Subject:
|
Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:19:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
491 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adrian Egli wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
You’ve misinterpreted my intent, so I’ll restate it:
I find your choice “to try someone else” to be insufficient cause for an
informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to
another. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for choosing an
absolute unknown in preference to one of the other candidates?
|
“Absolute unknown” can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown
to the public in general then Arnold not an “absolute unknown”.
|
Absolute political unknown. I had presumed that you would be able to identify
the term within the context of the discussion, but I see that I am in error.
You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn’t know their
names. This suggests that your vote is based on celebrity or notoriety in
preference to substance; that’s hardly unique to you, but it’s hardly a
commendable trait in a would-be informed citizen.
| |
| |
So “charisma” is the primary qualifying characteristic, in your opinion?
Based on that criterion, I suppose that you would glowingly endorse Bill
Clinton over any other president from the past few decades, because Clinton
was clearly more charismatic than any other contender.
|
|
| |
It is not the “primary qualifying characteristic” but it is an element in the
process of gaining the public’s attention. Charasima is only as one sees it.
|
But you’ve said numerous times that it was Arnold’s charisma (not “charasima,”
by they way) that won him your vote. Based on that statement and your statement
above, it seems that the primary qualifications for elected office are:
1. Charisma
2. Having gained the public’s attention.
Woe to the republic if that’s really what it’s about.
| |
Billy- hey, you’re the one using the words “glowingly endorse” not me.
|
Judging from everything you’ve said, my analysis of your likely political
endorsement was accurate. Perhaps you should amend your criteria as follows:
1. Charisma
2. Having gained the public’s attention.
3. Not Bill Clinton
Though you didn’t give any reason for #3.
| |
I’m in my 30’s and have only participated directly in this political process
for a little over a decade; I have only voted in three presidential
elections. Now, maybe when I hit the six mark then I can look back and say
Pres. “So-n-so” was the most charasmatic or the most “whatever”.
|
I’m 32, but that doesn’t prevent me from analyzing history. To claim some
exoneration from history simply because you’re too young is foolish.
| |
If you’re talking that Hitler crap just drop it. My own view is those who
brought up this are thinking they can pull off another David Duke incident.
It won’t work. I sure haven’t seen neo-nazi videos or photos with Arnold.
|
Let me get this straight--rather than discuss an issue with real relevance to
Arnold’s character, you’d prefer simply to drop it? That hardly seems
consistent with the mentality of an informed electorate.
I haven’t seen any photos of Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein, but the Dubya
administration was happy to maintain and to propogate the myth of their alliance
for many months. Were you as vocal in your criticism of Dubya’s administration
as you are in criticizing the LA Times and those who would otherwise question
Arnold’s fitness for office?
Perhaps you’re aware that Arnold spoke very fondly of Kurt Waldheim at Arnold’s
wedding?
“My friends don’t want me to mention Kurt’s name, because of all the recent
Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so
thank you. Kurt.”
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) Honestly, I dismissed most of them for pretty much the same reason - I didn't know their name simply because they were not seriously running for governor. And let's add to that I dismissed the names that were similiar to better known people (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) "Absolute unknown" can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to the public in general then Arnold not an "absolute unknown". I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to see which names I (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
