Forums → WEPR → Nominee Debates... Are they pointless?
| 1 | 5026 |
I've watched many Debates between candidates for the presidency, and it always turns out the same. It's like watching a sixteen year old drop out attempt to explain why he should be hired as the new CEO for a multi million dollar company instead as a bus boy at a diner. Now, I'm not saying that all presidential nominees are on the level of a sixteen year old drop out; I'm saying that it's like listening to a go no where argument between such. I'm serious, when is the last time you heard a candidate actual stand there and really explain what they are going to do for us in excruciating detail. After all, they may love to tell the stories of how they sold lemonade when they were 4 years old, but guess what, the US isn't a freaking lemonade stand!!! If life were that simple, we could just elect any random 4 year old (or Chris Christie) and all our troubles would be over. So, instead of the "I will do this as your president!!!), and the "He [another candidate] hasn't done anything * bends over and points at the other guy and makes a stupid face *", I'd like to see these people wipe the schiestery grin off, talk to us like we not a bunch of cattle, and sell, I mean really sell themselves. I honestly think that it's wrong to classify these gatherings as a debate, and until they actually try to prove things about themselves using supporting facts and arguments (other than counting things on their fingers like "I created jobs" and "I lowered taxes"), debates they are not. As far as I'm concerned, choosing then next president is the same as placing the turds from a few dozen different animals into a cookie jar, shaking it up, and picking one out. They all stink, but hey! So many different shapes, sizes, and textures!
- 1 Reply
I agree that most of the debates revolve around points of superficiality, vagueness and what often comes across as a forced attempt to appear approachable and friendly via poignant anecdotes. But we need to remember that the debates are limited by the small amount of time allocated, which would force any candidate to trim down the fat and get to the barest basics. If an hour is given, then perhaps they would be able to give a proper speech about the smallest details; but that's not going to happen. They also need to make an immediate impact, and demonising adversaries in broad strokes is a time-tested tactic to turn voters to your side.
Debates also aren't the only place to look before making a choice. Perhaps reading the party manifestos, candidates' past voting/policy records amongst others, would be a better choice if you would want to find out about the contestants. Voting is supposed to be a serious issue, and given the privelege, we should do more than just watch a few debates before making a choice. Theoretically.
Another point is that most of the mainstream candidates are significantly smarter than we give them credit for; even the most radical and caricatured ones have fantastic education records. Trump is portrayed both by the media and himself, as a blunt, jingoistic and antagonizing person. He may be crazy, but we never give him credit for attending Wharton.
You must be logged in to post a reply!