Overwritten.net
Community => Serious Topics => Topic started by: nickclone on Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 08:27:07 PM
-
After hearing all of the shit about how the Dem party is split, I think Hillary did an amazing job of trying to sway her constituents to vote for Obama. However, the GOP (Larry King is having a GOP rebuttal this whole week of the GOP convention) thinks that she didn't do a great job at all.
I know a lot of you to the right, but how do you all think Hillary fared last night?
-
Who the fuck here is to the right? There's like... 2 of us. Maybe 3. And I don't really even count since I think politics from either side are a load of horseshit.
-
Who the fuck here is to the right? There's like... 2 of us. Maybe 3. And I don't really even count since I think politics from either side are a load of horseshit.
C'mon! I can't be that drunk. I remember having fierce discussions that involved anti-abortion, pro creationism, anti gay marriage, etc. Are you guys really against that stuff, but still swing to the left?
-
You probably had that conversation with 2 or 3 of us, seriously. Everyone else is either neutral or more on your end of things. I think there's plenty of general apathy, but certainly not a lot of pro-conservativism (that isn't a word, is it?).
-
I was more conservative than I am now, but at no time did I believe in imposing moral or religious standards on anyone. I guess you would have called me a fiscal conservative, and I'm not even that anymore. Nothing like getting a dose of hard life to show anyone how stacked the deck is.
I'm not sure I'm voting at all in November. All I can tell is that if I do, it won't be for any republicans.
I'd be very wary of anything a GOP mouthpiece spews about the opposition (or vice-versa). Politics are all about spin, and that word is about as benign as it gets.
-
After hearing all of the shit about how the Dem party is split, I think Hillary did an amazing job of trying to sway her constituents to vote for Obama. However, the GOP (Larry King is having a GOP rebuttal this whole week of the GOP convention) thinks that she didn't do a great job at all.
I know a lot of you to the right, but how do you all think Hillary fared last night?
Not to be a dick here, but does it really matter? She doesn't set policy and it has no bearing on it.
-
Not to be a dick here, but does it really matter? She doesn't set policy and it has no bearing on it.
I tend to agree with you. What are her supporters going to do, vote for McCain? Anti-Black racists won't vote for Obama, no matter what she says. Liberals won't elect a republican, no matter what she says. Those who can go either way will split along the government-approval percentages, no matter what she says, though they may be swayed by the candidates' campaigns (no matter what she says). So who cares what she says?
-
And the country's fucked no matter what idiot we throw into the big chair, so who really cares anyway?
-
RON PAUL WILL SAVE US
-
So who cares what she says?
The media. They thrive on the "Hillary vs. Obama" nonsense.
It's nice to finally see a black guy get nominated for a major party, but as for the convention: meh. I watched a few minutes of the Hillary speech. I couldn't really care less about any of it. I may watch Obama's speech.
I still have complete confidence in the Democrats to blow the election in November. People are too prone to buy into the McCain POW story without actually listening to what he has to say - i.e. very stupid things.
-
I still have complete confidence in the Democrats to blow the election in November. People are too prone to buy into the McCain POW story without actually listening to what he has to say - i.e. very stupid things.
I saw the Gore speech, I also have complete confidence in the Democrats to blow the election. Actually, I have complete confidence in the ability of whichever party wins to blow the whole thing. System is kind of stagnant and probably will remain so until cataclysm hits.
-
Too many people are still too fat and lazy by the fire for a revolution, the only thing which may fix it.
-
Can we try 4 years without a president? That might be fun.
-
Well I watched most of the speech and it was damned good, better than I expected. Best line - "McCain says that he will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell, be he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives."
I thought that was pretty good.
-
Good in the "I'm not making any promises or actually short listing any policy platforms because I don't want to be held accountable when I'm up for the second term" sort of way.
-
But that's politics. You have to expect that. Of course it's all bullshit. Do you really think the others are any different? Besides, I never expected concrete policy proposals from a huge speech in front of a mass audience. It's a different beast entirely.
But two things:
1. Being able to speak intelligently and actually know what you are talking about is incredibly important for a leader.
2. Inspiring people and getting them interested is a good thing.
-
Too bad both are accomplished through speech writers and have nothing at all to do with the actual candidate.
-
Too bad both are accomplished through speech writers and have nothing at all to do with the actual candidate.
Not true. Bush could have the best speech writers in the universe and they still wouldn't help him.
Even still, your point is moot because the president isn't solely relying on his own judgment and intelligence. Just as their speeches aren't their own, their decisions are also based upon the input of those around them.
-
Obama is a charismatic public speaker, and that definitely does matter, not only for a candidate but also for a president. Ghandi's right. Speech writers could never help Bush. He needs someone else to deliver them too.
-
Except for the fact that being a public speaker is only of real value when you're trying to impress someone, and has jack shit to do with what you actually believe or what your actual capabilities are. It certainly helps in a negotiation, but it doesn't speak much to who a man is.
-
So? All you can really do through a speech anyways is to motivate people and try to convince them of your positions, and Obama does that. I don't really get what your point is.
-
That he's just as much of a sleazy douchebag as the rest of them, but you happen to like him because he talks pretty.
-
Exactly. He talks pretty and he looks pretty. That's how I always choose who I will vote for.
I love how you extrapolated that I am going to vote for him because he talks pretty from me saying that his speech was good.
-
No, you're just obviously pro-Obama and obviously have at least *some* faith in the political system, which I don't. So I am extrapolating that anyone who votes for anybody in good faith, thinking that it means something, is deluded either by choice or just because they aren't being realistic about what the system and their role in it actually are. And I know that sounds like an insult, but I don't mean it that way. I just mean to say that, via the topic of this thread, that in my opinion, anything any of these people say is entirely worthless. Whether or speech is good or bad is indifferent because it's a giant pack of lies regardless.
-
Just because I like the guy doesn't mean that I think he's going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. Either you think that I'm really naive or you just don't know what my views are.
-
Well I watched most of the speech and it was damned good, better than I expected.
Sorry, I was really just responding to that post. I may have misinterpreted your exuberance, but that kind of comment is just one of my buttons because it frustrates me when people give any credit to speeches and such.
-
But that's politics. You have to expect that. Of course it's all bullshit. Do you really think the others are any different? Besides, I never expected concrete policy proposals from a huge speech in front of a mass audience. It's a different beast entirely.
But two things:
1. Being able to speak intelligently and actually know what you are talking about is incredibly important for a leader.
2. Inspiring people and getting them interested is a good thing.
While I dion't disagree with you, people have to realize that grand public speeches are the most shallow and least important parts of the election process. They have their uses: like when you're getting the shit bombed out of the rubble that used to be the largest metropolitan area in your nation and you need to keep spirits up, but apart from that they're just the political equivalent of eye candy. No substance at all and a shitty thing to decide (waste) your vote on. That's the problem with politics, and American politics in particular - it's a little too glamorized and pandering.
-
Sincerity and enthusiasm behind words make a great difference, in any situation that calls for conversation. Charisma is important to a leader. I am convinced of that. People are motivated by emotion more than by sense. That's the way our brains are built. Sad but true.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying charisma has no bearing. A lot of being a leader depends on one's diplomacy and negotiation skills, which charisma definitely CAN apply to. All I'm saying is its silly to praise a leaders oration abilities when you don't even know what he's actually saying. Fiery speeches are great to motivate people into a common goal, but as a voter you should realize that in the pre-election process they have no actual use except to distract and hoodwink. It's a stupid thing to judge a leader on because generally, when choosing a leader you're trying to avoid any actual situation where he has to stand in front of a large group of people and appeal to their emotions or convince them of anything. You're trying to choose a leader who will sail your ship away from the situations which would make doing so necessary.
Beyond that, being a great public speaker says very little of negotiation skills or being a great personal speaker - which is why Toastmaster meetings are filled with people who are already very successful in business. Charisma certainly is important, but not nearly as important as policy platforms, which is what leaders should be addressing pre-election. You can just sigh and mumble that nobody actually does, but that's not really the attitude that leads to change. What you mean is that nobody in the two parties you're "forced" to vote for unless you want to "waste" your vote. Apathy isn't going to change that - that's what they're counting on.
Look at elections in the rest of the world. Less of a circus, more of a job interview.
-
I'm too tired to comprehend every last word since my neighbors kept me up well past 5 AM, but from what I did get of that, well said.
-
...aaaaaaaaaaand that's why you never pick a woman as your running mate. Amiright?
-
...aaaaaaaaaaand that's why you never pick a woman as your running mate. Amiright?
also they drive bad amirite
-
Because you wouldn't want this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4n6MNz-Sc) anywhere near the White House, amiright?
-
Well McCain needs someone to cook his meals amiright?