live debates contribute to the democratic process by exposing the voters to the candidates and for the pressure it puts on candidates to answer questions directly, wether it lincoln douglas or a live debate in iran, they both perform the same function and our necessary
I'm honestly not sure that live debates are THAT great for democracy, it shows more who can answer quickest, has the best lines and "wit", but that's not necessarily teh guy or woman you want in office. It gives an advantage to the extrovert/"go-getter"/funny/charismatic type, t, that's why Berlusconi introduced them in Italy. It's turned politics into primetime entertainment.
It's good to have them tho, but I don't like giving them too much weight.
I'm honestly not sure that live debates are THAT great for democracy, it shows more who can answer quickest, has the best lines and "wit", but that's not necessarily teh guy or woman you want in office. It gives an advantage to the extrovert/"go-getter"/funny/charismatic type, t, that's why Berlusconi introduced them in Italy. It's turned politics into primetime entertainment.
It's good to have them tho, but I don't like giving them too much weight.
live debates have always been part of democracy and the fact that they exist is a sign of democracy, i think that your post and the real's post should be followed by the hashtag #firstworldproblems
i dont think the POV you are stating has a connection or significance to countries that are use to dictatorships and strong men
live debates have always been part of democracy and the fact that they exist is a sign of democracy, i think that your post and the real's post should be followed by the hashtag #firstworldproblems
i dont think the POV you are stating has a connection or significance to countries that are use to dictatorships and strong men
So you should qualify your post and say that it's good for democracy in developping countries, not for "democracy" in its absolute form, because the best rhetorical speakers don't necessarilly make the best leaders in office. I've seen a couple of debates where one-liners win the crowd, but that's not how you lead a country. And you don't need "live" debates to have democracy, you need debates.
As I said, it's good to have them, but IMO they should not hold too much weight in the final outcome, or less it's just voting for the best public speaker.
So you should qualify your post and say that it's good for democracy in developping countries, not for "democracy" in its absolute form, because the best rhetorical speakers don't necessarilly make the best leaders in office. I've seen a couple of debates where one-liners win the crowd, but that's not how you lead a country. And you don't need "live" debates to have democracy, you need debates.
As I said, it's good to have them, but IMO they should not hold too much weight in the final outcome, or less it's just voting for the best public speaker.
i think the importance vis a vis democracy comes from having them not on what actually is said or the outcome or the rules of the debate, if debates skews toward good debaters, so what? tough luck
yeah people can win debates with one liners...so what?
i cant say i give a fuk about that particular quibble, personally i look at it as a stress test, if a candidates fails at a debate then better luck next time, the fuk you want? a hug? you still feel sorry for perry or something?
i thought we were discussing developing democracies thats why i didnt think i had to qualify what i said, i didn't think people would try to bring up some quibble they have with debates in developed democracies when discussing a historical first time debate in kenya
i think the importance vis a vis democracy comes from having them not on what actually is said or the outcome or the rules of the debate, if debates skews toward good debaters, so what? tough luck
yeah people can win debates with one liners...so what?
i cant say i give a fuk about that particular quibble, personally i look at it as a stress test, if a candidates fails at a debate then better luck next time, the fuk you want? a hug? you still feel sorry for perry or something?
i thought we were discussing developing democracies thats why i didnt think i had to qualify what i said, i didn't think people would try to bring up some quibble they have with debates in developed democracies when discussing a historical first time debate in kenya
You bringing "democracy" as a general concept and stating that "live debates have always existed in democracy" I assumed we were discussing live debates in democracy, not only in developing democracies, because dynamics are obviously different.
And no, I don't want to give a hug, the **** u talking about? i'm saying that political issues are best not answered to in one-liners, because the matters at hand are way too complex for that. But since that's the way the public likes it (case in point), politicians tend to go to teh "catchy" answers, which in general are the most bs ("With me in offices, there wil be lower taxes!") or black/white answers with no nuances ("Unemployment is the illegal immigrants' fault"). You look at all populist leaders here in Europe, and most of them are the best debaters, and time after time after time they fail when voters fall for the tricks.
All I'm saying is that live debates are not a panacea. Good to have, it's not like I said they should'nt have them
You bringing "democracy" as a general concept and stating that "live debates have always existed in democracy" I assumed we were discussing live debates in democracy, not only in developing democracies, because dynamics are obviously different.
And no, I don't want to give a hug, the **** u talking about? i'm saying that political issues are best not answered to in one-liners, because the matters at hand are way too complex for that. But since that's the way the public likes it (case in point), politicians tend to go to teh "catchy" answers, which in general are the most bs ("With me in offices, there wil be lower taxes!") or black/white answers with no nuances ("Unemployment is the illegal immigrants' fault"). You look at all populist leaders here in Europe, and most of them are the best debaters, and time after time after time they fail when voters fall for the tricks.
All I'm saying is that live debates are not a panacea. Good to have, it's not like I said they should'nt have them
Nah the topic was still developing democracies, sorry about the confusion and thanks for sharing your quibbles with European democracies
live debates have always been part of democracy and the fact that they exist is a sign of democracy, i think that your post and the real's post should be followed by the hashtag #firstworldproblems
i dont think the POV you are stating has a connection or significance to countries that are use to dictatorships and strong men
It's your posts that should have that hashtag, since it's in places like Iran where public debates are relatively meaningless. Also, the original democracies didn't have public debates... or voting.
It's your posts that should have that hashtag, since it's in places like Iran where public debates are relatively meaningless. Also, the original democracies didn't have public debates... or voting.
it was an interesting debate.raila ducking those questions,though.lol.dida is hilarious although he speaks for the common mwananchi.peter kenneth and martha seem like the most sober.
this tribal **** has to stop.i dont expect clashes this time round though.funny thing is that its just a couple of thugs that are hired by politicians to fight.the common mwananchi is peaceloving.
julie gichuru
21Daps
Too bad their will be tribe related violence 
@ the jik commercial
gets those stains out no proooobrem! Now omo tho 
that'll **** your skin up.
