Debate Victory? (or) The Gibson/Couric Trigger?

Pilots For 911 Truth · 10-03-08, 03:20 PM

Folks, it was like watching two separate debates, was it not?

I’ve been saying for almost 2 years now that we should never get caught behind the illogical supposition that somehow experience matters in a Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidate and that fact is no truer than right now. One cannot have this type of experience unless one has served in the White House before and logically, none of these candidates have.

Therefore, the only real measure that matters or makes any sense to rely upon, is the true depth and dimension of the candidates level of competency as demonstrated through their examples of capacity, aptitude and appropriateness for the job. The debates last night make this truism stand out like a neon sign.

What you just witnessed were two distinct and very identifiable debates running simultaneously. It was as if both candidates shared the same physical stage, while speaking from two entirely different mental/cognitive worlds.

The Biden Effect:

Clearly and without ambiguity, you saw a candidate with total and complete control over his own thoughts, able to move clearly and directly from one topic to another, answering the moderator's questions directly, able to spontaneously handle direct follow-up questions, in complete command of his predicate and clause (I cannot stress this enough) when delivering answers to questions and you saw someone fully capable and with mastery, respond to direct rebuttal continuously linking his predicate to his clause (again, this cannot be stressed enough).

The Palin Effect:

Clearly and without ambiguity, you saw a candidate unable to delivery a natural predicate connected to a natural flowing clause. You saw a person who told the moderator directly that she was not going to respond to the moderators follow-up questions a put to her. Why? There is only one reason for this – she obviously could not run the risk of getting asked a question where her answer was not already memorized. You clearly saw a candidate who repeatedly ran away from direct rebuttal opportunities time after time after time, who at times was so incoherent that her response ended up 10 nautical miles away from the question being discussed, who read talking points without connecting related predicate to or with a clause as though that's all she had memorized. Palin was not able to provided one solitary original idea with a stable predicate and or clause the entire night. And, she provided no clarity or depth of understanding on how McCain would work to solve the current economic crisis or end the war in Iraq.

Whenever you are judging how well someone did in ANY verbal/dialectic debate, you ALWAYS can tell their level of depth on the subject matter by looking at whether or not they present their ideas using smooth transitions between their use of the predicate and the clause. The failure to connect and/or properly use predicates and clauses is a telling sign that somebody was coached to use memory techniques as a method to respond to questions.

The problem with this, is that it shows up in rebuttal and THAT is why Palin provided none worth mentioning. The more depth of understand one has, the greater their ability to connect phrases, predicates and clauses together like a string of beautiful pearls. When Biden responded to direct and rebuttal, he was able to transition through the predicate and/or the clause with often times flawless precision. That demonstrates a depth of knowledge – not memory debating skills.

Palin would be asked question "A" and she would end up going through her mental rolodex to come up with a memory item that was a close match to "A", but in fact was a reply that she should have given for question "C". When she could not handle the direct question or direct rebuttal, how many times did she change the narrative and start ranting about something completely off topic?

The Gibson/Couric Trigger:

Whenever Palin has to deal with follow-up questions, that is when she blows-up and goes into the Gibson/Couric mode. You cannot memorize every single follow-up question because you don’t know where those questions will lead. Whenever Palin is forced to step away from the teleprompter, the cue card on the podium, the memory items to the first question and has to respond to follow-up, she blows a fuse and the Gibson/Couric moment is revealed. As long as you do not go deep, Palin can go long and wide. So, wide, that ends up never answering your question directly (aka, The Gibson/Couric Trigger).

At this time in Palin’s political career she lacks competency as defined through having sufficient capacity, aptitude and appropriateness for this level of responsibility – The White House. This was clearly seen last night in stark contrast to the very Presidential demonstration put forth by Biden.

The country saw Biden as being not just Vice Presidential, but in fact, Presidential - in some ways, even more Presidential than either Obama or McCain. Biden demonstrated a level of command and control of the issues (both foreign and domestic) that I have not yet seen come from either Obama and/or McCain! Everybody understands fully now, that if Biden has to step in, he's ready on day one.

Who can seriously say the same for Palin?

Palin did not understand the authority given to the Vice President as it relates to the United States Senate, under the Constitution of the United States of America. How on earth can you elect someone to office, who does not even understand their role? It was Biden who had to school her on Article I declarations and authority given to the Vice President.

MrVicchio · 10-03-08, 03:25 PM

You saw Biden giving a stump speech and Palin speaking to Americans.

shuamort · 10-03-08, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

You saw Biden giving a stump speech and Palin speaking to Americans.

How does one give a stump speech when the questions are previously unknown? Also, Palin did speak to Americans but she didn't say anything more than a Teddy Ruxpin for the most part.

JMak · 10-03-08, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilots For 911 Truth

Folks, it was like watching two separate debates, was it not?

No.

Quote:

I’ve been saying for almost 2 years now that we should never get caught behind the illogical supposition that somehow experience matters in a Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidate and that fact is no truer than right now. One cannot have this type of experience unless one has served in the White House before and logically, none of these candidates have.

This is a foolish and simplistic notion. Of course no individuals can accrue presidential experience except by being President. However, we are rational individuals that can identify those qualities and characteristics that we believe are representative of effective managers and leaders and decision-makers. And we can infer from an individuals' "experiences" whether they possess these qualities and characteristics to a level sufficient to make us believe that they can or will perform well as President. It also helps if we believe that the candidate shares the same perception of our nation, role of government, and similar political preferences.

Quote:

Therefore, the only real measure that matters or makes any sense to rely upon, is the true depth and dimension of the candidates level of competency as demonstrated through their examples of capacity, aptitude and appropriateness for the job. The debates last night make this truism stand out like a neon sign.

Competency for what? Aptitude for what? Appropriatness of and for what? What are the specific measures? Why are these measures the best predictors of performance.

Your "model" here ignores probably the most critical component of an individual's candidacy...their political views.

Quote:

What you just witnessed were two distinct and very identifiable debates running simultaneously. It was as if both candidates shared the same physical stage, while speaking from two entirely different mental/cognitive worlds.

Talk about projecting a personal animus...

Quote:

Clearly and without ambiguity, you saw a candidate with total and complete control over his own thoughts,

Hmmm, interesting as we watch Biden struggle in his attempts to meld his ever-changing positions on the war with obama's position, struggle with his flip-floppery in trying to tell us what Obama meant by unconditional talks, etc.

Quote:

able to move clearly and directly from one topic to another,

Quote:

answering the moderator's questions directly,

Both deflected questions.

Quote:

able to spontaneously handle direct follow-up questions, in complete command of his predicate and clause (I cannot stress this enough) when delivering answers to questions

Yeah, who cares if he was lying, dissembling, or otherwise fabricating information...

Quote:

and you saw someone fully capable and with mastery, respond to direct rebuttal continuously linking his predicate to his clause (again, this cannot be stressed enough).

[/quote]

Again, no matter that he lied, dissembled, or otherwise fabricated information.

Quote:

Clearly and without ambiguity, you saw a candidate unable to delivery a natural predicate connected to a natural flowing clause.

At least she wasn't making up crap out of whole cloth.

Quote:

You saw a person who told the moderator directly that she was not going to respond to the moderators follow-up questions a put to her. Why?

Why what?

I guess you prefer simply ignoring the question rather than someone clearly indicating that they would not address the question. How you square that I do not know.

Quote:

There is only one reason for this – she obviously could not run the risk of getting asked a question where her answer was not already memorized.

Conjecture.

Quote:

You clearly saw a candidate who repeatedly ran away from direct rebuttal opportunities time after time after time, who at times was so incoherent that her response ended up 10 nautical miles away from the question being discussed, who read talking points without connecting related predicate to or with a clause as though that's all she had memorized.

Who did you plagiarize this point from?

Nonetheless, lets not pretend that Biden stayed on topic, okay.

P

Quote:

alin was not able to provided one solitary original idea with a stable predicate and or clause the entire night.

And Biden did?

Quote:

And, she provided no clarity or depth of understanding on how McCain would work to solve the current economic crisis or end the war in Iraq.

Democrated by...?

Quote:

Whenever you are judging how well someone did in ANY verbal/dialectic debate, you ALWAYS can tell their level of depth on the subject matter by looking at whether or not they present their ideas using smooth transitions between their use of the predicate and the clause.

So, Biden wins on that score? Despite fabricating things out of whole cloth? Hey, if that's your standard, run with it, I guess...

Quote:

The failure to connect and/or properly use predicates and clauses is a telling sign that somebody was coached to use memory techniques as a method to respond to questions.

Ya think? Did anyone expect Palin to have total command of the issues, particularly in foreign policy where, on the arguments, she clearly demolished Biden?

Quote:

The problem with this, is that it shows up in rebuttal and THAT is why Palin provided none worth mentioning. The more depth of understand one has, the greater their ability to connect phrases, predicates and clauses together like a string of beautiful pearls.

That also means you can string together incorrect data and wholly fabricated information.

Quote:

When Biden responded to direct and rebuttal, he was able to transition through the predicate and/or the clause with often times flawless precision. That demonstrates a depth of knowledge – not memory debating skills.

Depth of knowledge? Being 2000% off in comparing the costs of combat in Iraq with the costs in Afghanistan does not reflect depth of knowledge. Neither does ignoring the fact that the Veep's office appears in both Article I and Article II reflect deep understanding about anything. Neither does rambling on about Hezbollah and lying about his alleged calls for NATO to fill some non-existent vacuum in Lebanon.

Quote:

Palin would be asked question "A" and she would end up going through her mental rolodex to come up with a memory item that was a close match to "A", but in fact was a reply that she should have given for question "C". When she could not handle the direct question or direct rebuttal, how many times did she change the narrative and start ranting about something completely off topic?

She's a politician. You're behaving as though she's not a politician. As well, this is a debater's master trick.

Quote:

Whenever Palin has to deal with follow-up questions, that is when she blows-up and goes into the Gibson/Couric mode. You cannot memorize every single follow-up question because you don’t know where those questions will lead.

What does that mode look like? Anything like the lying, dissembling, and fabrications from Biden?

Quote:

Whenever Palin is forced to step away from the teleprompter, the cue card on the podium, the memory items to the first question and has to respond to follow-up, she blows a fuse and the Gibson/Couric moment is revealed.

Such as?

Quote:

As long as you do not go deep, Palin can go long and wide. So, wide, that ends up never answering your question directly (aka, The Gibson/Couric Trigger).

I see, so Biden is superior because he fabricate all sorts of stuff with proper predicate clause transition and with conviction and passion?

No, of course not. It means that Biden can lie with conviction and passion and you people will call him a superior politican.

Quote:

At this time in Palin’s political career she lacks competency as defined through having sufficient capacity, aptitude and appropriateness for this level of responsibility – The White House.

Hmmmm, lets look more closely at this...

All this means is that because she doesn't have total command of some set of facts (or with facts and ideas that you agree with) then she lacks competency as defined through having sufficient capacity, aptitude and appropriateness for this level of responsibility.

So your model really boils down not to competency, capacity, aptitude, or appropriateness, but whether the candidate conforms to your preferred debating method (properly connecting predicate and clause with no consideration for honesty) and preferred policies.

Well, now that we have that out of the way...

Quote:

This was clearly seen last night in stark contrast to the very Presidential demonstration put forth by Biden.

Standing there exhibiting an extreme level of comfort with lying is not presidential.

Quote:

The country saw Biden as being not just Vice Presidential, but in fact, Presidential - in some ways, even more Presidential than either Obama or McCain. Biden demonstrated a level of command and control of the issues (both foreign and domestic) that I have not yet seen come from either Obama and/or McCain! Everybody understands fully now, that if Biden has to step in, he's ready on day one.

Again, no matter that his command of the issues compels him to lie, dissemble, and fabricate or that his policy instincts are just plain wrong (like giving Iran $200 million with no-strings attached following 9/11).

Quote:

Who can seriously say the same for Palin?

No one expected Palin to have the distinguished Senator's ability to so comfortably lie.

Quote:

Palin did not understand the authority given to the Vice President as it relates to the United States Senate, under the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is curious. Palin clearly recognized the role of the Veep. She also recognized the Veep's executive role, too.

Quote:

How on earth can you elect someone to office, who does not even understand their role? It was Biden who had to school her on Article I declarations and authority given to the Vice President.

Too bad that at the same time, Biden ignored Article II? Despite being a constitutional law scholar?

BTW - why do you think Biden was schooling her on the role of the VP? Because he passionately told us what Article I says and then ignored Article II because it undermined his rant against Cheney?

LMAO!!!

JMak · 10-03-08, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

How does one give a stump speech when the questions are previously unknown? Also, Palin did speak to Americans but she didn't say anything more than a Teddy Ruxpin for the most part.

Because with few exceptions she relied on her typical talking points to respond to the questions. Very rarely did she demonstrate command of an issue and McCain's proposed policies.

Pilots For 911 Truth · 10-03-08, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

You saw Biden giving a stump speech and Palin speaking to Americans.

Vic,

The questions were not known before hand. The moderator did not reveal them to the candidates. Honestly, are you going to expect rational, clear thinking people to conclude that Biden gave a stump speech and that Palin was elucidating to the American People about policy, leadership and executive level direction for the country?

I noticed you give really short unrelated, off the mark, wildly errant answers to complex questions that require at least some intellectual vigor. Is this a McCain campaign strategy? Will this continue to work to pull in all those intelligent Independent voters who are searching for depth, wisdom, capacity, aptitude and appropriateness in their candidates?

Palin was crammed fully of incoherent responses because she is not familiar with the subject matter at any level of depth required for the White House.

Why. Why is that so hard to simply accept as truth?

I would respect the McCain camp and all of his supporters a whole lot more, if they would just admit the truth about Palin’s incompetence for the role of VP and move on! After the Gibson/Couric episodes and this latest fiasco in the VP debate, why do you still support a person who is imminently unqualified for the role of Vice President of the United States which by definition means a Constitutionally Transitioned President of the United States (should that become necessary)?

Am I missing something, Vic? Seriously – am I that blind? Is it me? Am I the one being unfair to Palin? Is she really ready for this role? What am I missing, Vic? If I’m missing something here, I will not only apologize but I will change my vote and help to put McCain in the White House on November 4th, 2008 – if you can show me how Palin is ready?

We’ve already seen how and why Obama, Biden and McCain could possibly run things from the White House. We’ve seen Obama against McCain and the public agrees that Obama and McCain are at least Presidential looking. We’ve seen Biden and many see him as having displayed more Presidential stature then both Obama and McCain in some respects. But, who – who can say the same about Palin?

You present something logical, rational and coherent and I will make my change in vote publicly known right here on this forum and I will do my level best to get John McCain into the White House. That’s a solemn promise.

Between Gibson, Couric and the Debate, show me where, why and how Palin is up for this task?

An open invitation to anyone.

Here's one McCain vote if you can do it - come and get it.

MrVicchio · 10-03-08, 04:13 PM

I know the questions were not known before hand.

Biden is the old pro. That spiel about his kids... watch any of his stump speeches. Watch him talk about Home Depot and other places.

JMak · 10-03-08, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilots For 911 Truth

Palin was crammed fully of incoherent responses because she is not familiar with the subject matter at any level of depth required for the White House.

There you go, again. Her supposed incoherence is merely a function of your fundamental distaste for her and the GOP ticket. Why is that so hard to admit?

Quote:

I would respect the McCain camp and all of his supporters a whole lot more, if they would just admit the truth about Palin’s incompetence for the role of VP and move on!

Right after you and your Democrats admit that Obama is similarly not suited for the Presidency.

Quote:

After the Gibson/Couric episodes and this latest fiasco in the VP debate, why do you still support a person who is imminently unqualified for the role of Vice President of the United States which by definition means a Constitutionally Transitioned President of the United States (should that become necessary)?

Why do you still support someone who imminently unqualified for president, let alone VP?

See, I can play this game, too.

Quote:

Am I missing something, Vic? Seriously – am I that blind? Is it me? Am I the one being unfair to Palin? Is she really ready for this role? What am I missing, Vic? If I’m missing something here, I will not only apologize but I will change my vote and help to put McCain in the White House on November 4th, 2008 – if you can show me how Palin is ready?

You're not missing anything...check that...what you're failing to account for is your own bias. Your very strong preference for Obama/Biden necessitates you suspending willful disbelief to schill for Obama/Biden. It totally obstructs your perception of these events.

Quote:

We’ve already seen how and why Obama, Biden and McCain could possibly run things from the White House. We’ve seen Obama against McCain and the public agrees that Obama and McCain are at least Presidential looking. We’ve seen Biden and many see him as having displayed more Presidential stature then both Obama and McCain in some respects. But, who – who can say the same about Palin?

That's not what were electing her for. Besides, this is the same crap you people levelled about Reagan you were eminently wrong.

Quote:

You present something logical, rational and coherent and I will make my change in vote publicly known right here on this forum and I will do my level best to get John McCain into the White House. That’s a solemn promise.

Are you serious? You think we'll buy this nonsense that your vigorous support for Obama/Biden will simply disappear if such is presented to you?

Then your model is absolutely worthless.

Thanks for demonstrating your true character here.

Between Gibson, Couric and the Debate, show me where, why and how Palin is up for this task?

JMak · 10-03-08, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

I know the questions were not known before hand.

Biden is the old pro. That spiel about his kids... watch any of his stump speeches. Watch him talk about Home Depot and other places.

Or his oft-repeated schtick about combat spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which necessarily means that last night was not simply a mistake but a deliberate intention to deceive, aka, lying.

Panther · 10-03-08, 04:18 PM

Another thread of many words of pontificating just to say.

"I can't stand her, whine, whine, whine, look at me, whine, whine, whine, please agree with me, whine, whine, whine, why am I the only one that can see the real truth......"