Friday, September 30, 2016

That First Debate + SM Review-Preview 59

Debates are dead. They are dead if we have entered explicit tribal politics. Debates were overrated in general. A primary debate makes more sense since it is same team and persuasion still exists. Persuasion is gone. The 2012 election proved that. It now is simply get out the vote for your tribe, and especially the racial tribes.

Charlotte's riots proved this. In Tulsa, a white female cop shot and killed an unarmed but high on PCP black man. In Charlotte, a black cop shot an armed black man. Who gets the protest-riot? First, Oklahoma is deep red and North Carolina is a swing state. The foundations bused in their road team, and voila, swing state North Carolina has a few nights of riots. This is used to first push the nationalization of police forces, which I noted months ago, but second, it gins up the black community to vote Democrat or the KKK Police will kill them all.

Were the debates ever going to top Nixon-Kennedy? Reagan's "better off four years ago" moment was brilliant television and salesmanship, but before and after is a lot of garbage. The W debates were painful to watch. The Candy Crowley 2nd Romney-Obama debate was awful, and blunted what was momentum for Mitt Romney. The problem is a nation that is 90% white with shared norms and mores has enough elastic voters that can be persuaded. Nixon-Kennedy was a match between two intelligent, young men who had connections to the high machinery of power.

Do not sleep on Nixon and Kennedy being in their 40s being a factor. They had sharp, younger minds to engage each other with for an hour. Despite that famous match up, this is no way to pick the leader of an empire, especially a nuclear power. Behind closed doors, the Russians in the late '90s settled on a compromise pick of a former intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. In the last decade, America has been picking between elderly water carriers of the regime, Ivy trained business puppets and now a casino magnate.

---------------------------------------------

Last week, I wrote on the politicization of medicine with the trans push. I did not go deeper into Dr. Money, but please look for documentaries about him as he was a wicked man. What is worse is all of his fraudulent research and crackpot theories are the foundation for current trans and gender thought spewing from academia. If you talk to professors, they will say what and how he did it was wrong, but that they do support his conclusions.

This week I explain the original "excluded from da country club" incident and Weimerica Weekly will return. I promise.

5 comments:

Toddy Cat said...

Money was right up there with the Nazi and Soviet doctors in his level of evil. In a sane world, he would have been put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Scot's Bluff said...

Just watched this Kennedy-Nixon debate you mentioned; boy howdy did Nixon look like a real square, it's no wonder he lost! I don't care what a man's politics are, you don't get my vote if you're caught wearing a poop brown suit like that. Kennedy is just so suave.

Nixon also came off as an autistic spaz; what a creep!

Toddy Cat said...

AS has often been mentioned, people who listened to the debate on radio thought that Nixon won; it was Kennedy's visuals that won the debate for him. Nixon was smarter than Kennedy and he would certainly have made a better president, especially in 1960, before he became embittered and paranoid, but "suave" he was not...

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Style, charisma, physique, height, good looks, charm--all of these things matter much more than how much knowledge some egghead or policy wonk has.

Hey Alt-Right shitlords, are you goys paying attention?

peterike said...

The debates as we have them are a stupid, wildly tilted format. Republicans -- Trump especially -- should NEVER agree to a debate moderated by the media.

It's not even a real "debate" since it's all softballs for Hillary (99% likely with the questions given to her in advance) and gotchas for Trump (0% likely with the questions provided in advance). A sensible and more genuine debate would be to simply have each candidate provide five questions for the other candidate. They go back and forth on the responses. The "moderator" is there ONLY as a time keeper. This way, there could be no collusion with the media and each candidate could target the other however they see fit.

Trump is the only one who could have broken the media stranglehold because he's made it a point of his campaign that the media is biased. But too late for that now.