Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10
 41 
 on: Yesterday at 05:50 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by Aileen
I agree. We employ politicians to understand the nuances of policy decision and yet apparently on election day we are supposed to suddenly become experts ourselves so that we can judge their policy positions.

I think elections are decided on emotion and everything else irrational.
I'd say that that was particularly true in the IndyRef and the EU Ref, not just when it comes to emotions but the fact that many of the issues involved were too complex for most of the electorate to understand.   Unfortunately unlike governments which can be voted in or out every five years, we're stuck with the outcome of referendums, whether for good or for ill.

 42 
 on: Yesterday at 05:42 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by boogers
Vox have an excellent article on this latest email non-story.

Quote
The real news here ought to be just the opposite: Donors to the Clinton Foundation may believe they are buying Hillary Clinton’s political allegiance, but the reality is that they are not. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is someone, somewhere whom Clinton met with whom she wouldn’t have met with had that person not been a Clinton donor of some kind. But what we know is that despite very intensive media scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation, we don’t have hard evidence of any kind of corrupt activity.

 43 
 on: Yesterday at 05:28 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by Mark
I am surprised that you think that the majority of any electorate is able to do objective analysis.
I agree. We employ politicians to understand the nuances of policy decision and yet apparently on election day we are supposed to suddenly become experts ourselves so that we can judge their policy positions.

I think elections are decided on emotion and everything else irrational.

 44 
 on: Yesterday at 05:22 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by marathonarthur
^elections .................. are won by those who weigh up the totality of options presented and decide accordingly.
I am reminded of a MacEnroe rant here!  
Did you mean 'with the support of' but even then I am surprised that you think that the majority of any electorate is able to do objective analysis.
 
Fiverings and Boogers,

Excuse my lack of faith in your view on voting.  I was intending only to consider what happens in real life by reference to examples recently.  You should have learnt from the English referendum that an outcome rarely results from careful analysis by an electorate. I think it is interesting to be objective and analyse the reasons for voting. Many vote a particular way time after time because that is what they think they should do.

For 'good democrats' I meant those that adhere to the philosophical concept not those that joined a Party apparently without the same moral scruples. You note, like the concept of the conservative with a small c, I had used a small d for democrat to indicate it was NOT the party.

If you for a moment take out your own political belief and consider the 'real-life' attitudes of people then you end up with a totally different view. Being a 'facts and stats' man not exposed much to indoctrination in life I was only trying to consider in a different way. I tend to do this and it always seems to upset others!  I will keep quiet.  

 45 
 on: Yesterday at 05:05 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by Aileen
To lose to Cilic, even when perhaps tired, shows the weakness in not being able to be supreme over the opposition. I do the parallel with Mo Farah. He won despite being tripped in one race and then in the next when he admitted to being tired (and it showed). His opposition have no belief that they can win against HIM whereas Andy's can see an opportunity can arise. This is rarely the case with Novak.
I don't see the logic behind that either because Andy was tired all tournament (running on fumes according to Jamie Delgado), suffering from the effects of a cold and had a shoulder injury, albeit not a serious one.  Also I still maintain that had it been another night match Andy might have fared better because, rather unusually, all his earlier matches were night ones, and he did seem to be struggling a bit to adjust to the daytime conditions.  Another example was the DC against France last year which he played, again with very little left in the tank.  The only 'weakness' Andy has which is of benefit to his opponents is that, unfortunately, he tends to let all his feelings show, something the other top players rarely do.

 46 
 on: Yesterday at 04:51 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by marathonarthur
plj,

No, I cannot compare international stars with club athletes.  I can though compare competitors at any chosen level which is what I said. It is a battle between minds for supremacy where standard is sometimes irrelevant. At whatever level when others come not to expect to beat you then their chances of doing so then become remote. That is what I am referring to.  I did not mean to be disrespectful to Andy.

Andy's record is one of not being as successful as his skills suggest he could be. That is factual. He is the one of the 'big four' with the least slam successes. I am hoping that is now changing. To get to three finals is where he should be. Rafa has always said he is the most skillful player!  The next stage is to win most of those slams each year.  If he always could play as he has done for his country in Davis Cups and at the Olympics then he would be the TOP player!  I have been a supporter for 13 years of his attitude and play but I have always felt  that his win rate did not represent his ability. 

As a matter of fact my opposition was domestic. I started before athletics went professional and had no wish for sport to be more important than my chosen profession so it was not my priority. To do well at anything that I did was!  I am a fierce competitor by nature.

 47 
 on: Yesterday at 04:50 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by boogers
BFD. This is what politics is all about.  Just look at our House of Lords. Packed with cronies and stooges.   Twas ever thus. I don't condone it but faux outrage over Clinton's Foundation is totally misplaced.

It's hilarious. Pay for access? The payment was aids drugs for 11 million people.

 48 
 on: Yesterday at 04:49 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by boogers
What I am intrigued by is whether "good democrats" can bring themselves to vote Clinton. It is quite a leap for some perhaps only possible blinded by party loyalty?

And "good republicans" voting for trump? Are you intrigued by that?

 49 
 on: Yesterday at 04:36 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by Fiverings
^elections are not won or lost on the blind allegiance vote.  They are won by those who weigh up the totality of options presented and decide accordingly. On that criterion, Clinton is heading for a landslide, her only fear being those who might prefer her as the lesser of two evils may think that this is what's going to happen may stay away from the polls

 50 
 on: Yesterday at 04:02 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by plj
[quote author=marathonarthur
 22 games unbeaten is good so he has improved but he should win more tournaments. I can sympathise as I was a regular, in athletics, at not quite making the top spot at my level. 

I mean no disrespect but are you comparing the people you ran against with the people Murray plays against?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10