GOP Debate v2

[JustWinBaby]

(09-18-2015, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The information is out there, but people don't want to look beyond the surface, and so the media covers the surface with the superficial bollocks.

Nothing is discussed based on merit anymore, or whether it's even the best available option.  Every policy or proposal is viewed strictly thru the prism of whether or not it supports that analyst's particular agenda.

Yes, it's a superficial surface examination that this policy appears to go against their agenda, and so they will discuss the weaknesses as the worst thing ever while completely ignoring the positives.

Even worse, we're seeing the same politicization of our sciences.  Or at least much of what is covered in the media is going to not only be cherry-picked, but slanted and distorted to support an agenda.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2015, 05:43 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Nothing is discussed based on merit anymore, or whether it's even the best available option.  Every policy or proposal is viewed strictly thru the prism of whether or not it supports that analyst's particular agenda.

Yes, it's a superficial surface examination that this policy appears to go against their agenda, and so they will discuss the weaknesses as the worst thing ever while completely ignoring the positives.

Even worse, we're seeing the same politicization of our sciences.  Or at least much of what is covered in the media is going to not only be cherry-picked, but slanted and distorted to support an agenda.

It's something that frustrates me so much. I want the data. Show me the data set and give me the numbers. Let me read the actual meat of the study, not what your abstract of the abstract is. If you can show me with the actual data that my understanding or opinion is flawed then I want to know. That's how we can have a discussion about the actual merits. How did they come to the conclusions they came to?

We're just expected to swallow the tidbits that they throw at us and take them at face value, and of course the way things are phrased or the data used in the write up will vary with the source.

Ugh, just such a pain.

[6andcounting]

(09-18-2015, 05:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's something that frustrates me so much. I want the data. Show me the data set and give me the numbers. Let me read the actual meat of the study, not what your abstract of the abstract is. If you can show me with the actual data that my understanding or opinion is flawed then I want to know. That's how we can have a discussion about the actual merits. How did they come to the conclusions they came to?

We're just expected to swallow the tidbits that they throw at us and take them at face value, and of course the way things are phrased or the data used in the write up will vary with the source.

Ugh, just such a pain.

Haha! Appealing to logical decision makers gets your about 2% of the vote.

Chanting "war on women" or "they terk er jerbs!" Gets you an easy 20% from either side.

[mallorian69]

(09-18-2015, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Primary debates are usually a circus because most of the people on the stage are on the same side on most of the issues.  So they try to attack based on personality or other areas that have very little to do with policy.

General election debates are still full of soundbites and appeals to emotion, but at least the candidates are arguing two different sides on issues.

But it is getting worse.  Now some candidates are actually saying that knowledge of an issue does not even matter.  They claim that a president should be elected based on his personality then he can just surround himself with "smart people" to handle the details.  That is flat out scary.

I think it's funny and extremely hypocritical that you would say that seeing as how that is EXACTLY what Obama did.

[Bengalzona]

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2015, 10:26 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: I think it's funny and extremely hypocritical that you would say that seeing as how that is EXACTLY  what Obama did.

How could I be called hypocritical when my post was about BOTH parties?

[mallorian69]

(09-19-2015, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How could I be called hypocritical when my post was about BOTH parties?

Because you we're OK with it when it was Obama but not OK with it when someone you don't like does it. And as far as I know there have only been 2 candidates who have said not knowing about an issue is OK as long as you surround yourself with people that do and those are Trump and Carson.

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2015, 05:29 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: Because you we're OK with it when it was Obama but not OK with it when someone you don't like does it. And as far as I know there have only been 2 candidates who have said not knowing about an issue is OK as long as you surround yourself with people that do and those are Trump and Carson.

Obama never said that he did not need to know about issues, so I have no idea what you are talking about. If he, or any member of either party, ever said that then I would call them out.

[mallorian69]

No he never said that, he just didn't and still doesn't have a clue.

[Rotobeast]

(09-19-2015, 07:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Obama never said that he did not need to know about issues, so I have no idea what you are talking about. If he, or any member of either party, ever said that then I would call them out.

I'm too lazy to look for it, but didn't he say something in the campaign about appointing his Czars to oversee specific issues ?
I know he didn't outright say he was ignorant of issues, but I believe he deflected quite a bit to his Czars as to be responsible.
Forgive me if I am misremembering, but I'm pretty tired and I am ok with making mistakes once in a while.

 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-17-2015, 03:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, one of these day Dems will realize how little their politicians think of them.  If it was policy and positions that mattered, Obama and Hillary and their lapdog Wasserman-Shulz wouldn't be leading the divide-and-conquer strategy.  They COUNT on their voters being simple enough to get whipped into a frenzy with a few buzzwords about a single issue.

Romney's problem wasn't that he was a man, it was that he actually tried to be about content and policy while Obama just kept running around saying "you can keep you doctor".

No. The problem was that Romney's proposed policies were ones that a majority of people did not agree with.

Look, I'm not going to argue that politicians don't use simplified rhetoric and talking points during elections. But all of this nonsense about Republicans just needing the right candidate is putting lipstick on the same old reactionary, corporatist, supply-side voodoo pig, and people know it. Thus the reason less people identify as Republicans than they have in over 25 years. The problem isn't personality, it's policy.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 05:43 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Nothing is discussed based on merit anymore, or whether it's even the best available option.  Every policy or proposal is viewed strictly thru the prism of whether or not it supports that analyst's particular agenda.

Yes, it's a superficial surface examination that this policy appears to go against their agenda, and so they will discuss the weaknesses as the worst thing ever while completely ignoring the positives.

Even worse, we're seeing the same politicization of our sciences.  Or at least much of what is covered in the media is going to not only be cherry-picked, but slanted and distorted to support an agenda.

Here is what drives me crazy.  Lots of shows have these "panel discussions" that have one or two people from each side supposedly answering questions from a "television journalist", but many times the answers don't address the question that was asked.  Instead of answering the specific question instead they will just spew out a talking point that addresses the same general issue.  The "television journalists" almost never presses them to answer the exact question.  Instead they just let them toss around sound bites.