Trump's Debate Manager

 "Donald.  Donald, listen to me!"  He slaps the president across the face.

"Do you want to be president next year, Donald?  Because if you do, you have to stop interrupting your opponent."

"I know it worked against Hillary.  But you know what?  You didn't do it that much against her.  Besides, people were looking for reasons to vote against Hillary.  They didn't like her, and they liked that you stood up to her."

"Guess what, Donald?  People are not looking for reasons to vote against Biden.  They're looking for reasons to vote against you.  That's right.  I know Biden is going senile.  Yes, I know Biden has left a trail of gaffes and outright lies about his personal exploits that would have destroyed a lesser candidate.  Guess what?  If he has survived those things, he is not a lesser candidate.  There is something about him that appeals to people, and VIEWERS DO NOT LIKE TO SEE HIM INTERRUPTED."

"If you're debating a candidate prone to gaffes, let him make gaffes!  Interrupting him all the time just saves him from himself.  Let him speak, for heaven's sake!"

"Donald, you've got to control yourself.  You can go out there and be yourself, and interrupt all the time, and lose the election; or you can go out, act like a normally polite person, and take turns talking.  That doesn't guarantee you'll win, but doing it the other way guarantees you will lose."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more