i was a debater for many years, taught debate and forensics, and can say this about the way we do these presidential debates: 1) there's no way to "win" them 2) at most you can mouth platitudes 3) people remember one-liners and weird facial tics/fashion gaffes and little else
-
-
and the idea that some candidate's policy paper or "command of facts" can make a difference...again, think about your own shaky memory, absent a quick trip to ol' wikipedia (which i vandalize so often my changes now appear in books) or politifact, which has its own odd agenda
Show this thread -
much of this, in the "serious" elections, especially within the primaries of parties in which people agree on the basics, reduces to some debate about whether chocolate teddy grahams are better than honey teddy grahams, and you can't argue a person into liking honey teddy grahams
Show this thread -
besides, by the time your teddy graham choice hits the "mainer," they'll be so soggy and milk-drenched that you'll end up throwing them away, like your vote, and eating a couple ketchup packets and some ramen instead. or you can not vote, and save all your votes for the Big One
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like Sanders to an extent but I’m increasingly aware of how impossible it is that I will ever see a candidate I truly like
-
you'll never see anything you'll like, but you can sell some hot takes arguing the salted gruel is better than the unsalted gruel, which has lost its savor
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
