|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 10 2016 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
meh
I mean rubio got exposed and ridiculed for the rehearsed statements, but the main thing that separates his rehearsed statements from those of other candidates is that his rehearsed statements are more eloquent. Everyone has their talking points that they keep bringing up ad nauseum. I'm totally supportive of Sanders, but in the previous debate I thought there were several instances of him dodging a question just to *insert wall street talking bit here*.
Trump is the only one who seems not to rehearse his statements much, and who ad libs the most, but then he's also the by far least eloquent, so I'm not particularly impressed by it.
I think it's pretty funny that Chris "I'm a federal prosecutor" "Let's stop listening to these Senators yapping" "9/11" Christie is the one who managed to make Rubio sound canned and rehearsed.
|
In nearly eight years since the start of the 2008 financial crisis, European politics has witnessed a remarkable surge in left-wing anti-capitalism and right-wing nationalism. With the 2016 presidential election, this ideological shift has arrived on American shores. Its heralds are the two expected victors in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Each of these candidates represents a particular political tradition that was, until recently, alien to national elections in the United States. Trump, whose disregard for the pieties of evangelical conservatism sets him apart from other GOP hard-liners, fits neatly into a European mold. His blend of hardline nationalism and ideological flexibility is similar to that of European right-wing populists such as Britain’s Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and France’s Marine Le Pen of the National Front.
Trump, however, falls to the right of his closest European analogues. Both Farage and Le Pen, for example, have publicly distanced themselves from Trump’s call for a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration. Farage, in particular, said that Trump had gone "too far" with the proposal.
Sanders appears to be a more distinctly American type, a veteran of civil rights marches and the 1960's student movement. But his platform and ideology would be right at home among the moderate social democrats of Scandinavia. His calls for progressive taxation, a stronger labor movement, and an expansive public health care system are already commonplace to the point of banality in Sweden and Denmark — to say nothing of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and other strong Western European states.
To his critics in the U.S., Sanders is a radical who threatens to ride a wave of popular discontent to upend the political establishment — as Greece’s Syriza and Spain’s Podemos parties have. But a closer European analogue to Sanders might be Jeremy Corbyn, the old-school trade unionist who seized control of Britain’s Labour Party amidst the collapse of the centrist wing.
European-style candidates are resonating with voters now because political parties in the U.S. are facing some of the same pressures as those in Europe.
Source
|
The reason Rubio's hurting is that the man behind the curtain got exposed. It's not that he's the only politician with rehearsed lines, it's that outside of his rehearsed lines he's got nothing.
Most politicians use rehearsed lines sparingly because they're often seen as inauthentic and dishonest, so the worst case scenario is that on a particular issue they'll be seen as weak or calculating. Rubio's problem is that he is perceived as having a greater reliance on rehearsed lines, so when he's called out on it the damage isn't isolated to a particular issue, but to him as a candidate.
It's the same problem Palin had really. She good do a reasonably good job so long as she was on script, but once she was off script she was awful.
|
Looking at the polling places it looks like we are woefully incapable of running this process.
Several polling place have ridiculous lines. Traffic backed up something fierce. This is pretty preposterous. Voting shouldn't take longer than an hour maybe two from sitting in your house and deciding you want to do it.
If suppressing the vote is what we do here we should at least be honest with ourselves about it.
|
Norway28910 Posts
Rubio off script is in an entirely different league than Palin.. And she can't do scripted debates either, all she can do is read off a teleprompter, and even then she has never struck me as eloquent or knowledgeable... Rubio, while scripted, has at least showcased genuine knowledge. What I took from the previous debate was that 1) he's not necessarily as naturally eloquent as he comes off as being because his statements are clearly rehearsed, 2) he made an error in thinking that his Obama is systematically trying to demolish the soul of the USA statement was worth repeating 4 times, at least two of them entirely out of context, 3) made an enormous error in not adjusting / was incapable of changing his strategy after Christie's first attack on him. And the latter was a huge momentum changer - the 'there it is again' comment from Christie might be the soundbite of Rubio's demise.
Not that he's entirely out of the game yet, but his position was severely weakened either way. However, even if he now loses hard in NH and ends up dropping out after super tuesday, or somehow even earlier, there's nothing about him that warrants a Palin comparison imo. ;/
|
We are a nation that celebrates being a democracy, but why have it be a national holiday? Or at least require folks be let out of work early? Because work ethic is important.
|
On February 10 2016 08:26 Plansix wrote:
We are a nation that celebrates being a democracy, but why have it be a national holiday? Or at least require folks be let out of work early? Because work ethic is important.
Any politician not pushing for making voting work better should find a new job.
|
On February 10 2016 08:26 Plansix wrote:
We are a nation that celebrates being a democracy, but why have it be a national holiday? Or at least require folks be let out of work early? Because work ethic is important.
Democracy is just another way to organize a society. It does not guarantee a society will be healthy, nor does it confer some moral high-ground by its mere presence. American celebrations of democracy are celebrations of the people, not the system. Also, there are many who feel voting should be made more difficult, not less.
|
yeah and those people are wrong in every sense of the word.
|
Also, there are many who feel voting should be made more difficult, not less.
Yeah, people who prefer obedient idiots over educated voters.
|
Well the founders did have heavily restricted voting population compared to today...do you think they trusted the plebs with the political process? 
|
On February 10 2016 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Also, there are many who feel voting should be made more difficult, not less. Yeah, people who prefer obedient idiots over educated voters.
Then your goal should be education, not turn-out-the-vote programs designed to bring uneducated voters en massé to the voting booths.
I'll be honest about my intentions: I think bringing the voting age above 25 and requiring a state-issued ID would prevent a lot of uninformed, uneducated, reliably Democrat voters from engaging in the process. The drive for amnesty is at least 95% about bringing in more of these types of voters for the Democrats, so I feel no qualms about engaging in voter-control wars.
My proposal would just have the added bonus of bringing up the average education of the voter. So it should satisfy your concerns.
edit: I made this sound worse than I originally meant. I don't think voting restrictions for the sake of political gain are okay or acceptable. I do think it is far too easy to vote in this country, and I do think we should require more civic responsibility and effort from our citizens.
|
Just heard a crazy stat: voters in NH who want an "honest and trustworthy" President went 93% for Bernie Sanders.
Huge divide there, been Clinton's biggest weakness in the primary so far imo.
|
I have no qualms about preventing people who disagree with me from voting.
|
You forgot an age cap on voting, cowboy. Senile people shouldn't vote either. Peak voting age should coincide with earning power: ages 25-55.
|
On February 10 2016 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
meh
I mean rubio got exposed and ridiculed for the rehearsed statements, but the main thing that separates his rehearsed statements from those of other candidates is that his rehearsed statements are more eloquent. Everyone has their talking points that they keep bringing up ad nauseum. I'm totally supportive of Sanders, but in the previous debate I thought there were several instances of him dodging a question just to *insert wall street talking bit here*.
Trump is the only one who seems not to rehearse his statements much, and who ad libs the most, but then he's also the by far least eloquent, so I'm not particularly impressed by it.
For what it's worth, I never have any trouble understanding Trump.
|
Should straight up senile people be voting? I'm not suggesting an age-cap, just some basic civic responsibility on the part of a senior citizen or their caretaker. Anyway, I can't figure out why someone would actually want more people to vote, whilst simultaneously making it easier to vote. There would be no civic duty on the part of these new voters; so the reason can't be to engage more people in the process. Is it because they vote a certain way?
|
On February 10 2016 09:19 Cowboy64 wrote:
Should straight up senile people be voting? I'm not suggesting an age-cap, just some basic civic responsibility on the part of a senior citizen or their caretaker. Anyway, I can't figure out why someone would actually want more people to vote, whilst simultaneously making it easier to vote. There would be no civic duty on the part of these new voters; so the reason can't be to engage more people in the process. Is it because they vote a certain way?
It would put some serious pressure on the politicians to make the best arguments to be observed by the best educated populace in the world.
Or we could just stick with encouraging the system to make people more oblivious and disaffected.
|
The only people who take their civic duty seiously are those with property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
