True, but that's because in the US at least (and quite possibly everywhere else in a few short years to come), in general, people cannot be bothered with demanding stuff like "content". With today's 10 second attention span, it's all about tone and optics. Speaking of which...Zarathustra wrote:[People are reacting to tone, that's it. They aren't actually listening to what was said.
For the reason this impresses the majority of people, see my comment above. It's all about the superficial, the lipstick, the packaging. The actual content seems to be entirely irrelevant. Kneejerk 10 second decision-making based solely on appearances is apparently the order of the day.Zarathustra wrote:He didn't do it dramatically and look into the camera for stage effect (which, for some reason, seems to impress people)...
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. It may not matter at all and you may simply not give a rat's ass either - and that's a whole nother separate discussion - but it absolutely does make the US look ridiculous and diminishes you. Figureheads they may merely be, but still, these two "old white gaffe machines" are being proffered as the crème de la crème, the very best and most "fit for purpose" candidates for president that the US can come up with. Really? And moreover, following Tuesday's debacle, you honestly think that this has no effect on how the US is viewed by the rest of the world?Zarathustra wrote:I don't think this is as big a deal as people are making it. It doesn't make our country look bad.
Here's the relatively dispassionate and level-headed BBC...
BBC.co.uk wrote:Presidential debate: How the world's media reacted
US voters have endured the first of three presidential debates between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
The event has also prompted a huge reaction from world audiences who tuned in for the chaotic event.
Newspapers and commentators around the world have criticised the tone and tactics of the debate.
UK
As The Times in the UK wrote, "The clearest loser from the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was America."
The paper went further, saying the event "was not a debate in any meaningful sense" but rather "an ill-tempered and at times incomprehensible squabble between two angry septuagenarians who palpably loathe each other".
"The rest of the world - and future historians - will presumably look at it and weep," the paper wrote
France
"Chaotic, childish, gruelling" - that's how French newspaper Liberation described Tuesday's debate. Le Monde agreed, calling it a "terrible storm".
Germany
Der Spiegel's analysis of the debate is headlined "A TV duel like a car accident".
In a piece titled "Part fist-fight, part play", Suddeutsche Zeitung wrote: "Both Trump and Biden could go home satisfied because as far as the theatrical performance is concerned, both did their job properly. Donald Trump played Donald Trump, Joe Biden played Joe Biden, and fans should have liked it."
Italy
"Never had American politics sunk so low," La Repubblica's US correspondent wrote, describing the debate as "Chaotic, rowdy, and based on mutual contempt".
India
Hindi-language news channel AajTak accused both candidates of "mud-slinging", while broadcaster Times Now said the debate was "marred with personal jibes and political barbs".
But the strongest commentary came from The Times of India, the country's largest-selling English-language newspaper, which compared the debate to "mud-wrestling".
"The US embarrassed itself before the world for 100 minutes," it wrote.
link.
...with the key operative phrase there being "shouldn't be". But sadly, that is exactly and solely what it's about - and both sides are utterly insistent on making it about this. Obvciously both Pub and Dem High Commands have decided that for the majority of the US electorate, this presidential contest absolutely should be presented as a glorified reality TV personality contest. And bear in mind that the strategists having decided that are not stupid people. They'll have done all their research and both sides will have concluded that dumbing down any debate to the absolute max - literally to Jerry Springer show levels - offers their side the best chance of winning the White House...Zarathustra wrote:We don't elect Presidents to make us look good. It's not about appearances . . . or it shouldn't be. It's about policies.
Now I'm not sure whether that says more about the smarts of the average US voter... or the contempt in which both sides hold the average US voter... or both.
I don't think that's the primary motivation at all. Well okay, it may be what the electorate is being hustled into thinking is up for discussion and decision.... but from the two respective High Commands' points of view, it's all about getting purely self-interested control of the swill trough. Altruism, morality and ideology are just the paper-thin masks worn in a calculated attempt to hustle votes...Zarathustra wrote:So they interrupted each other. So fucking what? This is a high stakes game of deciding who will run our country.
Regardless, unless something notably dramatic happens between now and Nov 3rd, Trump is single-handedly well on the way to ensuring his own loss. The guy is demonstrably uncontrollable and uncounsellable - and his extreme narcissism combined with his massive ego and completely over-inflated sense of his own abilities are going to hand the White House to the lamentably piss-poor Biden and the Dems.
As I have said before and I'll stand foursquare by it, because to me it's very obvious truth...
Nov 2016. Pub win. Because = Hillary.
Nov 2020. (Ever more likely) Pub loss. Because = Trump.
Seems self-evident to me that nowadays, no individual or no party is good enough (or talented enough... or uniting enough... or inspirational enough) to win a US presidential election. It's all and only about who's shit enough and crass enough to lose one.