Just because they are not important in deciding the election, that doe snot mean that they do not have national importance. It is important for voters to be informed.
I disagree with it's significance being pretty low. Just like I disagree with your claim that debates having the effect of informing the electorate is not of "real" importance.Tucker, you were disagreeing with my claim that "Clearly "as a nation" it will be something heavily discussed. But its over all significance is still pretty low"
I did. You said that "nothing new is going to be said" and you are correct about that. So we both already agree that the information is not actually "new", it is just "new to the voters. I phrased my statement in a way which acknowledged that fact. I cannot help it if the article you cited did not clarify that point, but I am under the impression that both of us, being in agreement that nothing new is actually said during debates, can agree on that.1) you did not say "new information", you wrote "get their first real understanding of the candidates' views in the debates"
"Real significance" is not simply confined to the parameters of influencing the election. It has a real significance with regard to informing the electorate. That has been proven.2) This was presented to counter my claim about real significance. And if you read the paper, you will notice despite the "perception" of real significance, there isn't actually any. Hence perception=/=reality.
Really? I would say that a real understanding can only come from possessing the information. If they are getting new information during the debates, that indicates that they have not put forth any effort in acquiring information prior to the debate, because as we both agree, nothing new is presented. Thus, they cannot possibly have a real understanding of the candidates views prior to the debate.learning new information about a candidate isn't the same as "first real understanding of the candidates views".
Unless there is some other methods of achieving real understanding that you know of besides acquiring the information. Do you know of some other method?
Who said that people use a real understanding of the candidates views as their primary means of making up their minds? I know I certainly didn't. Sadly, I don't believe that most people actually use a real understanding of the candidates views as their primary method of making up their minds.A claim that is only underlined by the fact that this new information is "not likely to change many minds"
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Since you continue to ask the question using the singular form of the word group, the answer remains "the Nation", which, as a unified group, finds it important. Individuals in that group might disagree, but the group as a whole considers the issue important.Yes I was asking for which group finds it important.
Do you want me to talk about which groups within the nation find the issue important? If so, I can provide that answer for you as well.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
The issue of if we can claim this pertains to all/some/few/many/ a plethora/etc of events pertaining to national defense is irrelevant, because the over all point, that there are issues of inherent interest, and others that are not, still stands.
The same is true of your quibbling over the nature of that discussion. Regardless if you label it a national dialogue/debate/ meeting of minds/etc, would not change the fact that merely discussing it in any capacity does not lend it inherent importance.
Which was my point originally: a bunch of people discussing this and giving praise does not make it anything more than the media issue of the moment . After all, the entire claim that this guy is active is basically dependent on a technicality. And while he gained a bunch of public praise, that isn't surprising given the current media climate.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
There should be Instant Runoff Voting
No do you think you can answer the question?
Who finds this story important?
Please don't say the nation because that is not true at all.
Also please try to not turn this into a pissing contest like you do with the other posters. They are so tiresome.
If you are not capable of answering the question please just say so.
IF he stuck around for 12 years because he was a good player to have in practice it still wouldn't be a "garbage" career. But this is a guy who actually got substantial playing time at points in his career and stuck around for more than a decade. Regardless of WHY you think that is, that's not a "garbage" career.
There's also a reason why teams kept signing him.There is a reason why no team kept him around.
It's funny, you're changing your argument htough. First you're suggesting he had a "garbage" career. I counter that and all you do is go "but but but....it's because he's tall"
I did, I also compared him to former NBA players who had a MUCH worse career than him.Now you can make a case that he is sooo much better than a bunch of guys not in the NBA, which is rediculous.
If you're getting significant minutes every game for 12 years in the NBA, your CAREER isn't garbage.Compare him and his performance to almost any other NBA center who played significant minutes every game. He is a ****ty player.
I'd disagree with you if you were claiming his PLAY has been garbage all this time too...but that's different than saying his career is garbage, which is what you did. He's had a rather good career considering the average length of a career in the NBA is 5 years and he's more than doubled it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos