Yang's mic was off for huge segments of the debate. This explains a lot. I saw Yang try to chime in at the beginning, but it makes sense if he just reposed as he realized there isn't much he could do.https://twitter.com/KarenNelsonMN/status/1144473156125523973 …
-
-
-
I was seriously about to link this exact tweet. Explains why he didn't say much.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Note how
@AndrewYang politely stopped talking when he was finished making his point. -
Asians are concise
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The same could be said about the temperament to win an election in general. Also, let’s not forget that people can pick election winners >50% of the time, even foreign elections, in microseconds by glancing at photos of the candidates.
-
Interestingly, to me at least, the same 2 factors are used by people to pick election winners in photos as are used in Gartners’ Magic Quadrant rating of tech firms: -Vision (do I like where you’re going) and -Ability to Execute (likelihood of success/effectiveness)
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The same could be said about the entire campaign process. One skill set to win, another skill set to lead.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aristotle: wit is "well-bred insolence." Great for a pleasant conversation or to win a debate, not so great in a responsible leader. Also, almost the only people who study logical fallacies are politicians' speech writers: they know fallacies work and have for 1000s of years.
-
Pols study the mind for the same reason a sadist may study the body: to find weaknesses to exploit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Primaries tend to select the extreme candidates.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.