tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post1034967090958050202..comments2024-03-19T11:28:58.168-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: The Vice-Presidential Debate and the State of American PoliticsDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-29815676737259735222020-11-05T18:29:47.087-05:002020-11-05T18:29:47.087-05:00{rpfessor
Believe it not, I have a new comment her...{rpfessor<br />Believe it not, I have a new comment here on the VP topic, at this weird moment of Presidential suspense.<br /><br />It is an unusual thing to suggest, but i am going to suggest it anyway.<br /><br />If there a good and sufficient reason, in such a close race, in such a country as ours, that Biden rather than Trump wins, it will not be so much because of either Trump or Biden themselves.<br /><br />Rather, Biden's big advantage over Trump turns out to be Kamala Harris.<br /><br />Trump only had Pence, even though an incumbent VP, still a weaker partner, electorally than Harris, for many different kinds of reasons, unseen apparently, either especially by Trump or by his team, which should have known better.<br /><br />All the best Bozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-73611599090508016882020-10-16T11:07:57.054-04:002020-10-16T11:07:57.054-04:00Expectations for these debates are out of whack. ...Expectations for these debates are out of whack. When politicians promise a chicken in every pot, they will invariably evade the question as to how they will ensure that there are enough chickens to go around. Two minutes to answer is at the edge of the average voter's attention span for those voters who actually tune in the these debates. Politicians, during campaigns, exhibit the same level of opaque transparency as the government they hope to lead does in practice. The public relies on attack ads for the information required to support their already decided candidate, and has neither the patience or interest to view debates except to anticipate the possibility of blood. The word farce falls short of effectively defining these so called debates.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11629116622092214120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-24714122406423873592020-10-12T14:51:23.668-04:002020-10-12T14:51:23.668-04:00Professor
Re COVID 19 and the longer history, re ...Professor<br /><br />Re COVID 19 and the longer history, re the VP debate discussion topics about blaming or not blaming China, or being generally for or against China, with which the virus issue has become bound up.<br /><br />It continues to surprise me how few refer to our decision to offshore, long ago, a Fauci related issue, then subsidize, and then collaborate, for decades now with China, on dangerous virology research, involving both WMD capabilibilities and liabilities.<br /><br />The answer certainly is that it is one of the most untouchable, in a large group, of bipartisan untouchable initiatives.<br /><br />Why talk about things you don't really want the American people to know, regardless of the party you serve?<br /><br />All the bestBozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-41795123830003397672020-10-11T00:44:58.400-04:002020-10-11T00:44:58.400-04:00The 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates had important forma...The 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates had important format differences. Each candidate was given an eight-minute opening statement and a three-minute closing statement. This very wise feature gives the candidates time to get their message out so they won't be under pressure to do so during the questioning period. Also, the time allowed for answering questions was three and a half minutes rather than two. They also had a longer time for rebuttal, so they knew that their opponent could raise the fact that the question was not answered.<br /><br />Under such a stupid format, I think the Harris/Pence debate is about the best we can expect. I thought they both did well. Give Kennedy and Nixon this format and I doubt they would have wasted precious time answering questions that didn't help them. These debate rules are the equivalent of holding the Bolshoi Ballet in a pigpen.Gloucon Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05218027862578514587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-67713904019900930422020-10-10T14:18:37.260-04:002020-10-10T14:18:37.260-04:00I appreciate your analysis, and was surprised by t...I appreciate your analysis, and was surprised by the results. I think you got it right. It seems to me we voters would be far better served by a change in format. In today's world I believe moderated debates are the only possible way for the candidates to get equal time, but the moderator should be there only to enforce rules against interruptions. Let each candidate speak what they think the public needs to hear, and then respond to the other candidate's comments. The 2-minute time frames enforce shallow answers.<br /><br />I keep asking myself how to prevent the candidates from interrupting each other? Also, how to prevent them from shaking their head, either yes or no? <br /><br />On radio it was simple; just turn off their microphone, and they were mute and unseen. Perhaps TV should not even show the other candidate while one is speaking? <br /><br />And, of course, after watching the unruly first presidential debate, I thought cattle prods inserted in each candidate's nether orifice and activated, as needed, by the moderator was what was needed. I don't say this with a grin. I say it with disgust. The first debate should be dubbed "The Un-Presidential Debate of 2020".<br />DAnglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15640249980275890593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-54367026962382811162020-10-10T04:43:45.415-04:002020-10-10T04:43:45.415-04:00Evasiveness sems to be normal nowadays and talking...Evasiveness sems to be normal nowadays and talking past ome another. I think however that letting a debate moderator control discussion points is taking power out of one's hands. Journalists are not neutral. Lincoln Douglas debates lasted hours and were very complex. A general issue should be discussed freely and in detail(health care, defense, foreign relations economy) between two sides with substantive, detailed answers from both sides on key issues as in a congressional debate. TV dsound bites with vague pseudo talk is useless. It is typical of politicians nowadays to master the art of saying nothing for long speeches even, using nice sounding phrases. Hope and Change, Peace on Earth, blah, blah. It is nice that they did answer some questions of course. The health and transition question, given the Presidential candidates' ages is sensitive. What would I say if someone asked what did I intend if my wife died or am I prepared to meet my maker? In such a large, divided country it seems opinions have drifted widely and as is txypical a serious crisis would serve to reunite the people around a mutual experience. Covid, mass unemployment, hostilities with China, loss of USD reserve status and debt default followed by mass poverty without government support and then a Putin type strongman would be a possibility. Japan has gone 30 years in a downward spiral. America is trying a similar tactic but without natural social harmony, as a country of immigrants, it is not working. Keynesianism forever and expansive imperialism break the bank eventually. It seems that a serious discussion of America' s future is off the table. This is very similar to what we see nowadays with people who come to the doctor with overweight, diabetes, hypertension and he prescribes medication for the symptoms instead of lifestyle changes. ln general we are on the road to perdition. ' The end is nigh'. I should admire my depression era, hard working, penny pinching parents but even I see that as insane, never buying new stuff, eating blackk bananas and going only to thrift stores. One must find a middle ground of decency, healthy living, self respect without the excess of modern waste, profligacy and indebtedness. It seems both the old generation and the new had extreme behaviors based on material considerations alone. Balance is a social, spiritual matter. This is likely why Japan remains relatively stable as they have unspoken similar values which in America is not the case. 60s revolution brought freedoms that were interpreted in juxtaposed manners. Family is sacred or sexual freedom is sacred. Atheism is just as much a religon as any other and this is the basis of the secular coasttal regime dominating the Left, the Media, big cities. Just to take the issue of reproduction, of course sexuality is sacred, but also human life. Men and woman must find a balance and live in harmony. Similarly ethnic and racial harmony is possible when understanding is given to core areas, cultural aspects, history. Perhaps every marriage or community comes to a moment of explosion after building tension over core issues periodically. We seem to be at such a juncture now.Energyflowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14476915209268786507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-24031621397683910992020-10-09T12:23:13.396-04:002020-10-09T12:23:13.396-04:00Professor
Interesting point by point summary. And ...Professor<br />Interesting point by point summary. And contrast with Nixon Kennedy was illuminating.<br /><br />These kinds of faux debates have now become the norm.<br /><br />Looking back to a set of well documented so called debates, on which books have been written, the Lincoln Douglas Debates, these were a series of adversarial speeches in the format opening, reply, and rejoinder, rather like in format the order and nature of lawyers' opening or closing statements to juries, with the candidates alternating the order of delivery for each successive joint debate. <br /><br />There was no moderator or judge of who won a given so called debate. Each candidate's press told its readership who had won. <br /><br />The candidates themselves conducted their presentations themselves. Each addressed points made in the other's opening speech, and each addressed the reply in the rejoinder.<br /><br />Technical debates in rhetoric are more formal of course, and are judged on technical criteria.<br /><br />The current situation illustrates many different aspects of how politics here have changed. The willingness to engage substantively, the role of the press, the reticence to commit specifically to specifics, and many other themes are seen here.<br /><br />I would point out that Lincoln and Douglas also had a lot not to come clean about, both in their past political records, and in what they each might, or intended to, do if elected for that office. But the back and forth caused more of some of what each did not want to admit or discuss to be brought forth publicly and specifically.What they were really trying to hide, or the conspiracies real or imagined they were trying to illuminate or conceal, came out between two experienced insiders.<br /><br />All the bestBozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-59091480220950149362020-10-09T11:49:39.803-04:002020-10-09T11:49:39.803-04:00I sometimes wonder whether the format of the so-ca...I sometimes wonder whether the format of the so-called debates encourages such evasiveness. It is not at all necessary to involve the media. They could give prepared speeches and then launch into rebuttals. Media could fact-check later.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508765453639655912noreply@blogger.com