Ranting Randy
Ranting Randy's JournalTrump to appoint Hannibal Lecter to head of Food and Drug Administration!
Perhaps this is next week's headline?
A Poll Worker Responds
I asked a friend of mine who is a poll worker in Orange County, CA about the ballots that FELL OUT of a truck about a week ago in Florida (that driver got fired) whether that could happen where he worked? He responded with:
“I don't think that could happen.
So many things are checked and double/triple/quadruple checked and verified and documented and videoed and verified again and on and on.
There's always two trained and screened people involved with any ballot transport.
And the OC ROV already set ballot drop boxes on fire themselves to check the operation of the internal fire suppression system. It works.
Each time a drop box is collected, a video is made of the condition of the box, inside and out, and the condition of the fire suppression system.
Happy Columbus Day - Now get out there and "discover" a new house or car or something
About a dozen people thanked us while campaigning today! Now begins a sprint to the election finish line.
2 years ago for the last election I didn't get to campaign anywhere near where I lived. Since the last election we've moved, been gone for a full year. However this year, we campaigned in our old neighborhood where we never talked about politics. As it turns out ten of twelve people who were friends in that old neighborhood are Democrats and several of them already had signs in their windows for democrats. Campaigning was a very rewarding activity. Lots of smiles and friendly faces and plenty of thank yous for our efforts.
The sprint to the election finish line has begun. If you can make calls, please do so. If you can walk and distribute literature, please do that.
Put up lawn signs, window signs. Anything you can do will help.... and it can be fun!!
Rate the Debate- Who Actually Won (and why)
The Vice Presidential Debate: Tim Walz vs. J.D. Vance
This dealt with issues and substance to a far greater degree than the previous Presidential debate, but it still wasn't an actual debate. Tim Walz did an adequate job of making solid points, but debate is not his strong suit. J.D. Vance was a better speaker; however, he had a much weaker hand. To continue the poker analogy, he not only had to bluff a lot, he also actually had to tell quite a few lies. And in the end that cost him the debate.
Vance was quite inaccurate and frequently resorted to outright lying. Sometimes it was something simple; for example, he tried to paint the Biden Administration as the Harris Administration, and implied that Harris was in charge and had the power to make Executive orders that only the President could write. (He was awarded -4 for these attempts.)
Walz is not a debater. On many occasions he had the opportunity to spike the ball and get the point, but he didn’t go for the kill. He seems to be a person who prefers conversation, finding common ground, making alliances, and getting things done.
There were many lost opportunities for Walz. For example, Vance claimed that migrants coming into this country with only the clothing on their back are responsible for the median U. S. housing price being above $400,000. An outright silly assertion. But Walz also failed to mention the role that venture capitalists are buying up the housing and forcing the prices higher and higher. And that JD Vance is a venture capitalist! There’s even an app for that! ( https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/23/feds-sue-software-company-rent-collusion-00176154)
Walz said women should have control of their health care and control of their own bodies. He said that character matters, that women are dying due to Trump’s policies, and that this will continue under another (god help us) Trump administration. I would have liked to see Walz go on offense. He had plenty of opportunities to say “That, sir, is a lie, and you are a liar.” But he never threw those punches.
In spite of that, Vance lost the three most important points:
1) Gun violence: Vance wants to harden school walls, doors, and windows. Walz’s reply was “Sometimes it just is the guns. It’s just the guns.”
2) Abortion: Vance is fine that women’s rights vary from state to state. It’s ok for their health care and their very lives to be threatened in one state and preserved in the state next door.
3) The biggest point and the technical knock out came at the end when Vance was asked about January 6th, and twice he refused to answer whether he thought Trump won the election. In the face of 62 court losses and Trump’s own admission that he lost the election (by a whisker), Vance refused to be honest. When a person lies this blatantly it should be disqualifying.
He denied the truth that everybody saw on January 6th, twice.
At the end of this debate for anybody who believes in democracy, there really is no choice. For this reason alone, neither he nor Trump should be allowed in any elected or appointed office for at least fifteen years to life.
By awarding a negative point for each lie and 1 point for each solid statement, J.D. Vance earned a total of (– 19) points. For being honest and answering the majority the questions asked of him, Tim Walz was awarded 3 negative points but had a final score of +15 points. For those of you who need help with math, the final score was a dramatic 34 point difference. This was a massacre.
How Will "We The People" Rate the Debate?
On Tuesday, the Vice Presidential candidates will have their one and only “debate.” As candidates mostly spout their memorized talking points, these are not debates, but are more accurately described as scripted political theater. Instead of determining who has the best arguments or the best plan, most people usually judge these performances by entertainment standards.
Because people view these events as entertainment, those with little knowledge of debate think a “gotcha” moment or something humorous is important; when in reality, these comments should have no impact on how a debate is evaluated.
In an actual debate, a judge determines the winner. Since there are no official judges for these “debates,” this task is left to us.
When watching Tuesday’s debate, l suggest you try a simple debate rating program where “we the people” make an effort to objectively and quantitatively evaluate the debate. Sure, there is plenty of room for personal interpretation, but at the end of the night we might be able to say, for example, that candidate X scored 3 points, and candidate Y scored -2 points on immigration.
Afterwards, we will be able to point to statements where we awarded or deducted points. We can compare notes and discuss the scoring. Afterwards, we may even choose to evaluate a transcript of the debate in order to do a more detailed analysis. This system encourages “we the people” to have input on the post-debate narrative, rather than nod off while listening to talking heads who may be promoting a political perspective.
An easy way to rate the debate is to divide several sheets of paper into 3 columns. Just fold the left edges of the paper over by about an inch and then fold again about another inch. The right column is about 5-6 inches wide, and inside this section you will very quickly write notes and the questions asked of the candidates. You can even write the candidates’ answers in the large column. Label the two smaller columns with the candidates’ names. Award a point in the box for the candidate you felt deserves a point for that topic or question. And provide negative points for candidates who lie, don’t answer the question, etc. (more scoring details follow below). At the end of the debate, just add up the totals in each column, and you’ll have a winner.
(There was a clip from a spreadsheet here showing 3 columns but it vanished when I posted this)
Here is my proposed scoring system. When a candidate talks, you can add or subtract points for the following reasons.
Scoring:
Add 1 Point for the Following:
Award 1 Point – Thoughts are organized and presented clearly
Award 1 Point – Points are supported with facts, evidence, examples, etc.
Award 1 Point – Persuasion: the candidate’s statements make sense, and they are persuasive
Award 1 Point – Clearly and accurately criticizing the other’s policy weaknesses
Subtract 1 Point for the Following
Subtract 1 Point – For each lie or significant inaccuracy or exaggeration
Subtract 1 Point – For failure to answer the question
Subtract 1 Point – For personal attacks on the opponent
Subtract 1 Point – Repeated interruptions of the opponent’s time
Subtract 1 Point – Each time a false claim is repeated
Award Zero Points for the following:
0 Points – Zingers, jokes, wisecracks, comedy
Debate Rating Example:
For example, in the Harris/Trump debate, I awarded -1 point to Vice President Harris for not answering the first question: When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?
By using this process, we may be taking the first step in once again having actual debates that promote the merits of policy, rather than the entertainment-based fluff we call a debate today.
The rules for all debates should be the same, throughout all campaigns. And candidates should be able to ask each other questions about their statements and policies. If a Candidate X refuses to participate in a debate, Candidate Y should be given ½ the total debate time, uninterrupted, to explain his or her policies and run campaign commercials. Candidate X’s empty chair should be shown in split screen throughout the debate.
I am tired of the nonsense that is served to us as political debates, and it is up to those of us who know something is wrong to provide suggestions as to how a debate could be more fairly evaluated.
If you choose to try this scoring system, please write back and share your results. Also, any suggestions to modify the scoring system will be welcomed as well.
By the way, I’m not a debate expert, but I do have some experience. Long ago in high school and college my best record was 20 wins and 3 losses (it helped to have an excellent partner who was better than I was). I also served as the Debate Team President.
Rate the Debate: 50 Point difference- Harris + 14, Trump -36
Rate the Debate: 50 Point difference- Harris + 14, Trump -36I used the "Rate the Debate" scoring system I outlined last night where I scored -1 for each lie and -1 when the candidate avoided answering the question.
In negative ratings Harris was rated as -2 and Trump as -36.
Regarding positive points, Harris was rated as + 16 and Trump 0.
Harris: 16 positive points - 2 negative points = + 14
Trump 36 negative points, 0 positive points = - 36 points.
50 point difference. This was a slaughter
These numbers are not 100% accurate as the scoring was done while I watched the debate and I'm too tired to go back and watch the whole thing again. I didn't award any "persuasion" points nor did I subtract any "interruption" points. But I don't believe they would have provided Trump any significant scoring.
The important thing to remember is that Trump had NO Positive Points! He did not outline any type of positive plan. Even when repeatedly pressed on what changes he wanted to Obamacare, he came up with nothing. Even when pressed how he'd end the Russia Ukraine War he said he'd talk with them, which is precisely what Biden/Harris have been doing.
After tonight's debate, no rational person should even consider voting for Trump. The only reason to vote for Trump is cause you want to. There are no policies or arguments to support this position.
To view the Rate the Debate system, look for last night's Ranting Randy post.
Donald Trump: The Howler Monkey of Politicians
Lets Rate the Debate!
We The People Need to Rate the Debate (The short version, a longer version may be released in a week or so)Today, Presidential “Debates” are primarily scripted political theater and are judged by entertainment standards rather than the strength of the policies or the arguments supporting them. In this context, people with little knowledge of debates think a “gotcha” moment or something humorous is important, when actually these comments should have no impact on how a policy or argument is evaluated.
When watching the debate, let’s try a simple debate rating program where “we the people” can have something substantial to say after the debate. We can say that candidate X scored 3 points and candidate Y scored -2 points on immigration. We can point to statements where we awarded or deducted points and others can review our thinking. We may even choose to evaluate a transcript of the debate in order to do a detailed analysis. This is a system which encourages that “we the people” control the post debate narrative, rather than listening to the talking heads who are promoting a political stance.
Below is my proposed debate scoring system. When a candidate talks you can add or subtract points for the following reasons.
Scoring:
Add 1 Point for the Following:
Award 1 Point – Thoughts are organized and presented clearly
Award 1 Point – Point was supported with facts, evidence, examples, etc.
Award 1 Point – Persuasion- Did the candidate make statements that were persuasive?
Award 1 Point – Clearly and accurately criticizing the other’s policy weaknesses
Subtract 1 Point for the Following
Subtract 1 Point - For each lie or significant inaccuracy
Subtract 1 Point -For failure to answer the question
Subtract 1 Point - For personal attacks on the opponent
Subtract 1 Point - For repeated interruptions of the opponent’s time
Subtract 1 Point- Each time a false claim is repeated
Award Zero Points for the following:
0 Points – Zingers, jokes, wisecracks, comedy
Debate Rating Example:
When each candidate talks about a topic, such as immigration, you might rate the following statements in the following way.
-1) Trump claims that immigrants living in the U.S. were mostly violent criminals
-1) Trump claims that violent immigrants had “taken over sections” of the state of Colorado
- 1) Trump claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of the country.”
+1 Harris explains that Trump stopped a bipartisan immigration bill
+ 1 Harris claims that the Chips Act is bringing back manufacturing to the United States
Total -3 Trump, +2 Harris
By using this process, we may be taking the first step in once again hosting actual debates that discuss the merits of policy, rather than the entertainment based fluff we call a Presidential Debate today.
The rules for all debates should be the same, through out all campaigns. If a Candidate X refuses to participate in a debate, Candidate Y should be given ½ the total debate time, uninterrupted, to explain his or her policies and reasoning. Candidate X’s empty chair should be shown in split screen through out the debate.
I am tired of the nonsense that is served to us as a Presidential Debate and it is up to those of us who know something is wrong, to provide suggestions as to how a debate could be more fairly evaluated.
If you choose to try this scoring system, please write back and share your results. Also, any suggestions to modify the scoring system will be welcomed as well.
Sometimes I can forsee future New York Thymes Headlines:
Dick Cheney to invite Donald Trump on next hunting trip
Dick Cheney to fly Trump to a secure and undisclosed location to "ask him a few questions"
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: So Cal
Member since: Thu Jul 18, 2024, 12:40 PM
Number of posts: 106