We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[wmLambert]

...Could you link an interview that demonstrates that?  Because all the ones that I've heard, he sounds disjointed, unfocused, and not on top of things.

Exactly. If all that you've heard is as you say, then your sources ARE questionable. Trump speaks very coherently, but he uses ellipses to flesh out thoughts - not to ramble, but to nail down the content of what he speaks, so there is little doubt of the point being made. I have seen the same instances on Fox, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and each one looks "perfect" but only the Fox one showed all the clip. I see that because I've been in the editing suites and see the telltales. I saw it during Clinton, Bush 43, through Obama, and now during Trump. It is an unmistakable standard.

When Tom Leykis was a premier Democrat radio host, he bragged how he controlled his own control board so he could pot up callers who he wanted to sound smart, and potted down callers he didn't like who then had to shout to be heard. Of course the shouters sounded irate and uncivil, while the gently-speaking callers sounded like the penultimate example of sanity. It's like that all over the place. Only Limbaugh broke that habit. He's won awards year after year for being the most polite on-air host. Not only does he listen to what his callers say before he answers them, but he takes the time to restate their words to fully understand their intent and asks them if that is what they mean to say. All without rigging the system to make them sound funny. The production suites are hotbeds of progressives - and when Limbaugh had his short-lived TV show, his studio staff went out of their way to make him look and sound bad. I still hear about him showing a picture of a dog when talking about Chelsea Clinton. Total set-up. It's no wonder he quit that aspect of production.

IOW; what you often hear is not consistent with reality. With Trump, if you see him on an anti-Trump network, you will only see something pejorative, If they can't skew the real clip, they just won't show anything, and then paraphrase something else completely diametrically opposed to what he meant or said. But you will remember it because that is how and why it was done in the first place. You want a clip? Look at any of them, but you probably lack the production knowledge to see what you are really seeing.

Do you remember when Trump first used EO's to block immigration from places that weren't vetted? The MSM said it was anti-Muslim. It wasn't, and still isn't, but even the candidates in Democrat debates see nothing wrong with repeating the lie as if everyone knows it is the truth. (Laughter by Intimidation. (See Appeals to Prejudice) Representing the advocate as being out of step with "right-thinking people" to the point where everyone laughs at your ridiculous viewpoint. No rebuttal is offered - just ridicule the messenger.)

...And please, especially, provide some examples of Trump's "gravitas."

Why? That example was well before Trump arrived on the scene. Carville and Begala were the primary brains behind much of the goings-on back then. If you don't recall that whole "gravitas" episode you were not very observant back then. I have never met anyone who doesn't know that example.

[Wayward Son]

With Trump, if you see him on an anti-Trump network, you will only see something pejorative, If they can't skew the real clip, they just won't show anything, and then paraphrase something else completely diametrically opposed to what he meant or said.

Fine.  Show me something from a non-anti-Trump network.  Show me some extemporaneous speech where he is coherent and shows "gravitas." Show me an example where he "turn(s) a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale."

Show me.

Because I'm from Missouri.  I'd like to see it for myself.

[wmLambert]

...Show me something from a non-anti-Trump network.  Show me some extemporaneous speech where he is coherent and shows "gravitas." Show me an example where he "turn(s) a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale."

Show me.

Because I'm from Missouri.  I'd like to see it for myself.

I already gave you examples. Do you deny that the whole anti-Muslim claim was a lie? Do you deny that Obama took the same countries and singled them out for similar treatment and was not condemned for it? Just what are you asking for? I do not think you are so limited that you need me or anyone else to hold your hand and lead you through the intricacies of research. In my years of participating in different forums, I've found that you can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink. The best cure for a person to recognize his/her own acceptance of disinformation is for that person to find and use legitimate acceptable sources to uncover it for oneself. The drawback is that person limiting research only to sources of circular argument. Do that and no one or nothing will dissuade you from believing the unbelievable.

[Wayward Son]

You gave vague, hand-waving examples of Trump's presentation skills and "gravitas."  Nothing specific.  No particular speech that would demonstrate those skills.

I've seen his presentation skills, unedited.  I've watched a couple of live news conferences, for as long as I could stand it.  I went to one of his rallies during the presidential race back in 2015.  He's a lousy speaker.  He rambles.  He goes off on weird tangents half-way through sentences.  He often doesn't complete his thoughts.  He is crude, mocking, a bully.

None of this indicates "gravitas."  None of this shows any great presentation skills.

Now compare that to some of his interviews from back in the 80's or 90's.  Here, Donald Trump explaining to Larry King why he didn't want to be President from 1987.  Or this unaired Rona Barret interview from 1980.  Or any of these interviews from the 1980s.  Show me a current extemporaneous speech or interview that is as coherent, focused and mature as any of these.  Provide a link so I can see it myself.

If he is such a great presenter and has such "gravitas," it should only take you a couple of minutes to find one that demonstrates your contention.  It's not like you'd have to sift through ten, twelve or twenty speeches and interviews to find one, since you are already familiar with his speeches and he is such a good presenter.

That is why I suggested to silence the TV and read out loud his words.  I did that when he spoke to the press after the Charlottesville rally and it's aftermath.  It was painful in my own voice.  To paraphrase Harrison Ford, you can hear his speech, but you sure can't read it! 

So until you can provide a specific example of how Trump is still pretty much on top of his game as far as public speaking goes, don't feed me any line about his great presentation and  his "gravitas."  I haven't seen it.  And if you can't show me an example, I see no reason to believe it is true.

And if you can't, then we can move on to discussing how badly he has degenerated since his heyday.

[wmLambert]

...I've seen his presentation skills, unedited.  I've watched a couple of live news conferences, for as long as I could stand it.  I went to one of his rallies during the presidential race back in 2015.  He's a lousy speaker.  He rambles.  He goes off on weird tangents half-way through sentences.  He often doesn't complete his thoughts.  He is crude, mocking, a bully.

You hold yourself superior to others who have seen and heard the same things but come away with a different judgement. I've known people with incorrect preconceived notions who are so resentful at being on the wrong side that they will not accept anything that confronts their disinformed beliefs. Since Trump overfills huge stadiums with supporters and well-wishers, it is unlikely that your opinion is all that sound. Perhaps you've never held conversations with native New Yorkers? Remember, when Trump says anything about some person, it is normally reaction to that person's attack. As in most sports, the retaliater usually gets flagged by the ref, but the culprit is the villain.

...None of this indicates "gravitas."  None of this shows any great presentation skills.

Funny, no one here claimed gravitas for Trump - but he certainly does show more leadership capacity than any other dozen people you might put forward.

...Now compare that to some of his interviews from back in the 80's or 90's. ...Show me a current extemporaneous speech or interview that is as coherent, focused and mature as any of these.

...So until you can provide a specific example of how Trump is still pretty much on top of his game as far as public speaking goes, don't feed me any line about his great presentation and  his "gravitas."  I haven't seen it.  And if you can't show me an example, I see no reason to believe it is true.

And if you can't, then we can move on to discussing how badly he has degenerated since his heyday.

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

What is more important, is not just the delivery, but the content.

When Biden was taped bragging about his quid pro quo with the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter and Burisma, he was smarmy and ego-stroking himself, knowing his audience was soaking up his alleged gravitas, neh? No one seemed to mind the import of his criminal action. Now he is limited to short speeches with no audience to avoid gaffes, and you complain about Trump?

[TheDrake]

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

[Fenring]

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Maybe your wires are getting crossed on the terms here. I don't think anyone's arguing that Trump can speak text like Patrick Stewart. I think the idea being put forward is that Trump is effective in his peculiar way of speaking, even though it isn't a traditional style of rhetoric. I mean, one thing in the defense of the side of Trump is that you can't exactly be a TV celebrity unless the power of your speaking somehow carries across to the audience. You could look at actors with peculiar speaking tendencies - Jimmy Stewart, Marlon Brando, Christopher Walken, John Malkovitch - and despite the umpteen times they're made fun of for how they speak text yet we must acknowledge it clearly works. In acting this isn't hard to grok since a person's unique manner of expression is partially what we're buying. In politics I guess it still seems weird that a bizarre style could be functionally sound despite sounding bad from a cleanliness standpoint. The great old thespians like Gilgud no doubt thought that some of the great American actors were horrible with speech...and yet they weren't. It was just a different stylistic approach.

I'm no so much mounting a defense as imagining what wmLambert's argument might be if expanded.

I think the arguments against Trump's style are pretty clear, so they don't require any elucidation by me.

ETA - by "your wires" above I meant everyone in the discussion, not you in particular.

[wmLambert]

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Funny, I have actually heard real live historians give such praise. You evidently avoid anything that is positive about Trump. This says more about you, than it does about Trump.

Many of his speeches are well received. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-returns-u-n-mountain-evidence-peace-strength/

[Wayward Son]

You hold yourself superior to others who have seen and heard the same things but come away with a different judgement.

No, I don't hold myself superior.  But I won't be told something that I've seen with my own eyes isn't true just on someone else's word.  That's called gaslighting, and you're no Charles Boyer.

You say you've seen something different that I haven't because I watch different media?  Fine.  Show me what you've seen.  Then I can judge for myself.  That's all I ask.

But don't say I'm holding myself superior because you've come away with a different judgement. 

Funny, no one here claimed gravitas for Trump - but he certainly does show more leadership capacity than any other dozen people you might put forward.

My apologies.  When you said:

What is revelatory, is how such things vanish just as instantly, when the researchers realize they don't have the desired effect. (i.e. - like when "gravitas" appeared everywhere, but disappeared the next day when the public realized the opponent had more gravitas than the Dems' golden child.)

I assumed you were referring to Donald Trump as "the opponent."  My mistake.

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

All that shows is that he's still competent enough to read what's on a piece of paper.   That's why I specified extemporaneous speeches and interviews.  Unscripted speeches reveal his cognitive abilities better than words that someone else doubtlessly has reviewed and polished.  That's why I linked interviews.

Which is ultimately what this thread is about, isn't it?  Not policies, not politics, not what they believe, but the cognitive ability of our Presidential contenders.  Crunch is trying to scare us into believing that Biden has lost much of his.  I'm pointing out that, by the same standard, Trump may have lost much of his.  Look at his old interviews.  Look at his latest interviews.  Is he as sharp as he used to be?  If we're worried about Biden's mental capacity, shouldn't we be just as concerned about Trump's?  Or are there different scales for Democrats and Republicans?

When November comes, we will be voting for either one (assuming Biden gets the nomination) or the other.  So it behooves us, if we are concerned about the mental acuity of our candidates, to examine and compare them to each other.  Because barring any acts of God, it'll be one or the other.

[TheDrake]

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

Master orator for sure. Right up there with the Gettysburg address.

Funny, I have actually heard real live historians give such praise. You evidently avoid anything that is positive about Trump. This says more about you, than it does about Trump.

Many of his speeches are well received. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-returns-u-n-mountain-evidence-peace-strength/

So you're citing the white house to demonstrate that Trump's speeches are well received.

Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?

[Kasandra]

Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?

No, what actually happened was that in English what he said was incoherent, but in 113 other languages it started with "A Muslim, an ISIS fighter and I walk into a bar...."  That's a good one!

[wmLambert]

...Wasn't that UN speech the same one where world leaders laughed out loud at his boasts?

Yes.  "..and the German envoy nervously laughing like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar at this:" (followed by a link to a deleted examination of the speech that several people said was greater than Reagan's 1988 speech.) Why denigrate a great speech?

Okay, so look at the SOTU Address. Why not comment on the Democrats not standing to cheer a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman being given an increase in rank and acknowledgement of his service? ...Or any of the other great aspects that demanded bipartisan cheers and support, that the Dems decided not to give? The speech WAS great. The Democrat reception of it was the only problem. Why try so hard to make a national positive into a personal negative?

[wmLambert]

Speaking of great speeches, this is about Joe Biden. Remember 1988 when he plagiarized a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior?

How many here remembered one of his first speeches when running for office, when he stole the speech from another UK politician who spoke about his family virtues and a father who worked in the coal mines? Anyone willing to stoop so low as to steal the heroic details of someone else's life and then pretend it is your own is damaged goods and not to be trusted. No one in Biden's family ever worked in a mine.

Remember when he told everyone that women should fire a shotgun into the air to scare off home invaders - then went on to be an anti-gun advocate? Trump is not the one whose speeches need to be commented upon. ...Especially in this thread. Let's discuss Joe's blond leg hairs that "kids like to stroke?"

He may make it to nomination from the DNC with their newly minted rules, but can you imagine him one on one on the debate stage against Trump?

[TheDrake]

What defines a great speech? To me, it is one that inspires. One that is self-deprecating. One that unites. One that contains timeless turns of phrase:

"Ask not what your country can do for you"
"will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"
"never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

Not one that is self-aggrandizing. Not one that denigrates. Not one that seeks to sow more division.

The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[wmLambert]

...The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Still talking about Biden: KEN BODE: While at Syracuse law school Biden was involved in a plagiarism incident. He quoted five pages of someone else’s work, without proper citation. He was given an F, but appealed to the faculty and allowed to repeat the course, he got a B.

[TheDrake]

Biden sucks. I've already stipulated that in a dozen different ways earlier on. He has always sucked, and he always will suck. You can easily come up with another 30 good arguments about the exact ways in which he sucks.

[wmLambert]

...The Democrats response to the speech is immaterial to whether it was great, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Perhaps because the response to a speech is often observed as a metric of how effective any given speech is? In this case, the Democrats used their disapproval of Trump to pretend they disagreed with what he was saying - when in fact, they largely agreed with the content of his speech, but just wanted to denigrate the person giving it.

I'm not sure why you would pretend not to realize that self-evident fact, but I do agree with your view of Biden's acceptability.

[Kasandra]

Biden sucks. I've already stipulated that in a dozen different ways earlier on. He has always sucked, and he always will suck. You can easily come up with another 30 good arguments about the exact ways in which he sucks.

You guys want to beat up Biden so bad that you forget how utterly disgusting Trump is almost every time he opens his mouth. This is ankle biting at its finest.

[TheDrake]

Biden and trump are largely indistinguishable. It's not ankle biting, it's integrity.

[Kasandra]

Biden and trump are largely indistinguishable. It's not ankle biting, it's integrity.

So you're saying neither one should be President?  We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is unfit for office.
 Is Biden also unfit?  What's the practical alternative to Biden.

[TheDrake]

Doesn't matter to me. If you keep choosing the lesser of two evils, you keep getting evils to choose from. Biden was actively racist, Trump just dog whistles to racists. Biden has as much or more appearance of corruption than Trump. Both seem mentally challenged. Both shout at people who attend their events and disagree with them. Both seem to have problems with boundaries. I won't give him a vote any more than I voted for Hillary. I'll pick a third party or none of the above, because my vote is my voice. It says "I support you", not "I hate the other guy more". Seriously, the guy can't tell his wife from his sister, and you want to say he is FIT for office?

[Kasandra]

Wow, that is truly sour.  Vote for whoever you like, and since you think they are both equally bad and your candidate won't win, why bother voting at all?  Nobody will care.

[Wayward Son]

Sorry, Drake.  Mathematics says you're wrong.  If you choose the lesser of two evils, you eventually get better Presidents, assuming the candidates are not equal.

If you choose randomly, you will not change the average.

And if you choose the greater, you will get worse Presidents.

Do the math.

Not choosing is similar to a random choice.  So you gotta ask yourself a question: do you want better Presidents (even if it is a slow rise), the same kind of Presidents, or worse Presidents?

And as I say to those who won't vote for Biden if Bernie loses:  which President do you prefer to work with the next four years?  Once that is sympathetic to your goals, or one who is dismissive or actively trying to crush your goals?

[Fenring]

WS, this argument cannot possibly hold water since the quality of American presidents has clearly been on the decline since...I dunno, Kennedy. We could argue about whether Reagan or Clinton rose above that, but there have been some serious duds since then. I don't know how you could back up this idea that insisting on voting for only establishment candidates somehow makes the country better. If you want your voice to be heard, make it heard. If you'll eat whatever you're fed then don't complain about the results.

[wmLambert]

Doesn't matter to me. If you keep choosing the lesser of two evils, you keep getting evils to choose from. Biden was actively racist, Trump just dog whistles to racists. Biden has as much or more appearance of corruption than Trump. Both seem mentally challenged. Both shout at people who attend their events and disagree with them. Both seem to have problems with boundaries. I won't give him a vote any more than I voted for Hillary. I'll pick a third party or none of the above, because my vote is my voice. It says "I support you", not "I hate the other guy more". Seriously, the guy can't tell his wife from his sister, and you want to say he is FIT for office?

So much disinformation in one paragraph. Trump does not "dog whistle" to racists. The media does misstate events to make the appearance of racist support which doesn't exist. Like when an honorable group at a protest was confronted by leftist agitators and a third white supremecist  group entered the fray. When Trump remarked about the first group being innocent, the media pretended it was the third group he was talking about. If Trump was Nick Sandmann he could have sued. But tha's the way it is.

Trump doesn't "shout" at people at the events. That's Biden who calls them "dog-faced pony soldiers" or that they're "full of Sh*t!" Trump just speaks at whatever level reaches the back of the auditorium. (...And his audience is always huge.) Biden mumbles so no one knows what gaffe he is currently presenting.

Boundaries is all about Biden touching women and kids, making everyone in the room uncomfortable. Trump is a good man and always polite. ...And he never talks about kids wanting to stroke his blond leg hairs. Artificial boundaries are the media refusing to treat Melania with due respect.

[NobleHunter]

... Trump is a good man and always polite. ...

Except when indulging in locker room talk.

[yossarian22c]

...Trump is a good man and always polite.

Except when he's cheating on his wife with porn stars. Or mocking his political opponents. Or lots of other times where he mocked or belittled people. He's not a good man - he's definitely not always polite.

You can make serious arguments for some of his policies and abilities as president but when you repeatedly state that Trump is a good man and everyone who has ever met him says so, its just nonsense.

[wmLambert]

...Except when indulging in locker room talk.

Of course. When talking to Billy Bush on the Access Hollywood leak, he repeated the Matt Lauer comment. Didn't make him a bad man, just a celebrity who talked about groupies in action. Ha Ha - I'm sure you never indulged in locker room talk. Look. I'm a UofM grad who doesn't really believe OSU people are as bad as we poke them as being; as they do to us. Like when the OSU coach died and went to Heaven and complained that the Michigan coach's house was all festooned with flags and bunting and his wasn't. The angel told him, that's not the coach's house, that's God's!

When Martin Luther King, Jr. said to judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character, perhaps that could have included "not by the color commentary of the MSM."

...Certainly not nonsense.

[Wayward Son]

WS, this argument cannot possibly hold water since the quality of American presidents has clearly been on the decline since...I dunno, Kennedy. We could argue about whether Reagan or Clinton rose above that, but there have been some serious duds since then. I don't know how you could back up this idea that insisting on voting for only establishment candidates somehow makes the country better. If you want your voice to be heard, make it heard. If you'll eat whatever you're fed then don't complain about the results.

That is probably because there is no universally agreed value for each candidate.  One man's +4 is another man's -7.

It also requires a certain amount of feedback to create actual progress with the candidates.  If your vote has no effect on the system, then the candidates you get will be random.

But, of course, your vote does have an effect, albeit a tiny one.

Nevertheless, for any one person's individual determination of the worth of Presidential candidates, it is mathematically true that voting for the lesser of two evils helps improve the candidates over the long run, and helps prevent worse candidates over the short run.

Also, you're working from a very small data set if you're only counting Presidents since Clinton.

[Fenring]

WS,

You seem to be assuming that Presidential candidates emerge in some sort of evolutionary or natural system, where votes towards the lesser of evils creates a sort of convergence towards better candidates over time. This would presumably be because the incumbent is up against various people who get weeded out if they're 'worse' or voted in if they're better, and so there emerges a trend towards improvement. Something like that?

Except for one thing: it's not a natural system, and the candidates do not emerge at random from the gene pool or whatever. They are often or even usually groomed for the role and propped up by powerful parties. Sometimes the parties might be ok with one a short list of possibilities, and sometimes they are deadset on one person, as was the case with Hillary in 2016. Because the system does not randomly generate candidates, therefore your schema fails; they are produced with certain criteria in mind to the extent that they're groomed and supported, which may include electibility, but will also include bolstering and perpetuating the current power structures. It's an exercise in improvement - for them. Unless you're on a board of directors or have lots of stock in their companies, the so-called improvement isn't for you.

Also, you're working from a very small data set if you're only counting Presidents since Clinton.

Then good thing I wasn't?

[Wayward Son]

Except for one thing: it's not a natural system, and the candidates do not emerge at random from the gene pool or whatever. They are often or even usually groomed for the role and propped up by powerful parties. Sometimes the parties might be ok with one a short list of possibilities, and sometimes they are deadset on one person, as was the case with Hillary in 2016. Because the system does not randomly generate candidates, therefore your schema fails; they are produced with certain criteria in mind to the extent that they're groomed and supported, which may include electibility, but will also include bolstering and perpetuating the current power structures. It's an exercise in improvement - for them. Unless you're on a board of directors or have lots of stock in their companies, the so-called improvement isn't for you.

Why don't you state outright that there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?  Because you might have to name names of who these people are?

There were--what?--20 candidates for the Democratic nomination this round.  Were they all groomed by these people?  If not, then why didn't voters get input on who was the best candidate?

Besides, you are assuming that voters have no influence on who these mysterious people pick.  You forget that, other than perpetuation the current power structure, they have other criteria.

1.  Getting their person elected.  If their selected candidates always lose, it don't do them a bit a good.  They need their person in power to wield that power in their favor.  For that, they need the help of voters.

2.  Keeping the party popular.  Do you believe these people select the Green Party candidates?  The Peace and Freedom Party candidates?  It would be a waste of time and resources to do so, since such candidates never come close to winning.  Similarly, if they select candidates that alienate members of the Democratic or Republican parties, then those parties will become the next Green or Peace and Freedom party, and their back to square one.  So it behooves them to keep their selections popular, at least within the party.

There are doubtlessly other criteria, all based on the fact that we, the people, get to vote for who we want.  Ultimately any candidate they select has to get the OK from the voters.  Which means that we, the voters, do have a say.  We have influence whether these people like it or not.

That's not to say that I, as an individual voter, have a huge say in the initial selection of candidates.  I'm only one voice.  There are millions of other voices, with different values, priorities and criteria.  And those with money have a greater voice than those without (since, as the Supreme Court said, money is speech  ).  So my voice is almost infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things.

But that does not make it insignificant.  As long as I vote, and as long as I vote for the candidate that is the best (or even just better) among those who are running, I do have an influence.  Me, and everyone who thinks like me.  Such a group has influence.

Just look at how much Bernie has changed the Democratic party.  Look at the party platform from 2016.  You can pick out the lines that Bernie's running for the Presidency added to the platform--lines that those "perpetuating the current power structures" doubtlessly didn't like, and didn't appear in the Republican party platform.  Bernie has pushed the Democratic party to the left.  So even though Bernie did not win in 2016, and probably won't in 2020, he definitely influenced Hillary and the Democratic candidate this year.  And if the Bernie voters keep up the pressure, they will keep those lines in the 2024 platform, the 2028 platform and the 2032 platform, if not adding even more lines.

But for the ones that didn't vote for Hillary, what influence did they have for the past four years?  If they don't vote for the Democratic candidate this year, what influence will they have, even if that candidate wins?  The Democrats will realize that, since they won't get those Bernie voters even if they add those lines to the platform, they really don't need them.  It won't help them get into power.  So they don't count.

Why do you think Bernie's ideas and values don't appear in the Republican platform?

So, yeah, votes do count.  And so, voting for the lesser evil pushes it toward lesser evil, even if it is only a small push.  But it is a push nevertheless.  And over time, with a lot of small pushes from a lot of people, it will influence the parties, who they nominate, and what they stand for.  But only if the party sees that it will.  Not voting for the party means it doesn't matter whether they listen to you or not.  They don't get any closer to what they want (to win power).  So they might as well just ignore you anyway.

Voting for the lesser evil moves a party in the direction you want.  Maybe only infinitesimally, but movement nevertheless.

[Fenring]

Why don't you state outright that there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?  Because you might have to name names of who these people are?

They are not mysterious, they are people with a lot of money. This can be filed under "duh". But to be fair I can't name them outright because I haven't yet made a practice of getting to know the individuals in the high-stakes game. It might be interesting to do that but I don't have time.

There were--what?--20 candidates for the Democratic nomination this round.  Were they all groomed by these people?  If not, then why didn't voters get input on who was the best candidate?

The party will, predictably, look at the possible candidates and prefer some over others, and push those through media, coverage, tone, etc. Whether they 'handpicked' some of them can be hard to tell. Biden was obviously a party-favorite coming in, and it should be clear that behind-the-scenes decision making happens around this because you might yourself why Biden didn't run in 2016, since that was the obvious year to do so. The reason is because an agreement was evidently made that it was Hillary's turn.

1.  Getting their person elected.  If their selected candidates always lose, it don't do them a bit a good.  They need their person in power to wield that power in their favor.  For that, they need the help of voters.

This is a criterion, yes, although recently it seems to have become the case that it isn't the *top* priority. I am pretty confident that in terms of the Democratic party's preferences right now for President it goes something like:

Biden > Bloomberg > Trump > Sanders

So yes, I think they would rather throw to election to Trump rather than get 'their' person elected, because Bernie isn't their person in their eyes.

2.  Keeping the party popular.

I am not sure this is required in order for them to secure victory. What they do need is to edge out other options so that you vote in a way favorable to their goals. So let's take Hillary vs Bernie 2016 in the primaries: what was required in this case was for voters to feel at minimum 51% in favor of Hillary over Bernie, to vote for her in the primary. There's no need to push her popularity over the top so that someone already for her will go from 60% to 70% in favor of her; that gains them nothing, as the one vote is still one vote. Maybe it increases voter turnout, I suppose, but I don't know that better PR would achieve that on its own; maybe someone knows better about this detail. But what they do need to achieve is to tip the scale just over the edge so she gets the vote. And likewise for other voting situations: 50%+1 is the goal, not 80% with triumphant fanfare. While I don't doubt they would enjoy total triumph, that is not necessary for success, and I suspect they focus on the danger zone quite a bit.

That's not to say that I, as an individual voter, have a huge say in the initial selection of candidates.  I'm only one voice.  There are millions of other voices, with different values, priorities and criteria.  And those with money have a greater voice than those without (since, as the Supreme Court said, money is speech  ).  So my voice is almost infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things.

I agree with this, and yet from it I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion you do: because your voice is politically small, it's all the less reason to sell it cheaply. If you, single-handedly, had to pick the next President, that would be a huge pressure to not make a mistake, and I could see how making a safe vote might be appealing. But as the opposite is the case, why not speak your real feeling and the numbers be damned? If everyone did that the world would be a different place, I think. It's this idea of "oh what's the point anyhow, I just want to keep Trump out" that increases civic unrest and disconnection from the political process, I think.

Just look at how much Bernie has changed the Democratic party.  Look at the party platform from 2016.  You can pick out the lines that Bernie's running for the Presidency added to the platform--lines that those "perpetuating the current power structures" doubtlessly didn't like, and didn't appear in the Republican party platform.  Bernie has pushed the Democratic party to the left.

This is a good point, but seems to me to be a sidestep from the issue of whether political candidates improve over time by definition. If they do on account of people like Bernie, then surely not supporting people like Bernie is, if anything, going to counteract the ability for people like him to influence the party's platform. It would be voting for him whether or not he'll win that might make the Hillary-type candidate have to do something about it. If literally everyone voted for Hillary on the grounds that Bernie can't win anyhow, not only would she have won but she wouldn't have bothered pretending to care about his issues either.

But for the ones that didn't vote for Hillary, what influence did they have for the past four years?  If they don't vote for the Democratic candidate this year, what influence will they have, even if that candidate wins?  The Democrats will realize that, since they won't get those Bernie voters even if they add those lines to the platform, they really don't need them.  It won't help them get into power.  So they don't count.

I think this is an extremely cynical view of the democratic process, if I'm reading you correctly. Being part of the winning team cannot possibly be the only definition of whether your vote counted or not. In fact I'm not even certain that a democratic republic could function at all if this was the prevailing view.

Why do you think Bernie's ideas and values don't appear in the Republican platform?

Because part of their stated platform is to oppose the types of things Bernie believes in? It's not even a question of declining to court voters who 'don't count.' They are outright opposed to his ideas and values.

Not voting for the party means it doesn't matter whether they listen to you or not.  They don't get any closer to what they want (to win power).  So they might as well just ignore you anyway.

This makes a kind of sense, if at any rate seeing it from their point of view. But in my opinion all this does is scream out that there is a clear oligarchic system in place. 'Vote for the establishment or else you will have no value to them' sounds like a nightmare to me. I would rather live in a shack in the woods than have anything to do with that.

Voting for the lesser evil moves a party in the direction you want.  Maybe only infinitesimally, but movement nevertheless.

Even granting fully that this were true, there are other forces in play (as clearly many things go in in a society at once) that might well be pushing in the opposite direction. So even if the natural process you describe is accurate, and pushes things "1 degree" in the good direction with each step, there might also be forces pushing it 2 or more degrees in the other direction, so that without 'assistance' this natural process still loses out in the long-term. I know - the answer will come back that there are no other relevant forces and that we are inextricably moving in a positive direction by definition. Actually I agree - hah! But not for the same reasons. I do think we are moving forward no matter what, but I believe these reasons involve technology and knowledge; politically speaking I think America is going as closely as it can directly backwards.

[wmLambert]

...there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?

You mean like AOC responding to a Left-wing activist group casting call? https://youtu.be/1h5iv6sECGU (Note: This link actually shows AOC admitting that her brother signed her up for the casting call, and she obediently follows those who put her into the office.)

...as long as I vote for the candidate that is the best (or even just better) among those who are running, I do have an influence.  Me, and everyone who thinks like me.  Such a group has influence.

...even though Bernie did not win in 2016, and probably won't in 2020, he definitely influenced Hillary and the Democratic candidate this year.  And if the Bernie voters keep up the pressure, they will keep those lines in the 2024 platform, the 2028 platform and the 2032 platform, if not adding even more lines.

So, yeah, votes do count.  And so, voting for the lesser evil pushes it toward lesser evil, even if it is only a small push.  But it is a push nevertheless.

Yes, the silent majority did make itself known as the decades-long Democrat power bloc fought to maintain its monopoly, at least on Presidential elections. When Newt Gingrich won the House, it was on issues. The Contract For America was all about bringing up issues which the Democrats never allowed to get to the floor. It was amazing that most of those issues not only came to the floor, but were addressed and became law. That Democrat power base fought against the change in majority by calling it the "Contract ON America."

But not everything is unilateral single party power politics. At least some of it. When Bush 43 was governor of Texas, he was so bipartisan that many Democrat Texas grassroots candidates supported him. When he won the Presidency, he made bipartisan working groups, some run by Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, to create law. Many of the long-held Democrat party planks that they could never accomplish were finally made law under Bush 43. (When I typed, "At least some of it," that referred to the fact that the leaders in the DNC realized Bush was stealing their issues, so instead of working to win what they always said they wanted, they pulled all their members out of his committees, and fought against their own policies in order to deny him any more success.)

[TheDeamon]

But not everything is unilateral single party power politics. At least some of it. When Bush 43 was governor of Texas, he was so bipartisan that many Democrat Texas grassroots candidates supported him. When he won the Presidency, he made bipartisan working groups, some run by Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, to create law. Many of the long-held Democrat party planks that they could never accomplish were finally made law under Bush 43. (When I typed, "At least some of it," that referred to the fact that the leaders in the DNC realized Bush was stealing their issues, so instead of working to win what they always said they wanted, they pulled all their members out of his committees, and fought against their own policies in order to deny him any more success.)

Slightly rose-tinted glasses on part of that. Bush43 also had significant pushback from the right in regards to immigration reforms as well. In an echo of Trump in 2016, their positions as I recall were: No immigration amnesty before a border wall is completed, amnesty with no wall was tried with Reagan, it didn't solve squat.

Which was the point where the Democrats parted ways because they're very fair winds about border wall construction, they're for it, until they're against it, until they decide to be for it again. That and they wouldn't consider any reform plans without an amnesty package of some kind.

[TheDrake]

Boundaries is all about Biden touching women and kids, making everyone in the room uncomfortable. Trump is a good man and always polite. ...And he never talks about kids wanting to stroke his blond leg hairs. Artificial boundaries are the media refusing to treat Melania with due respect.

OH, yes. So polite while he's trolling the the Miss Teen USA dressing room.

And that's in his own words, and reported by the girls, and confirmed by his daughter.

The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said.

His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.

(Billado told BuzzFeed she mentioned the incident to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who shrugged it off, saying, “Yeah, he does that.”)

[TheDeamon]

Which puts him on par with the (predominately) male audience who buy (or browse these days) "barely legal" porn rags and websites.

You're disconnecting on another item in play here: "Look, but don't touch." Or at the least get consent first.

Nobody has accused Trump of engaging in illegal behavior(seeing a teenage girl in a state of undress is not criminal in its own right, even if she is under 18) although much of it is dubious for various reasons.

Touching an underage female certainly can be illegal however, plenty of evidence to support Biden doing that, nothing of substance in regards to Trump. For that matter, non-consensual touching of women can also be illegal, again, plenty of evidence to support Biden has done that with great regularity, but nothing of any real substance with regards to Trump. He may be a womanizer and a cheat, but he seems to be very consistent about obtaining consent, locker room talk not withstanding.

It also is a weird Twilight Zone-esque time to live in where the same people who defended Clinton while acknowledging he probably did engage in oral sex with Lewinsky have turned around and keep trying to use Trump banging a porn star as some kind of unforgivable sin.

[TheDrake]

It also is a weird Twilight Zone-esque time to live in where the same people who defended Clinton while acknowledging he probably did engage in oral sex with Lewinsky have turned around and keep trying to use Trump banging a porn star as some kind of unforgivable sin.

It's not a contest with a winner and a loser. They can both be losers. Even if Biden is creepier than Trump, it doesn't mean Trump isn't creepy.

Meanwhile, I wasn't ever a Clinton defender. He had sexual relations with a subordinate. If that had been a lobbyist, that would be slightly better. If it was Marilyn Monroe, then good for him.

As for banging the porn star, I think relatively few people call that an unforgiveable sin, or a sin at all. Lying his ass off about it and paying/pressuring her to keep quiet is different - but still far from unforgiveable.

[Crunch]

I don't think asking someone to abide by the terms of their NDA is "pressuring her to keep quiet". Enforcing a contract is kind of normal stuff.

[Fenring]

I don't think asking someone to abide by the terms of their NDA is "pressuring her to keep quiet". Enforcing a contract is kind of normal stuff.

I'm not even sure that it's something valid to bring up whether or not he was pressuring her. Like, if I had a private relationship with someone I would expect by default for it to remain private, regardless of my job. If they told me they were going to post about it on social media or talk about it on the news, yeah I'd "pressure them" not to, as in, use whatever tactics I could to convince them not to do that. In my case I suppose it would be a question of keeping my private life private, social decency, and so forth. If a signed contract is made to the effect that they will keep it to themselves, that's just another way of saying they've agreed to keep it private, and it's in writing. Now I can see how in a power scenario this can be troubling; like a teacher "asks" his student to keep their illicit affair "private", when in fact there is a power disparity and a fundamental problem. But I don't think this can reasonably apply unless the power is directly over that person, like your employee or student. Being a generally powerful person should not bar you from pursuing relationships, even though on a general level you have 'more power than they do'. This is a sort of tangent and is off-topic from the OP, but I think we need to be careful about throwing around terms like "pressured her" which sounds rapey, when in fact it's what almost every person in his situation would have done, putting aside the fact that it was an extra-marital affair. This does not make his general character look good, but specifically on the issue of 'pressuring her' I think the accusations are off-base or at least being framed in a way that makes the situation look other than what it is.

When comparing these incidents to Biden's comportment (if we choose to do so) I think we need to keep an accurate accounting of what we're really talking about so that it doesn't truly degenerate into whataboutism (i.e. comparing apples to oranges and having a race to the bottom). But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.

[TheDrake]

But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.

That's fair. How many women has Biden had sign an NDA?
We know Bloomberg had a number of women under NDA.

It is not unusual to have an NDA, but running for President isn't business as usual which is why Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA. It's why Presidents and candidates routinely disclose their tax forms, another intensely private thing that helps demonstrate transparency.

[Crunch]

Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA because Warren was getting desperate. NOt because Bloomberg was running for president. Had Warren not been in the race, it's fair odds you would have never heard of those NDA's. And, if you had, it would have been dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy because only FOX News would have covered it.

[Fenring]

It is not unusual to have an NDA, but running for President isn't business as usual which is why Bloomberg was under pressure to release those women from NDA. It's why Presidents and candidates routinely disclose their tax forms, another intensely private thing that helps demonstrate transparency.

Even if "you should have seen it coming" it routine when running for President from a strategic standpoint, I still don't think we have an established norm of transparency in the sense you mean it. Transparency is supposed to mean that in the conducting of their office there are no secrets, or at least the sorts of things they do are disclosed to a reasonable degree. It does not involve their private life; a transparent administration should not mean we have webcams in their bedroom or watching how they sit on the toilet. I guess it could mean that, but it never has before. Likewise, if transparency is even a standard for a candidate who holds no public office - and I don't know that it is, although certainly we sort of do want to know who we're voting for - I would think it should be in areas such as criminality and past positions on their topics. I do not believe it's proper to require a President to tell you personal things about their friends in order to run, to reveal information about their sex life, or to tell you any other detail that is otherwise no one's business. Running for a candidacy does not entitle us to full access to someone's life, nor should we want it to in the sense that it is bad for us to want to know these sorts of things about people. It's tabloid culture in a nutshell, but turned into a political issue.

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

[TheDrake]

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

[yossarian22c]

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

Anything that could lead to blackmail.

[Fenring]

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

To the extent that such NDA's may cover workplace harassment then I do think it's relevant, where or not it was a boss/employee relationship.

[Fenring]

Anything that could lead to blackmail.

That's a really interesting point: but if it was really our goal to vet for potential blackmail - and I mean really vet for it, rather than vaguely vet for it - then we would have to rethink the process of vetting altogether. I would actually be for this, but it would involve far more than just checking to see if you've done stupid things like have affairs. That's sort of trivial in the grand scheme when it comes to blackmail material. The real goods is criminal stuff, but not the sort of stuff likely to be in any police file.

[TheDeamon]

But comparing apples to applies is, I think, proper, and it shouldn't be out of bounds to compare two potential upcoming candidates for Presidency on the same standards.

That's fair. How many women has Biden had sign an NDA?

Good question, given that Congress had an office which existed solely for that purpose with regards to our congress critters, and I believe those records are still effectively sealed.

[TheDeamon]

I would agree that I'd want to know if there are NDA's about business malpractice or fraud; but not really about relationships. While I do care about moral character, I do not believe I have the right to demand or expect private details in order to make that evaluation. Does that make sense?

I can understand that. So then would you favor releasing NDAs covering sexual harassment?

Anything that could lead to blackmail.

In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

[Fenring]

In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

Yes, we would then have to get into what level of potential scandal/blackmail is considered enough to break a NDA. Like, career-ending may not be a high enough bar, whereas "will go to jail if discovered" is probably enough for blackmail to be very effective. Some people might tolerate losing their job if that was the worst-case scenario of a risk-assessment, but there are much worse things that can happen than that.

[TheDeamon]

In that case many NDA's regarding "private matters" would need to voided. "Blackmail worthy material" is anything which can cause "a scandal" if it becomes public, and the bar for cause a public scandal is VERY low, and it is also highly subjective as to "cause a scandal from whose point of view?"

Yes, we would then have to get into what level of potential scandal/blackmail is considered enough to break a NDA. Like, career-ending may not be a high enough bar, whereas "will go to jail if discovered" is probably enough for blackmail to be very effective. Some people might tolerate losing their job if that was the worst-case scenario of a risk-assessment, but there are much worse things that can happen than that.

I believe that is already bog standard as a matter of law, NDA's which involve criminal activity are non-binding in many/most jurisdictions.