Jump to content

U.S. Politics


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Trump is absolutely ignoring any attempt to interrupt him.

People will watch him shouting over Biden and the moderator and say "he's a strong guy, Joe is weak" and they'll vote for him.

The actual words that come out of his mouth are completely inconsequential, the fact that it's all lies doesn't matter, the fact that people know it's all lies doesn't matter.

Trump understands TV democracy like no other President in history.

 

On the "No Such Thing as a Fish" podcast they talked about a study on presidential debates.

I may have the details slightly wrong, but the jist of it was they showed groups of people the debates with the sound off, and asked them who they believed "won" the debate.

Every single time they've done it, the person the group has picked has won the election.

 

So I guess it adds weight to your opinion (that i agree with) that it's all about who comes across as stronger and more charismatic as opposed to what they actually say

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

On the "No Such Thing as a Fish" podcast they talked about a study on presidential debates.

I may have the details slightly wrong, but the jist of it was they showed groups of people the debates with the sound off, and asked them who they believed "won" the debate.

Every single time they've done it, the person the group has picked has won the election.

 

So I guess it adds weight to your opinion (that i agree with) that it's all about who comes across as stronger and more charismatic as opposed to what they actually say

For me, what that study highlights, is the capacity of people to perceive the dynamics and chemistry of a situation through the subtleties of body language and expression.

It doesn't necessarily imply that "what they actually say" is deemed less important than having a "stronger and more charismatic" presence during a dialogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

For me, what that study highlights, is the capacity of people to perceive the dynamics and chemistry of a situation through the subtleties of body language and expression.

It doesn't necessarily imply that "what they actually say" is deemed less important than having a "stronger and more charismatic" presence during a dialogue.

Surely it implies exactly that?

They literally can't hear what the people say, but they always choose the winner of the election based purely on how they look and perform visually during those debates.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Surely it implies exactly that?

They literally can't hear what the people say, but they always choose the winner of the election based purely on how they look and perform visually during those debates.

It’s the ‘proof’ of why companies that want the best candidates to get jobs take all the visual clues off the applications.

People don’t actually listen to the words and the detail and the answers offered. The old part of the brain just registers this person is a bit like me and sounds Or looks like a leader. Tick.

It’s part of why happy gregarious confident Johnson won hands down over quiet wonky glasses Corbyn.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Surely it implies exactly that?

They literally can't hear what the people say, but they always choose the winner of the election based purely on how they look and perform visually during those debates.

Not necessarily.

There would be countless intricacies contributing to what makes up our perceptions of events and how we interpret any interaction, not to mention every one's different. Just because you don't have audible stimuli for what the message's meaning is, doesn't mean you can't identify the emotions behind what motivates body movement or facial expression in a certain way.

I suppose a debate is like verbal boxing and as you watch it unfold you can visually observe how each participant is doing. When they are calm, when they are animated etc.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s the ‘proof’ of why companies that want the best candidates to get jobs take all the visual clues off the applications.

People don’t actually listen to the words and the detail and the answers offered. The old part of the brain just registers this person is a bit like me and sounds Or looks like a leader. Tick.

It’s part of why happy gregarious confident Johnson won hands down over quiet wonky glasses Corbyn.

 

 

That's too cut and dry of a dichotomy for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I have real doubts about this thesis to be honest. It sounds way too pat to be true.

Me too. I didn't hear the podcast, but I wonder which debates the people saw, and when - I mean all previous debates, the outcome of that election(s) is now known, and the candidates known - so e.g. Trump v Clinton - when the people saw the debates did they already know Trump had won the election, and so that influenced their verdict on the debate? or were the experiments run every election going back 40 or 50 years at the actual time of the debates to create an accurate sample? DO the debtates tend to reflect the standing of the candidates - so for example one candidate will be desperate to overcome a polling disadvantage, and one will be leading in the polls, and thus more confident and more "positive" in their body language? and the verdict merely recognises what is essentially an already known situation - they picked the one that was likely to win not because that person had better body language as an inherent carachteristic, but because they were winning...or something.... It's too simplistic to go with what looks the obvious conclusion, without more info.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

Not necessarily.

There would be countless intricacies contributing to what makes up our perceptions of events and how we interpret any interaction, not to mention every one's different. Just because you don't have audible stimuli for what the message's meaning is, doesn't mean you can't identify the emotions behind what motivates body movement or facial expression in a certain way.

I suppose a debate is like verbal boxing and as you watch it unfold you can visually observe how each participant is doing. When they are calm, when they are animated etc.

 

I get all that, but my point is they literally cannot hear what the person is saying. So my point is it's all about how the person comes across.

If Trump appears to be winning the debate over Biden, visually, then he's won, even if what he's saying is total and utter nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I get all that, but my point is they literally cannot hear what the person is saying. So my point is it's all about how the person comes across.

If Trump appears to be winning the debate over Biden, visually, then he's won, even if what he's saying is total and utter nonsense

That implies that a participant in the debate can and does win using total and utter nonsense, does it not? Excuse me if I'm missing something.

If Trump were to spout incoherent gibberish then someone observing the debate would be able to see the visual cues and reactions of those involved.

I would be surprised if someone who's blind is unable to discern with some degree of accuracy which candidate gave the better display (based on what's spoken).

Edited by A'Villan
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

If Trump appears to be winning the debate over Biden, visually, then he's won, even if what he's saying is total and utter nonsense

 

1 minute ago, A'Villan said:

If Trump were to spout incoherent gibberish then someone observing the debate would be able see the visual cues and reactions of those involved.

“If”???

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

That implies that a participant in the debate can and does win using total and utter nonsense, does it not? Excuse me if I'm missing something.

If Trump were to spout incoherent gibberish then someone observing the debate would be able see the visual cues and reactions of those involved.

I would be surprised if someone who's blind is unable to discern with some degree of accuracy which candidate gave the better display (based on what's spoken).

Obviously I don't mean literally something incoherent.

I mean the nonsense Trump always spouts. Untrue, shite that doesn't answer any questions.

It doesn't matter if it's true, or if ti makes sense, or if it answers the question. If he appears to have won, then he's won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should always be wary of polls connected to debates - they often have methodological flaws, and 'debate bounces' can change depending on the later media narrative, or just dissipate anyway - but they mostly seem to show Biden ahead:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Obviously I don't mean literally something incoherent.

I mean the nonsense Trump always spouts. Untrue, shite that doesn't answer any questions.

It doesn't matter if it's true, or if ti makes sense, or if it answers the question. If he appears to have won, then he's won.

Very true in bold, and on your first line, it's me not you who's not articulated themselves as well as they wanted to, apologies.

I am inclined to think that truth, making sense and addressing a question do matter though, and in so many instances they would. In a different setting perhaps. 

However in this setting, a meek moderator from FOX news which is a conservative leaning media coorporation was meant to hold authority over both the candidates.

As anyone watching would be able to see this was not the case, Trump had the authority. A frustrated Biden tried to play by the rules but it was futile as they had changed.

Trump was calling the shots, speaking out of turn and out of place whenever it suited him..

That's how Trump won. Whatever he won, because it wasn't a debate.

Edited by A'Villan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You should always be wary of polls connected to debates - they often have methodological flaws, and 'debate bounces' can change depending on the later media narrative, or just dissipate anyway - but they mostly seem to show Biden ahead:

 

CCB7-F04-E-E7-E1-403-B-B09-D-862-DEEC32-

I don’t know who Jordan Rachel is but I’m guessing she’s a big Trump supporter

The general theme of the comments apart from how great Trump is, is that he was interrupting so much because he was having to have the debate with Biden and the extremely biased moderator

Edited by Genie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really much riding on these debates?  I don't see how anyone capable of critical thought can look at Trump and think 'that's the guy I'm voting for', he is relying on his cult followers coming out on the day and hoping it outnumbers the rest and if not, somehow rig it to hold on to power.  Surely the wavering voters in swing states won't go to him this time round for a plethora of reasons regardless of the debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â