Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
That bit with Sanders / Clinton
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
 RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
I'm not sure her not giving a straight answer on that question says much about what her future policies will be. Sanders is perceived as a refreshing change, in part because he speaks his mind and generally gives straightforward answers. However, this is also true of Trump. It seems US voters are tired of being governed by people who won't speak their minds clearly. To be fair, this may be in part the politicians fault, but it is also a systemic issue. Given that the media will shred any honest answer to pieces, it makes sense for a politician to say the least possible. It's an unfortunate state of affairs but the politicians are only partially to blame.
In any event, I think her avoiding this question is more about maintaining the status quo. I agree with you that it is a shame she won't be honest about it. Where I disagree is that it says anything about how she would govern. The tactics of inside government toppling don't seem to be the modus operandi of the US anymore. Probably because of public opinion, but also because of the fact that the geopolitical arena is not at all what is used to be like. I just don't think her failure to speak the truth on those past events says much about her. At least, it only says she's a calculating politician, no more no less. Personally, I'm rooting for Sanders, but it is more because this whole "political dynasty" system has to stop. You know, we get the former president's son, brother, wife, sister, etc. etc. If the power belongs to only a few families, I fail to see how this system is any better than some African "democracies" whose leaders the US is quick to condemn...
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 15:40:45
 |
|
Paul Magnussen
Posts: 1805
Joined: Nov. 8 2010
From: London (living in the Bay Area)
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
To be fair, this may be in part the politicians fault, but it is also a systemic issue. Given that the media will shred any honest answer to pieces
The problem doesn’t appear confined to the United States; and, while agreeing with you, I think it’s also due to a patronising estimate (apparently justified in many cases) of the voters’ intelligence.
For instance, in his public pronouncements, the late Harold MacMillan seemed to produce little but a series of clichés. I later saw him interviewed, when he was in his 90s, and he was incredibly sharp and perceptive.
And likewise with Harold Wilson, who at Oxford graduated with “an outstanding first class Bachelor of Arts degree, with alphas on every paper”.
And so forth.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 16:08:53
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
The problem doesn’t appear confined to the United States; and, while agreeing with you, I think it’s also due to a patronising estimate (apparently justified in many cases) of the voters’ intelligence.
Agreed. Quite recently I had an interesting discussion on the beginnings of the European Union. While I had always been taught that it was merely about converging economic interests (starting with coal and steel) in order to prevent war, I was told that it was also about transfering power from the people to the bureaucracies (the idea being that the leaders of the time became afraid of the people's voice, given that Hitler had been democraticaly elected). I don't know how true this is, but I found it to be an interesting take on that part of history.
Though this patronizing attitude of government leaders towards the people seems somewhat universal, I am worried that the curtailment of public speech is getting worse. Perhaps this is just an impression, but with the rise of so-called identity politics and of a PC-based public arena where offending anyone seems to be grounds for getting fired (which seems to be a particularly acute problem in the US at the moment), I worry that we will reach a point where we won't be able to say anything and it will be simply impossible to know what politicians actually think. I've often wondered how the "greats" of old would have fared in today's system. Victor Shoelcher might have been called a racist, Churchill a coward, etc. etc. It's getting hard to make any sense of it all anymore!
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 16:31:19
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
I remember when I first joined the foro back in '05. I had emigrated from Argentina into the US and had been living in the US for a couple of years already. At that point, I was on my 2nd year of college studying Mechanical Engineering. I should mention that I did not know English when I first came to this country and I was forced to learn it on my own since the ESL courses offered were just plain useless. And let's also consider Engineering is not an easy degree to obtain. Yet, I ended up graduating top 5 in my Mechanical Engineering class.
Kudos!
quote:
After several years of interacting with other American students and living in the country, I realized that finding someone decently intelligent was hard to do. I met a lot of intelligent individuals, but they were a big minority compared to the large amount of average or below-average people. And thus, I made a post in this foro in '05-'06 about how I perceived a lot of Americans to be stupid. I recall I even threw a 50% figure at it. The reaction from the foro was almost unanimous and one of hate and despise for having made such a statement.
I understand the perception. The problem being that intelligence is very difficult to define. There are many different kinds of intelligence and many different fields in which that intelligence can be applied. My overall impression of the US (last time I was there, i.e. 4 years ago) was not that people were less intelligent; rather they were less informed than in my part of Europe. For example, I remember having a discussion with a couple from Nashville. Kind people, but very much on the opposite side of the political spectrum from myself. They were vary much against gay marriage. However, when I told them that, for instance, that there were issues such as visitation rights (jail or hospital), inheritance rights, etc. etc. etc. that gay people were being deprived of, they were suprised. They had never considered that simply because they had never got that information. Though I believe they are still against gay mariage, I think they were very much appalled that nothing had been done to ensure these basic rights for gay people through another channel.
Another issue is interest or curiosity, but this seems to apply to many different cultures. I see a lot of people who are very intelligent but only in a narrow field of expertise and show no interest in learning about other fields. You may know everything about US geography and nothing about the rest of the world. You many know everything about literature but nothing about basic engineering, etc. etc. Whether you define those people as intelligent or not seems very subjective. I was fortunate enough to work in a job where I got to discover many different fields, from banking to car manufacturing, union law for musical composers, the breakdown of tyre treads. At first sight, I wouldn't have thought any of these could be interesting and therefore I would have stayed ignorant about them. Turns out I was quite wrong. But on the whole, people seem to stick to their narrow fields. There's not many polymaths out there anymore.
Though I wouldn't agree that your statement (in the words you put it in in this thread) would have deserved any kind of hate or despise, the problem is that it is very difficult to make that kind of statement without being assimilated as something else. Saying that a lot of Americans are stupid comes off as a generalization, and mainly just arrogant. In fact, that is what an arrogant person would say. I'm not saying that's where you're coming from, just that it's easy to imagine people would come to that conclusion. Over the last few years, I've been having somewhat of a similar problem. As someone who has suffered quite a bit at the hands of religious fanatics in my life, I am very openly critical about many of the ideas contained in certain religions. But because of some of my statements on bad ideas and the bad consequences they have, I've been perceived as biggoted or flat out racist (apparently religious belief is a race now...go figure!). But to a certain extent, I understand why: a biggoted person could very well say the exact same thing I would say on certain issues (even if, on the whole, I'd be making an entirely different point from them). And I've since learned how difficult it is to tread that line, to voice my criticisms while laying out the right caveats so that noone would get the impression that I'm saying these things for other, less noble, reasons. I would surmise, without any further knowledge of the facts, that that may very well be what happened to you in that thread you spoke of. Anyways, just a thought!
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 18:20:34
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
Always looking at both sides
You've been in the US too long. There are usually more than two sides to any issue!  Hehe.
It's hard to judge intelligence on the basis of who people vote for though. Since I've been of voting age in France, I haven't voted for anyone I really wanted to vote for. In other words, sometimes you vote for the worst of two options, and the fact that there aren't better options says more about the political system and vested interests than about the people's intelligence as whole IMO. Were I to vote in the US in the upcoming elections, I would probably vote again "by default" for the less bad of the lot...
I'd agree that there are issues with the educational system (to be fair, there are also pretty serious issues in France as well). At the highest levels, it seems geared towards excellence at the detriment of inclusion. For instance, the steep admission prices to universities creates great possibilities in terms of research and educational quality, but it keeps many students out. In those countries where university is free, education is much easier of access, but at the price of excellence (simply not having the research equipment, etc.). I guess it's a trade-off.
What are the issues at secondary level? The issues I've heard of from a teacher friend had to do with lack of teacher support and basically the fear of the overextended reach of the legal system (apparently, you have to be pretty careful on what you say, etc.) but I really don't know much about it.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 18:59:26
|
|
Paul Magnussen
Posts: 1805
Joined: Nov. 8 2010
From: London (living in the Bay Area)
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
quote:
I met a lot of intelligent individuals, but they were a big minority compared to the large amount of average or below-average people.
You do realise that 50% of people are of below average intelligence almost* by definition?
But also, while concurring with the points in Piwin’s reply, I note as well that there’s a considerable body of opinion to the effect that the mass media and the educational system are both designed to keep the population as passive and thoughtless as possible — the bread and circuses approach. For example:
“Thought control, like birth control, is best undertaken as long as possible before the fact. Many grown-ups will obstinately persist, if only now and then, in composing small strings of sentences in their heads and achieving at least a momentary logic. This probably cannot be prevented, but we have learned how to minimize its consequences by arranging that such grown-ups will be unable to pursue that logic very far. If they were at home in the technology of writing, there's no telling how much social disorder they would cause by thinking things out at length.
Our schools have chosen to cut this danger off as close to the root as possible, thus taking measures to preclude not only the birth of thought but its conception. They give the pill to even the youngest children, but, just to be on the safe side, they give it to everybody else, too, especially all would-be schoolteachers.”
Richard Mitchell, Less Than Words Can Say
*Well, assuming a normal distribution, anyway. But it has been suggested that intelligence appears more closely to follow a Pearson Type IV curve.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 19:13:27
|
|
Mark2
Posts: 1871
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
I only know about the local secondary schools, and certainly not all of them. It's more about the kid than the school IMO. I sent my oldest daughter to a private college prep school in her freshman year. Many of her classmates spent a lot of time getting drunk. She transferred to a public school in the suburb where we live for the remainder of HS. Not only did she graduate from a UC(Davis), she earned four degrees in 3 1/2 years. Some of her classmates were admitted to Stanford, and today a few are attorneys, doctors, etc. My kid went on to earn a masters, as did some of her friends. The high school would not rate as anything exceptional
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
quote:
Always looking at both sides
You've been in the US too long. There are usually more than two sides to any issue! Hehe.
It's hard to judge intelligence on the basis of who people vote for though. Since I've been of voting age in France, I haven't voted for anyone I really wanted to vote for. In other words, sometimes you vote for the worst of two options, and the fact that there aren't better options says more about the political system and vested interests than about the people's intelligence as whole IMO. Were I to vote in the US in the upcoming elections, I would probably vote again "by default" for the less bad of the lot...
I'd agree that there are issues with the educational system (to be fair, there are also pretty serious issues in France as well). At the highest levels, it seems geared towards excellence at the detriment of inclusion. For instance, the steep admission prices to universities creates great possibilities in terms of research and educational quality, but it keeps many students out. In those countries where university is free, education is much easier of access, but at the price of excellence (simply not having the research equipment, etc.). I guess it's a trade-off.
What are the issues at secondary level? The issues I've heard of from a teacher friend had to do with lack of teacher support and basically the fear of the overextended reach of the legal system (apparently, you have to be pretty careful on what you say, etc.) but I really don't know much about it.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 20:16:01
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Shroomy, if we met casually and I didn't know who you were, you would have a hard time forming any opinion about my intelligence. At least that would be my intention.
Austin, and the big cities generally here in Texas are far more "liberal" politically than smaller towns and the countryside, but there are still many people here who subscribe to fundamentalist religion and right-wing politics. Not only do they subscribe to their political and religious beliefs, but many readily take serious offense when anyone expresses a difference. So I am guarded in my small talk with casual acquaintances, and I avoid subjects that are likely to provoke hostility.
Some might see this as cowardice, but for me it is simply good manners.
I live in a fairly prosperous neighborhood. Many of my neighbors own businesses, or hold management positions in the larger firms.
My neighbors on one side are religious, and are members of the National Rifle Association. But they are nearly ideal neighbors. When I moved in the husband brought me a delicious dish of beef stew he had made. He mentioned that on Wednesdays people from the church met at their house, and he cooked dinner. I was welcome if I would like to come. I thanked him heartily for the stew, but did not respond one way or the other to the mention of church. I never heard about the subject again.
I was unaware that a portion of my backyard board fence had blown down in a wind storm, until I heard hammering and walked out to find my neighbors repairing my fence. I sometimes meet the wife in her front yard as I return from my daily walk. She is a retired school teacher, and we usually have a pleasant chat. Politics and religion never come up.
I suspect I would be appalled by their views if they did come up.
On the other side my neighbor is a retired veterinarian. I suspect they are not religious, since I often encounter him on Sunday mornings tending the exotic plants that populate his yard. He is a scuba diver, so we often exchange dive stories. He is a leader in various horticultural societies here in the city, and I have accepted his invitation to attend meetings and presentations at their house. I suspect he is appalled by my cavalier attitude toward my yard, leaving its care entirely to hired people who keep it from becoming unsightly, but do little more. My neighbor never offers advice or opinions.
When I was a teenager my large extended family often discussed politics with relative civility. One of my uncles was a union official, another owned a business, my father was one of the first active Republicans in Texas since the end of the military occupation after the Civil War. The family pretty much spanned the political spectrum, yet they could carry on friendly conversations on the subject.
I can't remember when I have heard a substantive political debate carried on with civility in Texas. Religion has never been a safe subject here in my experience. I avoid both subjects with casual acquaintances. I have concluded that my grandfather was correct when he quoted, "A gentleman never discusses politics or religion"--at least in casual conversation.
But if anyone proposes a debate, and seems more or less rational, I'm sometimes up for it.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 21:19:58
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
I always had my reservation against this hypocrite parvenue Hillarry C. who sells herself as a kind of philanthrop. But with such a shamelessly blatant bullsh!t take on the criminal overtoppling of a foreign democrat and its fatal consequences she has bared her actual attitude. "No laws were violated ..." What a lousy, completely senseless, unscrupulous response is that?!!
Having re-read your original comment on Hillary Clinton's alleged statement, I am compelled to say that your bitter denunciation of Clinton, in your quote cited above, is based on nothing but hearsay, rumor, and innuendo that has no basis in fact. Whatever you may think of Hillary Clinton (or anyone else for that matter), you would be well-advised to check out the source of any alleged statement that suggests she (or anyone else) supported the '53 coup in Iran or any other alleged misdeed. I am not defending Clinton, but I am defending basic fairness and decency, and certainly a decent respect for the truth. Again, Clinton made no such statement in the debate with Sanders, and there is no evidence that she ever made such a statement.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 22 2016 22:16:50
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
I always had my reservation against this hypocrite parvenue Hillarry C. who sells herself as a kind of philanthrop. But with such a shamelessly blatant bullsh!t take on the criminal overtoppling of a foreign democrat and its fatal consequences she has bared her actual attitude. "No laws were violated ..." What a lousy, completely senseless, unscrupulous response is that?!!
Having re-read your original comment on Hillary Clinton's alleged statement, I am compelled to say that your bitter denunciation of Clinton, in your quote cited above, is based on nothing but hearsay, rumor, and innuendo that has no basis in fact. Whatever you may think of Hillary Clinton (or anyone else for that matter), you would be well-advised to check out the source of any alleged statement that suggests she (or anyone else) supported the '53 coup in Iran or any other alleged misdeed. I am not defending Clinton, but I am defending basic fairness and decency, and certainly a decent respect for the truth. Again, Clinton made no such statement in the debate with Sanders, and there is no evidence that she ever made such a statement. Bill
You are saying that hearsay isn´t worth much.
I agree on that, and I was prepared to be corrected when I opened the thread.
Now that you watched that debate, why don´t you tell us what she actually replied to Sanders?
-
Why was this part of debate apparently skipped by the vast of media?
And why can´t I google up Clinton´s actual response, no matter how I try?
Ruphus
PS:
Just called the person who showed me the clip and asked him to send me a link to the footage that contains Clinton´s response. He will do as soon as returned to home.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2016 11:28:24
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
They're all very nice but it's the sheer numbers! There's a group in the neighborhood that never misses an opportunity to speak to the weird French guy (me). I can handle one kid running full speed at me from the parc across the street, but when there are 15 of them at the same time, I'll admit that I brace myself for impact just in case they forget to break!