk about middle-left leaning policies and get called a commie. And people get mad at me for thinking americans have their heads up their asses (naturally, not all)?! Yeah, ok.
BattalionBoy
Sep 5 2008, 12:56 pm
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 1:47 pm)
Since when? You are the only Brit I know of who does.
And whom did Britain side with in the American civil war?
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 12:57 pm
QUOTE
Isn't that just great. You talk about middle-left leaning policies and get called a commie. And people get mad at me for thinking americans have their heads up their asses (naturally, not all)?! Yeah, ok.
You know who has their heads up their asses? People who take a comment from a British person and attribute it to Americans.
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 12:58 pm
as if the american civil war is relevant to modern day republicans. WEAK. and from what I heard, the republicans of that time were in ideology quite similar to democrats of today. So, anything more enlightening for us?
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 12:58 pm
why does it not surprise me that BB and Schotte are in the
small minority of Brits (14%) that identify with McCain
Schotte
Sep 5 2008, 12:59 pm
im not sure, why does it not surprise you? go on, tell us!
you are in the small minority of brits who think its acceptable to be gay, but you dont hear us rolling on about it!
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:00 pm
QUOTE (lilplatinum @ Sep 5 2008, 1:57 pm)
You know who has their heads up their asses? People who take a comment from a British person and attribute it to Americans.
That's a bit petty now. Further back in this thread (somewhere around page 80) there was a discussion about this - mention social policy and get labeled karl marx.
lilplatinum
Sep 5 2008, 1:01 pm
I think its a bit petty to either pull up something 90 pages back or take a comment from a brit to launch into your hourly elucidations on the American psyche..
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 1:01 pm
you seem to repeatedly misapprehend the zeitgeist of your oiwn country Schotte. A far right socially conservative Scot is a very very rare beast.
Schotte
Sep 5 2008, 1:04 pm
you say that like its a bad thing
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:08 pm
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 1:58 pm)
why does it not surprise me that BB and Schotte are in the
small minority of Brits (14%) that identify with McCainThis is the kind of study that is rather useless. you can't just quote numbers and expect them to mean something (78% of TTers think this post is crap, for example). Their sample set was from around 6000 people spread across 5 countries. from those people you need to have some sort of demographic breakdown, etc. for those numbers to be in any way significant.
That's another reason why it drives me nuts when someone on TT posts their opinion (you know, for chatting purposes), and others say "bullshit, you provide no source", then they say sorry and post some webpage with numbers on it, as if that validates them, and they then become indisputable.
That's precisely when these discussions turn into absurdity. I once tried to collect a list of sources that all people could agree upon as "neutral", but that never happened. So the debate goes on with the life-term Democrats arguing with the life-term Republicans as if arguing is ever gonna change somebody's viewpoint. Ha! Good thing I get paid alot to do a little.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 1:19 pm
QUOTE (horseshoe7 @ Sep 5 2008, 1:08 pm)
Their sample set was from around 6000 people spread across 5 countries.
er, that is the normal sample size used by all pollsters . . .
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:20 pm
QUOTE (lilplatinum @ Sep 5 2008, 2:01 pm)
I think its a bit petty to either pull up something 90 pages back or take a comment from a brit to launch into your hourly elucidations on the American psyche..
You're right. it is rather futile to get an american to think about either themself or their country critically. to not be 100% red, white, and blue is heresy.
or am I wrong? Is it not a major issue amongst party politics as to who is more "patriotic"?
Could a politician ever get up on stage and say "America was once great, but not anymore. I'm here to improve that." and expect to get anywhere? Because that's the message they are delivering, just without saying it so directly.
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:20 pm
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 2:19 pm)
er, that is the normal sample size used by all pollsters . . .
Precisely why I question their validity in the first place.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 1:28 pm
well, you could say the poll was a bit specious since Europeans do not vote in US presidential elections. But the result itself has been repeated and Gallup are a reliable pollster who make strenuous efforts to ensure that the sample is balanced. They use the same methods to poll in the USA too.
eurovol
Sep 5 2008, 1:30 pm
How in the hell did Sarah Palin ever pass the vetting by McCain's people? Check out these quotes by her.QUOTE
This is unreal. Below are some actual quotes by Governor Palin during a series of interviews by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006 when she was running for Governor...
On Creationism:
The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.
On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:
God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats.
Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austrian hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!
On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:
Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.
Bell the cat
Sep 5 2008, 1:33 pm
a more recent Gallop poll makes the gulf in support for Obama and McCain even more stark in UK, Germany and France
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:37 pm
fair enough. i'll go along with that. not to say all statistics are worth believing - political scientists generally accept that statistics can be used to prove anything.
mlovett
Sep 5 2008, 1:47 pm
QUOTE (Exile @ Sep 5 2008, 11:37 am)
Don't republicans just let their fists and guns do all the talking?
Yes. You say it like it's a bad thing...
Sorry... I just had to watch a Lord of the Flies scenario as my 3 year old American son literally fought off the large gang of older [BULLYING] German kids and remain King of the Brand New Sandbox in the neighborhood. I don't know whether to be proud or scared.
UpQuark
Sep 5 2008, 1:48 pm
QUOTE (horseshoe7 @ Sep 5 2008, 2:20 pm)
You're right. it is rather futile to get an american to think about either themself or their country critically. to not be 100% red, white, and blue is heresy.
or am I wrong? Is it not a major issue amongst party politics as to who is more "patriotic"?
Could a politician ever get up on stage and say "America was once great, but not anymore. I'm here to improve that." and expect to get anywhere? Because that's the message they are delivering, just without saying it so directly.
You're wrong. Politicians often say that America is no longer as great as it used to be. "Ask yourself: are you better now than you were four years ago?" won Reagan an election in 1980. No matter how happy anyone is, if you ask them whether or not they could be happier, they'll always say yes. If you ask them whether or not things were better 5, 10, 15, 50 years ago, they'll probably always say yes, unless you get more specific (computers are faster and cheaper, you can swear more on TV, etc.). Convincing people that they can make things better is the brand of snake oil that politicians try to sell. Both parties appeal to their patriotism, but do so in different ways. Democrats will invoke Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, John Kennedy, FDR or Patrick Henry. The GOP will push Reagan and, um, I guess there were some other Republicans that they like. John Wayne? Chuck Yeager?
More generally, Americans do think about themselves and their country critically. Many Americans are as concerned about the future of their country as anyone else would be. The issues that concern them may strike you as odd (gay marriage, intelligent design), but many people will (frustratingly) argue them passionately. That is red, white and blue.
UpQuark
Sep 5 2008, 1:55 pm
QUOTE (horseshoe7 @ Sep 5 2008, 2:37 pm)
fair enough. i'll go along with that. not to say all statistics are worth believing - political scientists generally accept that statistics can be used to prove anything.
GAHH!!!
85% of people that I speak with love to spout that particular line of bullshit. Statistics CANNOT be used to "prove" something. A statistic is a function of sample data. You may try to misrepresent them, you may try to present them in a particular way, but they cannot prove something. The most that someone can say is something along the lines of "presuming that the data has been generated by stochastic process XXX, the null hypothesis is rejected (or not) at the 5% confidence level".
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 1:59 pm
Sorry UpQuark, I didn't make myself clear. You have misunderstood. I meant to say that one can use statistics to corroborate anything, doesn't make it so, or doesn't prove anything, but many people treat them as such, and that's what's annoying.
yanksavage
Sep 5 2008, 2:07 pm
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 8:33 am)
a more recent Gallop poll makes the gulf in support for Obama and McCain even more stark in UK, Germany and France
Thank God they can't vote in our election!!!
UpQuark
Sep 5 2008, 2:16 pm
QUOTE (horseshoe7 @ Sep 5 2008, 2:59 pm)
Sorry UpQuark, I didn't make myself clear. You have misunderstood. I meant to say that one can use statistics to corroborate anything, doesn't make it so, or doesn't prove anything, but many people treat them as such, and that's what's annoying.
You said "political scientists generally accept" that statistics can be used to prove anything. "Generally accept" implies greater than 50%? What was the sample size? How recently was this analysis done? How does this view compare with that held by the population at large? What professional experience does a political analyst have to draw such a conclusion? You've stated a quantitative result without foundation or support and you've done so to advance the notion that there can be no meaningful, objective conclusions drawn from analysis of data. One cannot use statistics to "corroborate" something any more than one can use them to "prove" something. However, analysis of data is useful and can help us make decisions. Innumerate people choose to ignore the results they don't like by trotting out the old saw, "you can use statistics to prove anything".
spatown
Sep 5 2008, 2:19 pm
QUOTE (eurovol @ Sep 5 2008, 2:30 pm)
She's pot ignorant and biased, and ignorance is dangerous when that person believes that they know everything.
QUOTE (Bell the cat @ Sep 5 2008, 2:33 pm)
a more recent Gallop poll makes the gulf in support for Obama and McCain even more stark in UK, Germany and France
Because the "Europeans" are not looking at this as Republican v Democrat - they are looking at which Presidential candidate will be the best one overall, and also the best one regarding the interests of Europe.
QUOTE (mlovett @ Sep 5 2008, 2:47 pm)
Sorry... I just had to watch a Lord of the Flies scenario as my 3 year old American son literally fought off the large gang of older [BULLYING] German kids and remain King of the Brand New Sandbox in the neighborhood. I don't know whether to be proud or scared.
much less hassle if he can fight his own battles believe me!
QUOTE (yanksavage @ Sep 5 2008, 3:07 pm)
Thank God they can't vote in our election!!!
Scared?
I wish we could!
yanksavage
Sep 5 2008, 2:38 pm
Scared? I wish we could!
Why would an Amercan be afraid of a European? You can't even defend yourselves properly.
horseshoe7
Sep 5 2008, 2:41 pm
Oh Jesus. Have a nice weekend everyone.
yanksavage
Sep 5 2008, 2:44 pm
Lovely weekend to you as well.
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view
the full page.
