CDZ You watched the debates, and changed your mind. Here is why...

[Andylusion]

As the title suggests, this is an open question to all people, right, left, center, and crazy.

To anyone who watched, any, or all of the debates, and specifically because of something you saw in the debate changed your mind on who you would vote for.

What was it that changed your mind, and why?

My view is that debates have absolutely no value whatsoever. I didn't bother watching any of them. I've seen videos of past debates, and never saw anything of any value.

So here is your chance to explain it to me. What was it that changed your mind, and convinced you of... whatever, and why?

 

[Disir]

It solidified my view that the Dems have no problem using cold war propaganda techniques when it suits them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am still firm in my resolve to vote for neither.

I don't recall ever watching a debate where a moderator actually took an active part in debating, however. Anderson Cooper was o.k., but that Martha Raddatz should never be allowed near a debate again. She was so thoroughly unprofessional that there was little doubt that the media was part of the process of getting Hillary elected.

 

[Toronado3800]

If a third party candidate was allowed in that shameful second debate we just might have a new leader in the polls.

I have never seen such a shameful Post Archie Bunker display of ignorance on the part of two people I should respect.

My God, Let me moderate the 3rd debate and give me the power to cut their microphone the moment either gets off topic answering my questions. They'll be given one more chance to actually answer the question then we'll go to the next candidate.

Why are none of these fools answering with MATH how they think Social Security should be fixed or changed.

Same with healthcare and the deficit.

I am glad by kid watched a movie in his room.

 

[jwoodie]

I am still firm in my resolve to vote for neither.

I don't recall ever watching a debate where a moderator actually took an active part in debating, however. Anderson Cooper was o.k., but that Martha Raddatz should never be allowed near a debate again. She was so thoroughly unprofessional that there was little doubt that the media was part of the process of getting Hillary elected.

Candy Crowley did the same thing in the Romney/Obama debate.

 

[jwoodie]

Let me moderate the 3rd debate and give me the power to cut their microphone

How about an automatic cutoff after two minutes? (But that would hurt the entertainment value and ratings.)

As for Social Security and the National Debt, there are only two real solutions: Economic expansion and/or inflation.

 

[GaryDog]

I really cannot fathom how anyone intelligent could still be undecided. The questions proffered by the "undecided" voters at the debate confirmed my suspicion that they are largely ignorant mouth-breathers.

 

[Andylusion]

The responses and poll answer, are rather interesting.

See, I was actually attacked and insulted for not watching the debates. Someone told me that it was part of my civic duty to be informed, and the debates were part of being informed.

Yet not one person has attempted to explain how they were 'informed' by the debates.

Interesting.

 

[GaryDog]

Not sure who attacked you, but they were wrong.

Though there is something to be said for watching the debates to see how "presidential" each candidate can look under the white-hot glow of prime-time, multiple channels, with no commercial breaks.

That being said, I do not begrudge a single person who sits them all out this fall.

 

[baileyn45]

Personally I didn't watch the debates. Too depressing. One of these two are going to be the next president. There's an old saying about hitting the bottom of the barrel, we've bored through the bottom of the barrel, dug deep into the dirt and apparently just hit a septic tank.

 

[Andylusion]

Not sure who attacked you, but they were wrong.

Though there is something to be said for watching the debates to see how "presidential" each candidate can look under the white-hot glow of prime-time, multiple channels, with no commercial breaks.

That being said, I do not begrudge a single person who sits them all out this fall.

Ok, so one of the answer was, "No, but in other elections it has". Are you suggesting that in other elections, it would change your mind?

And additionally, do you think that seeing how "presidential" they are, in a artificial situation that president would never find himself, is valuable?

In the last 8 years, when has Obama ever been stuck on in front of a camera for 90 minutes, with no commercial breaks, excluding the 4 presidential debates? When has that ever been something that he had to do while conducting business as president? Or any other president? Never.

So what value does that have? Do you think two people spitting insults at each other for 90 minutes, is a skill needed to complete any other duty of president?

I guess I'm questioning the difference between looking the part, or actually being the part. I'd rather have substance over form. A guy can stand there and looking "presidential", and still be a nimrod in the office.

 

[GaryDog]

Not sure who attacked you, but they were wrong.

Though there is something to be said for watching the debates to see how "presidential" each candidate can look under the white-hot glow of prime-time, multiple channels, with no commercial breaks.

That being said, I do not begrudge a single person who sits them all out this fall.

Ok, so one of the answer was, "No, but in other elections it has". Are you suggesting that in other elections, it would change your mind?

And additionally, do you think that seeing how "presidential" they are, in a artificial situation that president would never find himself, is valuable?

In the last 8 years, when has Obama ever been stuck on in front of a camera for 90 minutes, with no commercial breaks, excluding the 4 presidential debates? When has that ever been something that he had to do while conducting business as president? Or any other president? Never.

So what value does that have? Do you think two people spitting insults at each other for 90 minutes, is a skill needed to complete any other duty of president?

I guess I'm questioning the difference between looking the part, or actually being the part. I'd rather have substance over form. A guy can stand there and looking "presidential", and still be a nimrod in the office.

In 90 minutes of uninterrupted talk, you get a better idea of a candidate's temperament, and stamina, than most any other place. Someone can look presidential, and fake smarts for 10, 20, maybe 30 minutes . But over an hour and a half, when the average person's attention span has been pushed to the breaking point, you get a clearer picture of the person. Being president involves huge amounts of pressure, and the ability to maintain calm and clear thinking for hours at a time if a crisis develops. A long debate under high stress is a decent yardstick of a candidate's ability to handle that. (And as we can see with Trump, he clearly cannot.)

And I understand what you mean by substance over style, but I think you lend short shrift to the importance of a country having a leader who can also APPEAR presidential. They're not just policy- and deal-makers working the back rooms. They're the spokesperson of the government to the American people. They're OUR spokesperson to the rest of the world, and their image is often projected onto all of us. Moreover, how WE feel is often a reflection of how our president conducts him or herself. If he has brilliant ideas but talks like a moron in the State of the Union Address, or at the UN, our national reputation suffers, and we as Americans feel like a lesser people. To some degree, style matters.

 

[Andylusion]

Not sure who attacked you, but they were wrong.

Though there is something to be said for watching the debates to see how "presidential" each candidate can look under the white-hot glow of prime-time, multiple channels, with no commercial breaks.

That being said, I do not begrudge a single person who sits them all out this fall.

Ok, so one of the answer was, "No, but in other elections it has". Are you suggesting that in other elections, it would change your mind?

And additionally, do you think that seeing how "presidential" they are, in a artificial situation that president would never find himself, is valuable?

In the last 8 years, when has Obama ever been stuck on in front of a camera for 90 minutes, with no commercial breaks, excluding the 4 presidential debates? When has that ever been something that he had to do while conducting business as president? Or any other president? Never.

So what value does that have? Do you think two people spitting insults at each other for 90 minutes, is a skill needed to complete any other duty of president?

I guess I'm questioning the difference between looking the part, or actually being the part. I'd rather have substance over form. A guy can stand there and looking "presidential", and still be a nimrod in the office.

In 90 minutes of uninterrupted talk, you get a better idea of a candidate's temperament, and stamina, than most any other place. Someone can look presidential, and fake smarts for 10, 20, maybe 30 minutes . But over an hour and a half, when the average person's attention span has been pushed to the breaking point, you get a clearer picture of the person. Being president involves huge amounts of pressure, and the ability to maintain calm and clear thinking for hours at a time if a crisis develops. A long debate under high stress is a decent yardstick of a candidate's ability to handle that. (And as we can see with Trump, he clearly cannot.)

And I understand what you mean by substance over style, but I think you lend short shrift to the importance of a country having a leader who can also APPEAR presidential. They're not just policy- and deal-makers working the back rooms. They're the spokesperson of the government to the American people. They're OUR spokesperson to the rest of the world, and their image is often projected onto all of us. Moreover, how WE feel is often a reflection of how our president conducts him or herself. If he has brilliant ideas but talks like a moron in the State of the Union Address, or at the UN, our national reputation suffers, and we as Americans feel like a lesser people. To some degree, style matters.

I guess I just disagree with that. People act differently on Camera, than off camera. This is Universally true. It was true of every President, including Obama.

And I honestly hold no stock whatsoever in appearance. None at all. I'll take someone the rest of the world mocks, who does what is right and good.

You realize that the greatest presidents in US history, were often completely non-photogenic. Abraham Lincoln didn't have tons of stamina. He rarely spoke for any length of time. He was completely un-presidential in appearance.

By any estimate, Lincoln would never survive a debate, or win an election in our "looking good" culture.

Roosevelt, Adams, Washington, Eisenhower, few if any of the greatest presidents in history, would survive your requirements for being president. Roosevelt famously refused to debate. If Trump had refused to debate at all, would you consider that to be presidential material? Why not? I simply don't see your perspective on this, at all.

 

[GaryDog]

I guess I just disagree with that. People act differently on Camera, than off camera. This is Universally true. It was true of every President, including Obama.

No argument.

And I honestly hold no stock whatsoever in appearance. None at all. I'll take someone the rest of the world mocks, who does what is right and good.

You may not. Most, however, do. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00076-6/abstract?cc=y=

You realize that the greatest presidents in US history, were often completely non-photogenic. Abraham Lincoln didn't have tons of stamina. He rarely spoke for any length of time. He was completely un-presidential in appearance.

By any estimate, Lincoln would never survive a debate, or win an election in our "looking good" culture.

Not because "looking good" doesn't matter. It's because virtually none of the population ever saw Lincoln. There was no video in 1865, and no mass distribution of photos. How can you not see the difference there? It's an unfortunate truth in some respects, but still a truth.

Roosevelt, Adams, Washington, Eisenhower, few if any of the greatest presidents in history, would survive your requirements for being president. Roosevelt famously refused to debate. If Trump had refused to debate at all, would you consider that to be presidential material? Why not? I simply don't see your perspective on this, at all.

That's not "my requirement" for being president, and once again, you've named presidents who ALL came before the onset of TV. Not only has TV changed how we view the office of president, it's CHANGED THE JOB of president. You can't just be the elephant man with Lincolnesque ideas anymore. Your charisma, charm, facial expressions and tone, all matter now. That's just a fact, devoid of any qualitative opinion from me.

And I never ONCE mentioned that someone should be "good looking." My analysis was based on temperament, and how one carries oneself in a debate. That shit matters. It's not 1865, or 1800, or 1790, and your metric of analysis is no longer valid.

 

[Andylusion]

I guess I just disagree with that. People act differently on Camera, than off camera. This is Universally true. It was true of every President, including Obama.

No argument.

And I honestly hold no stock whatsoever in appearance. None at all. I'll take someone the rest of the world mocks, who does what is right and good.

You may not. Most, however, do. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00076-6/abstract?cc=y=

You realize that the greatest presidents in US history, were often completely non-photogenic. Abraham Lincoln didn't have tons of stamina. He rarely spoke for any length of time. He was completely un-presidential in appearance.

By any estimate, Lincoln would never survive a debate, or win an election in our "looking good" culture.

Not because "looking good" doesn't matter. It's because virtually none of the population ever saw Lincoln. There was no video in 1865, and no mass distribution of photos. How can you not see the difference there? It's an unfortunate truth in some respects, but still a truth.

Roosevelt, Adams, Washington, Eisenhower, few if any of the greatest presidents in history, would survive your requirements for being president. Roosevelt famously refused to debate. If Trump had refused to debate at all, would you consider that to be presidential material? Why not? I simply don't see your perspective on this, at all.

That's not "my requirement" for being president, and once again, you've named presidents who ALL came before the onset of TV. Not only has TV changed how we view the office of president, it's CHANGED THE JOB of president. You can't just be the elephant man with Lincolnesque ideas anymore. Your charisma, charm, facial expressions and tone, all matter now. That's just a fact, devoid of any qualitative opinion from me.

And I never ONCE mentioned that someone should be "good looking." My analysis was based on temperament, and how one carries oneself in a debate. That shit matters. It's not 1865, or 1800, or 1790, and your metric of analysis is no longer valid.

I don't care if most do, or not. This thread is not about "do appearances matter to the general public". Of course they do. That's why bimbos with zero skill, can make billions in Hollywood.

Is that the same standard we want in the most powerful government position in the world? The same shallow standard that allows Kim Kardashian, Snooki, and Paris Hilton, to be rich and famous, is now the same standard we apply to being president, because "Most, however, do"?? REALLY!?!?

Yes, I know the unfortunate truth. I'm asking you, as an intelligent thinking adult... does "looking the part" mean anything in real practical terms? Is that what matters?

Not how looks can sway the stupidity of the general public. We already know that. We both likely know about the famous, or infamous Nixon JFK debate, where the people who only heard the debate, said Nixon clearly had the more intelligent, more rational, and reasoned response. The people who sat in front of the boob tube, turning into boobs.... said JFK won..... he looked better. Nixon didn't put on makeup for the dog and pony show.

No, it has not changed the job of president. Being president, as a practical function, is not any different. If it really has, then we are doomed as a species. If you are telling me, that determining how to deal with Nuclear Iran, or whether to sign the PPT treaty, or how to stop Russian aggression is now fundamentally different because of how you look when spitting insults at another person on a 90 minute debate..... then we are doomed. Completely doomed. You might as well kiss this country goodbye and not bother with talking about politics anymore.

See everyone on this forum, has said now a million times, over and over, in thread after thread... "why do we keep getting the worst possible choices for president! Why do we keep getting this quacks? Where have all the good presidents gone??"

THIS IS THE REASON! RIGHT HERE! This is it dude! We are not judging people based on where they stand on specific policies. We are judging them based on charisma, charm, facial expressions and tone temperament, "and how one carries oneself in a debate. That shit matters. It's not 1865, or 1800, or 1790, and your metric of analysis is no longer valid."

Then if that metric of analysis is no longer valid, then I don't want to hear another complaint about why we get crap presidents, instead of the great presidents of the past. No more whining about why we can't find another Coolidge or Eisenhower. You are saying why. The metric which this country used to elect those great presidents, by your own statement is no longer valid.

So you get the crap you get, based on "temperament" and "how one carries oneself in a <meaningless> debate". No more crying when the only options you end up with, is Hillary and Trump. If that's the metric that matters, then those are the choices you get.

This American culture needs to wake up, and stop being such mindless lemmings. Funny, they keep telling me the Bible is a joke... but then I read threads like this, and Isaiah 3:6 pops into my mind:

"In those days a man will say to his brother, "Since you have a coat, you be our leader! Take charge of this heap of ruins!"

"Since you carry yourself in a debate and look good... come be our leader! You have 'temperament'!"

Ugh.... man. Humans are sad sad pathetic beings.

 

[Toronado3800]

Looking the part matters a bit. I am on the phone so this will be typo filled and brief.

Imagine the manager at your work who can get people to follow him. Now imagine one who can give a good speech at a 9-11 memorial and no help unify a country.

The "W" was not my man by far but he gave a good speech. Obama gave a good speech or two early on. Big government Reagan is still heralded.

As much as it is against my nature there is a PR aspect to the job.

 

[GaryDog]

I guess I just disagree with that. People act differently on Camera, than off camera. This is Universally true. It was true of every President, including Obama.

No argument.

And I honestly hold no stock whatsoever in appearance. None at all. I'll take someone the rest of the world mocks, who does what is right and good.

You may not. Most, however, do. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00076-6/abstract?cc=y=

You realize that the greatest presidents in US history, were often completely non-photogenic. Abraham Lincoln didn't have tons of stamina. He rarely spoke for any length of time. He was completely un-presidential in appearance.

By any estimate, Lincoln would never survive a debate, or win an election in our "looking good" culture.

Not because "looking good" doesn't matter. It's because virtually none of the population ever saw Lincoln. There was no video in 1865, and no mass distribution of photos. How can you not see the difference there? It's an unfortunate truth in some respects, but still a truth.

Roosevelt, Adams, Washington, Eisenhower, few if any of the greatest presidents in history, would survive your requirements for being president. Roosevelt famously refused to debate. If Trump had refused to debate at all, would you consider that to be presidential material? Why not? I simply don't see your perspective on this, at all.

That's not "my requirement" for being president, and once again, you've named presidents who ALL came before the onset of TV. Not only has TV changed how we view the office of president, it's CHANGED THE JOB of president. You can't just be the elephant man with Lincolnesque ideas anymore. Your charisma, charm, facial expressions and tone, all matter now. That's just a fact, devoid of any qualitative opinion from me.

And I never ONCE mentioned that someone should be "good looking." My analysis was based on temperament, and how one carries oneself in a debate. That shit matters. It's not 1865, or 1800, or 1790, and your metric of analysis is no longer valid.

I don't care if most do, or not. This thread is not about "do appearances matter to the general public". Of course they do. That's why bimbos with zero skill, can make billions in Hollywood.

Is that the same standard we want in the most powerful government position in the world? The same shallow standard that allows Kim Kardashian, Snooki, and Paris Hilton, to be rich and famous, is now the same standard we apply to being president, because "Most, however, do"?? REALLY!?!?

Yes, I know the unfortunate truth. I'm asking you, as an intelligent thinking adult... does "looking the part" mean anything in real practical terms? Is that what matters?

Not how looks can sway the stupidity of the general public. We already know that. We both likely know about the famous, or infamous Nixon JFK debate, where the people who only heard the debate, said Nixon clearly had the more intelligent, more rational, and reasoned response. The people who sat in front of the boob tube, turning into boobs.... said JFK won..... he looked better. Nixon didn't put on makeup for the dog and pony show.

No, it has not changed the job of president. Being president, as a practical function, is not any different. If it really has, then we are doomed as a species. If you are telling me, that determining how to deal with Nuclear Iran, or whether to sign the PPT treaty, or how to stop Russian aggression is now fundamentally different because of how you look when spitting insults at another person on a 90 minute debate..... then we are doomed. Completely doomed. You might as well kiss this country goodbye and not bother with talking about politics anymore.

See everyone on this forum, has said now a million times, over and over, in thread after thread... "why do we keep getting the worst possible choices for president! Why do we keep getting this quacks? Where have all the good presidents gone??"

THIS IS THE REASON! RIGHT HERE! This is it dude! We are not judging people based on where they stand on specific policies. We are judging them based on charisma, charm, facial expressions and tone temperament, "and how one carries oneself in a debate. That shit matters. It's not 1865, or 1800, or 1790, and your metric of analysis is no longer valid."

Then if that metric of analysis is no longer valid, then I don't want to hear another complaint about why we get crap presidents, instead of the great presidents of the past. No more whining about why we can't find another Coolidge or Eisenhower. You are saying why. The metric which this country used to elect those great presidents, by your own statement is no longer valid.

So you get the crap you get, based on "temperament" and "how one carries oneself in a <meaningless> debate". No more crying when the only options you end up with, is Hillary and Trump. If that's the metric that matters, then those are the choices you get.

This American culture needs to wake up, and stop being such mindless lemmings. Funny, they keep telling me the Bible is a joke... but then I read threads like this, and Isaiah 3:6 pops into my mind:

"In those days a man will say to his brother, "Since you have a coat, you be our leader! Take charge of this heap of ruins!"

"Since you carry yourself in a debate and look good... come be our leader! You have 'temperament'!"

Ugh.... man. Humans are sad sad pathetic beings.

Jesus. Sounds like you might be too emotional to read another person's post without impugning your own meaning.

First, I didn't say looks are all that matters or being president is akin to being a reality star. If that were true, I'd be voting trump. I'm a hillary supporter because she is qualified, has better policy ideas, AND a more even temperament needed for the job. She has the personality of a bar of soap, however. That is a big downside for her doing the job because you need to inspire Americans as president. It's part and parcel of the job now in the age of tv.

People didn't think Nixon was the "clear winner" on radio. More who listened said he won than those who viewed TV. But regardless you're lending credence to audio, which is technology that could've doomed Lincoln and his high, squeaky voice. So in reality, you're parroting my analysis.

And finally, Coolidge??? Please don't tell me you think the guy whose policies (or lack thereof) strongly assisted in setting up the stock market crash and the depression was a great president. He was a placeholder. Nothing more. The middle part of the 19th century has presidents who also did almost absolutely nothing and wouldn't recognize the job today. TV and, yes, PR is part of that. Not all of it. But a huge part. And yes, it's necessary.