The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@TheLeapist,

TheLeapist wrote:

Quote:
Not by my definition.

I do happen to have many years of extensive and in-depth experience with the subject, experience that others lack.

Does this not make my opinion on such matters more valid than that of those who lack that experience?

Is my opinion on the right way to captain a ship as valid as yours is? Somehow, I doubt you would agree that it is, you Stalinist Pig, you.

Cycloptichorn
Your prejudice against anything related to the right all but entirely negates your past experience.

You don't know me at all and have no clue what my 'prejudices' are. So, I think this statement from you is entirely without merit.

Let me ask you, who understands my prejudices so well: how many members of the GOP have I voted for in my lifetime? Who did I vote for in 2000? Do you know that the answers are 'many' and 'Bush?' I highly doubt it.

Quote:

I don't know you, nor will I pretend to

In fact, you do pretend to. You just did pretend to. You ought to own that.

Quote:

but from what I've seen from you on a2k you'd be willing to, be it consciously or subconsciously, sacrifice something you know either deep down or blatantly to be true/false in order to prove a point. This is just how you've come across to me. I'm sure others feel the same. I could be wrong though and I'm absolutely positive you will aggressively insist that I am.

Why would I bother? Your opinion isn't one that was formed through a careful examination of my postings for their true nature, but instead an emotional exhalation. I find that to be supremely uninteresting.

If you could point out a single case of my doing what you accuse me of above, I would be interested to see it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree that direct experience and skill is a factor that should be considered in evaluating the quality of anyone's opinion, but there are other relevant factors as well. More to the point here is the question of just what experience counts relative to the question at hand. High school debating rules & techniques don't apply in the real world of American politics. They certainly have some applicability, but there is also a lot more to the matter than that.

I think we all could agree theat Gingrich is a skilled practicioner pf political dialogue and debate. Both he and President Obama are regarded by their supporters as being particularly gifted in this area. Interestingly both have critics among their political opponents as well. Obama is faulted for too much vague campaign rhetoric, too few specifics, and too much demonization of entrepreneurs. You have faulted Gingrich for gaming the questions in debate, inaccuracies and demonizing the media. I don't see a hell of a lot of difference there.

It remains to be seen who might be better in a political debate. It's a safe bet that the dedicated supporters on both sides would likely find their prejudgments fulfilled in any encounter, but it is likely more important politically how well or poorly each might play with independent voters. It hasn't happened yet and may well not happen. None of us can credibly claim the ability to predict the future.

1 Reply

Cycloptichorn is the more vocal of the far right critics, but many of us agree with most of the words posted under that name.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that direct experience and skill is a factor that should be considered in evaluating the quality of anyone's opinion, but there are other relevant factors as well. More to the point here is the question of just what experience counts relative to the question at hand. High school debating rules & techniques don't apply in the real world of American politics.

The claim that Finn made was that Gingrich was an 'excellent debater.' The same qualities that lead one to be successful in debates in school, lead one to be successful in political debates. There is a certain method to logically structuring your answer, and certain traps and games you can play with your opponents, that lead to a case that is very difficult for the other side to successfully assail. I have seen very little evidence that Gingrich employs any of the techniques that I and so many others involved with formal debates have found to be successful; and indeed, he repeatedly engages in behaviors that would see him tossed out of a variety of tournaments and formats, as people actually trained in the subject are rarely swayed by emotional tomfoolery and frequent changes of subject.

Quote:

I think we all could agree theat Gingrich is a skilled practicioner pf political dialogue and debate.

This I agree with.

Quote:

Both he and President Obama are regarded by their supporters as being particularly gifted in this area. Interestingly both have critics among their political opponents as well. Obama is faulted for too much vague campaign rhetoric, too few specifics, and too much demonization of entrepreneurs. You have faulted Gingrich for gaming the questions in debate, inaccuracies and demonizing the media. I don't see a hell of a lot of difference there.

Well, we're talking about Debating skills, not 'everything I don't like about the guy.' If we were to add that in, I'd have a lot more to say about Gingrich. Unless you can point to Obama's faults in debates (which do exist) I don't think you are comparing apples to apples.

Quote:

It remains to be seen who might be better in a political debate.

You can say (and frequently do) what you will about Obama, but it is without a doubt that the man is an excellent campaigner and an excellent debater. He handed McCain's head to him in three separate debates last cycle and arguably won every single primary debate he was involved in. I can say with confidence that Obama would be a challenge for any of your candidates to debate; and I certainly am not as impressed by Gingrich as many others seem to be.

I would ask Gingrich's supporters - what qualities do you believe the man possesses that actually make him good at debating? From what I can see over the last decade, his greatest successes seem to come from attacking the moderators and the media, instead of actually answering questions with thoughtful and logical responses.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Citizens shoud be aware that the qualities of a good orator
r not necessarily those of a good CEO. The Europeans had
significant experience with that in the first half of the 2Oth Century.

That does not always work out well.

David

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You don't know me at all and have no clue what my 'prejudices' are

You make that extremely clear with every post you make on this website.

Quote:

You just did pretend to.

Nope. I didn't assert that anything I was saying was fact. Instead I indeed said that this was just how you come across to me and I forwardly admitted I could very well be wrong.

Quote:

Why would I bother? Your opinion isn't one that was formed through a careful examination of my postings for their true nature, but instead an emotional exhalation. I find that to be supremely uninteresting.

The hypocrisy here is to the level of being humorous and once again demonstrating the all too high value you put in your own words and little in the words of others. I have carefully read all your posts in the politics section for the past months as I have read every thread since I've started frequenting the politics section. Finally, at what point did I come across as emotional? I feel my post was very calm natured. It is you, my friend, who is emotional and reacting based on that.

As a centralist who frequently tends to lean left there have been many times I've more than agreed with you. I am just informing you how you've come across to me on occasion and I'm sure others feel the same. If you wish not to take that as something you could perhaps learn something from and maybe change your methods even if just lightly then so be it. You have every right in continuing to insist that your current form of debate and views on opinions are flawless.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I note that the public reaction to Obama's statements today is a good deal less fawning than it was three years ago (and prior) diuring his campaigns. I doubt that his presentations skills have declined since then. More likely the change is a result of the fact that many folks in the middle have had the chance to match his words and actions, and to better see from his actions what he really meant in his often highly elevated and sometimes vague rhetoric.

This is an example of one of the many significant factors other than high school debating tactics that enter into a political debate.

1 Reply

Mr Gingrich simply does not look "presidential".

1 Reply

@spendius,

but he is NOT obama

0 Replies

@TheLeapist,

He sometimes irritates me but I have to give him credit, most of the time he can back his opinions with facts if challenged. Which many of his detractors do not.

0 Replies

@parados,

That's a pretty good insult, but that's all it is.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do happen to have many years of extensive and in-depth experience with the subject, experience that others lack.

Does this not make my opinion on such matters more valid than that of those who lack that experience?

Cycloptichorn

It might if we had any reason to take your word for it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

he really meant in his often highly elevated and sometimes vague rhetoric.

I got a chuckle out of that.

The standard for who wins a debate is now:
My guy's vague rhetoric is better than your guy's vague rhetoric.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do happen to have many years of extensive and in-depth experience with the subject, experience that others lack.

Does this not make my opinion on such matters more valid than that of those who lack that experience?

Cycloptichorn

It might if we had any reason to take your word for it.

Here's a question for you: what purpose would it serve for me to forward such a false argument? What would I gain from it? There's very little reason for me to do so in a format such as A2K.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@TheLeapist,

Quote:

I have carefully read all your posts in the politics section for the past months as I have read every thread since I've started frequenting the politics section.

If you've been reading here for 'a couple months,' you've read probably 2% of what I've written here on A2K over the last seven years. I hardly think that this provides you any meaningful insight into who I am as a person.

I note that you very carefully expunged the part of my response where I pointed to my past history of voting for members of the GOP. I have little doubt that you did so because it didn't fit your inaccurate beliefs regarding myself and my 'prejudices.'

Quote:

As a centralist who frequently tends to lean left there have been many times I've more than agreed with you. I am just informing you how you've come across to me on occasion and I'm sure others feel the same. If you wish not to take that as something you could perhaps learn something from and maybe change your methods even if just lightly then so be it.

You don't have the historical context necessary to understand the depth of some the exchanges I've been having with right-wing posters here, many of which have been going on for years. I will admit that I am much more freely aggressive with certain posters than I would be with a stranger. But I've learned long ago that there's very little reason not to describe situations exactly as I see them, and forego the niceties. I worry very little about hurting people's precious fee-fees - this is the politics forum, not the 'hold hands and sing Kumbayah' forum.

Quote:

You have every right in continuing to insist that your current form of debate and views on opinions are flawless.

This is an Appeal to Extremes - a logical fallacy. I have never said that anything about myself is 'flawless,' and I would ask you to point to the post in which I did claim that; or instead retract your claim that I am insisting anything of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I've got you pegged Cyclo. I've known dozens like you. The iron fist in the velvet glove.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I've got you pegged Cyclo. I've known dozens like you. The iron fist in the velvet glove.

I can't tell if I'm supposed to be happy or sad to hear that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Now, back on topic:

I can't help but think that Mitt's latest ad, which misquotes Obama to a degree rarely seen in politics, won't in fact backfire on him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Another debate tonight amongst the Repubs. It will be on CNN at 8 pm and ostensibly be about foreign policy. It probably will include a lot of Obama bashing but could also feature attacks on Romney.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Or Newt

0 Replies

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know