(Closed) Anyone Watching this debate

posted 9 years ago in Legal
Post # 182
Member
3884 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

On Biden’s facial expressions, the use of non-verbal cues has long been a debating tactic, and while Biden does take it to the extreme, all debaters do it. It’s the debater’s way of speaking to the audience without talking; in the debate last night, Biden used his facial expressions to convey to the audience “this guy is speaking pure nonsense” and would become more animated if Ryan’s fibs were big ones, and more subtle if Ryan’s fibs were little ones.  While this no doubt put some viewers off (as evidenced from the comments here and all over the Internet), it at a minimum drew the viewer’s attention to the fibs presented by the opponent.  You just couldn’t NOT notice Biden non-verbally calling Ryan out at every opportunity. And while the extreme does put some people off, it’s a calculated risk: will we alienate more viewers and voters than we win over?  On this, it looks at least from the major polls that Biden’s tactic worked, albeit by a narrow margin.  What remains to be seen is the long-term effect. Are people remembering Ryan’s half-truths when they go to vote more than they remember Biden’s goofy faces?   I think the next Presidential debate will hammer home that Ryan’s been caught lying many times and that Romney has too, and that no single debate will have as much influence on the undecided voters as the pattern across many debates of Ryan/Romney omitting facts and bending the truth and dodging questions.

As an aside– with the antectdotes about “redistribution” of kids’ allowances, grades and other things that are slanted heavily to the ultra-capitilistic, the important angle that is being left out of these antecdotes is the concept of social contract. As a member of any society, you enter an unspoken, unwritten contract that implies you will contribute to that society. By remaining an American, you agree to doing all those things that help make America great.  You may not directly benefit from them— as an example, I pay a lot of property tax, and most of it goes to local public schools, but I don’t have kids nor do I intend to. So I do not see a direct benefit from my property taxes. But as a member of the greater community, I benefit when kids in my area are well-educated; they get better jobs because they can compete in the workforce, so they have better incomes, spend more in local businesses, my property values go up and my crime rates go down.  In this example, the social contract is that I will pay into public schools, and in return I enjoy a more prosperous community. The ultra-conservative tendency to slash social programs and to not want to contribute on a level that is relative to one’s own prosperity and success undermines the social contract, to the detriment of us all.   The antecdotes also assume that the person benefitting from the “redistribution” is seeking a handout because they are unwilling to better themselves, which does not accurately reflect American society. Many of those most in need enter society in a socioeconomic situation that, without external influence, will hinder their ability to succeed– again with public schools, many studies show that inner city African-American kids are testing at a full grade level behind their white counterparts from the suburbs, partially because the schools are not funded as heavily and therefore do not have the resources the kids need, and partially because the social and economic challenges that come with being a product of these schools make it difficult at best (and impossible for some) for the child’s home environment to be conducive to successful education.  Education being only one small part of the social contract.

Post # 183
Member
646 posts
Busy bee

View original reply
@HisIrishPrincess:  I saw yesterday about Obama going to her wedding. Shouldnt this be an unbiased format? Such bull….I did not see the debates though, but reading that it wasnt a run away from either side? Do you agree? Also, from what Im reading, Biden acted like a disrespectful fool, but what else is new?

Post # 184
Member
963 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

View original reply
@mrssoontobeh:  Perhaps you missed my post 2 above yours?  How is it that when Biden is aggressive he’s an ass, but when Romney is an aggressive LIAR it’s just good debate strategy?  What’s good for one should be good for both.

I don’t know if any of the original posters are still paying attention to this thread, but since IrishPrincess seemed so up in arms with the fact that Obama was at the mod’s wedding, I thought I should clarify.  Yes, Obama was at the mod’s first wedding in the early 90s.  He was friends with her now ex husband, and was his guest, not hers.  He was not at her wedding to her current husband.  I wonder if any encore brides can even remember who their ex husbands invited to their wedding over 20 years ago, or how the married ladies would feel about being linked to people their husbands invited to their wedding.  We had a small wedding just a few months ago, and if you ask DH which of my friends were there, I doubt he could accurately list them all!

Post # 185
Member
646 posts
Busy bee

View original reply
@EastMeetsBarn: 

Nope did not see your posts as I only replied to her original question and did not go through all 5 pages of replies.
 
And yes, it does matter that he was a guest, even if it was years ago!!! If it was the other way, and the mod had a personal connection to Ryan Dems would be crying FOUL and it would be the top story on every news channel.
 
It should be an unbiased format, and ANYTHING that would have fingers wagging on either side should be analyzed. Even an obscure connection can set off doubts of fairness. Just saying that another mod could have been sought. Reminds me too much of the Gwen Ifill controversy 4 years ago

Post # 186
Member
3884 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

To all questioning the President’s attendance at the moderator’s wedding, do keep in mind that both parties are involved in planning these debates, including the selection of the moderator. If Ryan or the GOP had a problem with the President’s connection to the moderator, they had plenty of time to speak up and not agree to this moderator.  There is a very long process of laying out the format, ground rules and other details. What you see on debate night is what both candidates have agreed to.

If it doesn’t bother the people actually taking part in the debate, it shouldn’t bother us.  If the GOP and the Dems agreed that this moderator could be successful and unbiased, then we shouldn’t raise a fuss over it.  They have all the backstory.  We don’t.  We’re in no position to judge.  

 

Post # 187
Member
646 posts
Busy bee

Saw this. Thought it was funny. Figured I would share for those that agree. If you don’t agree, then sorry!!

 

 

The topic ‘Anyone Watching this debate’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors