|
U-Know! Forum » VP debates |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 14:09
|
||
|
Well, Sarah Palin didn't fall on her face, defying expectations. Joe Biden actually got a little more tongue-tied in one or two places, but was less scripted... it was clear that many of Palin's responses were hashed out and written in advance, and just broad enough to sound like an answer without really answering the questions. General wisdom sez Biden won it... I should hope so! When the criteria for good debating is lowered to a 'as long as she speaks in complete sentences, she'll be fine', then what? This is just like when Bush was in debates against Gore and Kerry... folksy sound bites that really don't mean shit, tho to the great unwashed, it's 'real'. There was nothing asked of the candidates that broached Palin's religious extremism... it was seemingly left out on purpose. And to hear Palin speak, it's as if she's not a Republican! For an hour and a half, it was like she and McCain were not REALLY from the same party as Bush... there was plenty of calls for 'an end to business-as-usual' in the nation's capital. No matter that it has been her party that's been responsible for the grand fuckups of the last decade... The only thing the Republicans seem willing to take credit for is 'The Surge' in Iraq. Other than that, they are distancing themselves from Bush in every way. I imagine there must be people stupid enough to buy into this deliberate revisionism, this baldfaced lie, but it's hard to believe that any Republican with any sense whatsoever is going to be able to suspend disbelief. McCain/Palin are not independents (tho she used the word 'maverick' a dozen times at least last night)... they are Republicans thru and thru.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Oct 03, 2008, 15:33
Oct 03, 2008, 15:33
|
||
Yep Biden won, but he did slack off towards the end by stopping pulling her up for not answering questions. Things is though, judging by general responses, a lot of people think she won because she didn't royally fuck up, as expectations of her performance were that low.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 15:36
|
||
|
I caught a bit of it. Apparently some Democrat who was unamed had told a BBC reporter that the dream scenario in the debate would be for "Biden to say nothing and Palin to do all the talking" hah. From this side of the pond it was generally reported that Biden just edged it but Palin didn't fall on her arse as much as those with Democratic hopes might have liked. Some woman interviewed after said that Palin was like a 'girlfriend' she could 'do lunch' with and talk about normal stuff. Gotta get rid of that BS pronto. There was a lot of mom n apple pie about Palin in her delivery I thought. I just hope people don't buy into it too much. Yes, Biden did seem to be actually talking and Palin did seem to be looking for opportunities to insert certain scripted platitudes into the debate. It's a shame her fundemantalism wasn't made an issue of, but I suppose the Democrats wouldn't dare attempt an attack on that front? Too risky for them. Apparently it's thought that the Tina Fey Palin skit (SNLIVE?) has actually had an effect on public perception of the gun totin god botherer. If so, get that woman back in front of a camera now!
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Oct 03, 2008, 15:59
Oct 03, 2008, 15:46
|
||
|
I don't see where you're coming from on any of this, handofdave. I really don't. But the majority of folks agree with you, so that just means I'm in what appears to be my default position... on the extreme fringe. I dare not even begin to comment upon your responses to my 'Vote Obama' thread as it would just create far too oppositional an atmosphere for no gain. You've characterised my views as selfish, arrogant and egocentric which suggests we've hit a wall. And just to show exactly how far I am from you, or indeed from "general wisdom" as you put it... handofdave wrote: General wisdom sez Biden won it... I should hope so! I watched the Vice-Presidential debate and I just have no idea how anyone -- you, or General Wisdom -- can make that statement. I watched it, shocked at how dire Biden was. I came to the conclusion that the Democrats are screwed. A politician with Biden's experience should have comprehensively destroyed Palin in a live debate. He should have been capable of highlighting her complete lack of qualifications to run the United States (a job she might be called upon to do sooner than any of us would like). Instead he smiled and grinned as she spun folksy stories and evaded almost every single question. Worse, he joined in with his own folksy stories. Instead of demonstrating how much more qualified he was for the position, he (i.e. Democratic strategists) decided to engage Palin on her terms. It was a car-wreck of a performance. Anything short of a complete demolition of Palin (who we've all seen interviewed) would have been a defeat for Biden. That it's a close call in any sense can only be seen as a massive coup for the Republicans. How the debate moderator allowed Palin to get away with failing to answer a single question, I'll never know. But that Biden allowed it to pass without comment -- and indeed joined in -- is unforgivable. I'm not American, but having lived in Texas and in the midwest, I'm pretty certain that Palin's performance in that debate will have played very well in much of America. God bless America? God help us all more like. Oh, and well done to Biden for backtracking on his principled stance regarding "clean coal". I watched the primaries, I heard him stand up and state -- correctly -- that the technology is a scam. Now it's time for him to back a party line that wants to campaign on it... a technology guaranteed to exascerbate the effects of Climate Change... and he falls into place like a good little corporate party drone. And let's not forget; Climate Change is not an American issue. It's a global issue. As is the fact that the USA is the world's largest manufacturer and exporter of weapons (including to nations that the US government itself defines as guilty of massive human rights abuses). Obama has no plans to change that. He'll continue selling guns to (almost) any dictator who wants to murder some of their own people. Palin needs to be opposed. I stand by that. But Obama is a man who will continue to fuck up this planet with nonsense environmental policies (biofuels, clean coal, nuclear) all the while exporting weapons to further fuel the resource wars that will directly result from those environmental policies (on top of all the other wars we've already got going). And you call me selfish, arrogant and egocentric for opposing that?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 15:50
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: Some woman interviewed after said that Palin was like a 'girlfriend' she could 'do lunch' with and talk about normal stuff. Gotta get rid of that BS pronto. Can't agree more. I don't want some average human being for President. I want someone who awes me, not someone that I listen to and go, 'Aww!'. I came across a scathing indictment of this asinine belief in picking leaders that 'you'd want to have a beer with', which was a tactic of the Bush campaign team too. It poses the question, why do some pick leaders that are "just like them" to run the government? We don't pick people "just like us" to do surgery, build bridges, fly airplanes, etc... nobody in their right mind would allow a "just like us" to compete in the Olympics... It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think that there are people that are so blithe about putting the worlds largest nuke arsenal in the hands of a 'just like us'. It seems some Americans want superathletes, superstars, super teachers, super doctors.... and the bozo next door for President!
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 16:43
|
||
|
Jim, I think there's plenty of room for talking about every possible angle, every possible political solution. I welcome your 'fringe' position, I really do. I apologize if you took my statements personally, they were not meant that way. I am not arguing against the freedom to vote for whomever you feel closest too in philosophy. I'm arguing that, in certain critical elections like this one that's under a strictly either-or system, sometimes idealists have to sacrifice some of their sacred cows in the service of a greater good. If you read my other posts, I think I'm pretty sensible about all of this. The third parties in the USA have very little clout, and tend to be a bit cloistered in that they seem happy not to communicate to the nation at large, but preach to the choir at college campuses. They by and large DON'T UNDERSTAND OR EVEN LIKE the vast majority of their countrymen. And yet they feel qualified to claim superiority in all regards to the 'status quo', of which there seemingly are no finer distinctions... everyone is a sold out enemy of progressivism. Now we start getting into cultism. And what's worse, they feel justified in being spoilers in the large national elections, because of their undifferentiated hostility to both major parties. That's where the egocentrism and the selfishness come in... the belief that if they, the 'fringe', can't get what they want, they'll fuck it up for EVERYONE by taking away votes from the Democrats and letting the Republicans keep stomping the world. In a twisted way, I think some find a kind of satisfaction in this... Like I said before, it's easy to paint pretty pictures of a world with no war and no pollution and no corruption. As long as one's underdog status is maintained, one will never actually have to step up to the plate and play hardball. In other words, radical idealism is a hothouse flower that often dies fast when it's taken out of it's sheltered environment. Lastly, there is no such thing as a political system that can impose all its favorite to-dos without become tyrannical. In some of your posts, you hint at the idea that democracy is damaging to the planet. While you may be right in the end, it's the only system that (when it's not rigged) represents the people's right to participate in their own governance. The concept of a benign, eco-friendly, human-rights friendly, demilitarized nation is obviously not a pipe dream... they exist. But that's Iceland, and this is the USA. The USA is, on the whole, center-right. You can't just drop down out of the sky and rule it with edicts from the eco-elite overnight. You know that full well, but still you apply that daydream to the conversation. The aims of the Green party in America can come to fruit, but they have to grow the trees before they can harvest widespread success in their goals. And that's what bugs me... they seem to think they should be able to skip the steps I discussed on the other thread- get a foothold in local and state governments, show that they can govern wisely (and not just assert, without evidence, that they can), and THEN go for the White House after they've earned some credentials and won over the trust of the voters. But no, they choose to remain aloof, cultish, and full of manifestos that contain good ideas, but have no chance of working because the numbers just aren't there. You need the people, lots of them. You can't have a revolution if only a few percent of the overall population joins in.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 17:09
|
||
|
Just a quick word about the debate itself... All the grinning and chuckling and friendliness are part of the 'game' in these debates. Biden was no doubt instructed to pull back from being too hard on Palin, so he wouldn't look condescending or bullying, and Palin was told to smile a lot, use the folksy talk, and stay on script. Yes, no doubt that her performance went over well in the 'heartland'. And yes, it disturbs me too. - As for Obama, yes, he deserves every bit of scrutiny, and criticism when warranted. I wish you would quit trying to paint me into a corner, Jim, by insisting that I'm selling out MY ideals by backing him. My support for him isn't unconditional or starry-eyed. I am backing him because he's the best chance the world has of reversing a decade of neoconservative rape. Easier to petition and change a Democrat than a Republican. Once the Dems are back in office, the lines of communication with the progressives and the saner world will open up and allow the change YOU want to take root. But under the Republicans, this will not happen.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Oct 03, 2008, 18:29
Oct 03, 2008, 17:54
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: I don't see where you're coming from on any of this, handofdave. I really don't. But the majority of folks agree with you, so that just means I'm in what appears to be my default position... on the extreme fringe. I dare not even begin to comment upon your responses to my 'Vote Obama' thread as it would just create far too oppositional an atmosphere for no gain. You've characterised my views as selfish, arrogant and egocentric which suggests we've hit a wall. And just to show exactly how far I am from you, or indeed from "general wisdom" as you put it... handofdave wrote: General wisdom sez Biden won it... I should hope so! I watched the Vice-Presidential debate and I just have no idea how anyone -- you, or General Wisdom -- can make that statement. I watched it, shocked at how dire Biden was. I came to the conclusion that the Democrats are screwed. A politician with Biden's experience should have comprehensively destroyed Palin in a live debate. He should have been capable of highlighting her complete lack of qualifications to run the United States (a job she might be called upon to do sooner than any of us would like). Instead he smiled and grinned as she spun folksy stories and evaded almost every single question. Worse, he joined in with his own folksy stories. Instead of demonstrating how much more qualified he was for the position, he (i.e. Democratic strategists) decided to engage Palin on her terms. It was a car-wreck of a performance. Anything short of a complete demolition of Palin (who we've all seen interviewed) would have been a defeat for Biden. That it's a close call in any sense can only be seen as a massive coup for the Republicans. How the debate moderator allowed Palin to get away with failing to answer a single question, I'll never know. But that Biden allowed it to pass without comment -- and indeed joined in -- is unforgivable. I'm not American, but having lived in Texas and in the midwest, I'm pretty certain that Palin's performance in that debate will have played very well in much of America. God bless America? God help us all more like. Oh, and well done to Biden for backtracking on his principled stance regarding "clean coal". I watched the primaries, I heard him stand up and state -- correctly -- that the technology is a scam. Now it's time for him to back a party line that wants to campaign on it... a technology guaranteed to exascerbate the effects of Climate Change... and he falls into place like a good little corporate party drone. And let's not forget; Climate Change is not an American issue. It's a global issue. As is the fact that the USA is the world's largest manufacturer and exporter of weapons (including to nations that the US government itself defines as guilty of massive human rights abuses). Obama has no plans to change that. He'll continue selling guns to (almost) any dictator who wants to murder some of their own people. Palin needs to be opposed. I stand by that. But Obama is a man who will continue to fuck up this planet with nonsense environmental policies (biofuels, clean coal, nuclear) all the while exporting weapons to further fuel the resource wars that will directly result from those environmental policies (on top of all the other wars we've already got going). And you call me selfish, arrogant and egocentric for opposing that? I'm sorry Grufty, but I have to be with Dave on this. I can't help but think your positioning of yourself on "...the extreme fringe" almost sounds like a comfort zone. You will always be 'right' there. And the 'rest ' of us will always be 'wrong'. Actually, I think you are 'right ' about a great many things a great many times and I totally respect your wisdom and dilligence. But the picture you paint is beautiful, desireable, ulitmately essential, but utterly, utterly, unrealistically acheiveable by November 2008.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 18:44
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: But the picture you paint is beautiful, desireable, ulitmately essential, but utterly, utterly, unrealistically acheiveable by November 2008. But Moon Cat, what if it's too late by December? Should we accept the catastrophic status quo, or rail against the dying of the light? As for my position on the fringe being "comfortable"...? Seriously man, it's a long way from that. I've spent almost my entire life being told that I'm wrong, or I'm mad, or I'm a fool, or I'm arrogant / patronising etc etc etc. Even a slight understanding of mental health issues should reveal exactly the kinds of effects that has on a person. I've spent part of my life in obscene luxury, materially speaking. And I've spent part of it in serious poverty. I have very very rarely felt comfortable. Either within my own skin, or within the world at large.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 03, 2008, 18:48
|
||
|
First up, there's no cause for apologies. I didn't take offence at your statements. They weren't directed at me personally and I appreciate that. The point I was making is that you are clearly extremely hostile to my position on this (ideologically, not personally). And while I understand your position, I am probably just as ideologically hostile to it as you are to mine. Because of this, any attempt to discuss this matter will -- more than likely -- produce far more heat than light. The fact is we have fundamentally different political philosophies. And I'm not talking about right/left or liberal/authoritarian ideas; I'm talking about a basic disagreement about what politics should involve. You view your position as "pragmatic" in essence (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this by the way). And I get that completely. From a certain perspective that is the position that makes the most sense. I don't deny that, and I don't blame anyone for seeing the world from that perspective. It is a result of your own lifetime's worth of personal experiences and you are trapped within it. Just as I am within my own. And that's really the issue. My own personal experiences have led me to view the world from a very different perspective. Every life is unique of course, but equally there is a sense in which most of us share a lot of common experience. This was not really the case for me. My own life has been extremely atypical and further from the norm than most (largely down to the choices my parents made incidentally rather than anything I engineered). This is the primary reason -- I believe -- that I disagree with 'the majority' on damn near every issue. And please let me stress, this is not a case of "my perspective is better than yours". It's just different. And occasionally, I believe (sorry if this sounds patronising or arrogant or egocentric or whatever) this may allow me to see things that the majority fail to see. Ultimately I have reached the conclusion that we are living in a civilisation / culture than is fundamentally flawed. Not just that it's bad for those within it (though it certainly is that) but that it is dangerous for every living thing on the planet. More than that, I have reached the conclusion that something needs to be done about this immediately. That we have already set in motion a chain of events that will cause suffering and death on an historically unprecedented scale. And every single day that passes in "business as usual" mode is a day we will soon come to regret. I would like to think that we can avert the worst of the catastrophe voluntarily and with as much generosity of heart as we can muster. That is hope though, not expectation. In truth, I expect us to continue reinforcing the damage we are doing by blindly holding on to this business as usual model long beyond the point of no return. And to return to the case at hand; an Obama vote is a personal endorsement of business as usual pragmatism. He will not act to revolutionise our approach to the world. And that is what is needed. You talk of a revolution needing mass support. Historically speaking, that's a long way from accurate. We need a revolution; I'd like it to be peaceful, but either way it's needed. Enthusiastic support of a business-as-usual corporate politician may well be pragmatic, but it is not what we need. And again let me stress that this is just how I view the world. I believe that my opinions are worth sharing, but I have never tried to impose them on anyone. I hope they might influence people of course, but I leave that choice to them. Mind you, my statement about 'revolution' is also my honest view. Perhaps a new way of thinking needs to be imposed. I'll let you know when I've worked out how... then we can debate the ethics of whether or not it should be done ;-)
|
| Pages: 5 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
