Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 10-15-2019, 11:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Given the crowds she's been pulling in, I'd think the argument of whether she's charismatic would be settled.

This is what backers of base-oriented candidates always try to say. She is catnip to a big chunk of the Democratic base, to be sure. But those are not these disaffected, apathetic nonvoters you are trying to conjure up. They are the most hardcore voters who are sure to vote for any Democrat against Trump next year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
It's not like she hasn't had to deal with this in an election before. It was a focus of attack in 2012 when she first ran for senate against Mike Brown. And it was easy to pivot the attacks into a reminder that she is interesting in talking about the voters and their concerns.

Here is an example:


Here's another campaign response.


Is that really that hard?

You think her anemic Massachusetts election performances are a point in her favor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
I think it says a lot that the right still hasnít come out with anything other than the Pocahontas shit as a Warren attack. And none of us can think of anything else either.

None of us? Speak for yourself. Have you actually read this thread? I have "thought of" plenty of other shit to attack her with.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #352  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Turk View Post
I can't imagine thinking there are similarities between Warren and Clinton other than their party and gender.

Have you researched, at all?
The subject matter was trading oh so exquisitely worded quips with Trump. What research have you done on that subject?

Eta: but since you asked: they're both old, wonky, lawyers. Both had short elected office careers before running for president. Neither are generally considered gifted quipsters.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-16-2019 at 12:58 AM.
  #353  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:00 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
But if you mean, do they approach Wall Street regulations differently? Yeah, I know they do.
  #354  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:14 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

None of us? Speak for yourself. Have you actually read this thread? I have "thought of" plenty of other shit to attack her with.
Yes, I overstated that. But you have to admit that people keep coming back to ďPocahontasĒ, because thatís the only thing low information voters will be able to point to.
  #355  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:17 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
I think her real weakness came out last night.

Not this Pocahontas thing which is bloody boring to hear about.

The first time in a debate people took her to task on the specifics. Both candidates and moderators. She did not handle criticism well.

Klobuchar was absolutely right in calling Warren out for trying to have the ownership of what is bold and what is not. Not being bold indicates a lack of courage. It's insulting to the candidates whose plans actually resonate better according to the polls than Warren's.

Klobuchar also called her out for the strawman line about "people supporting billionaires". No one does. Not even the billionaire Steyer who I thought represented himself well.

The fact of the matter is Warren is "my way or the highway". I believe the Democratic electorate is a lot more pragmatic.
  #356  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:39 AM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I think her real weakness came out last night.

Not this Pocahontas thing which is bloody boring to hear about.

The first time in a debate people took her to task on the specifics. Both candidates and moderators. She did not handle criticism well.
She is an awful candidate. Her evasiveness on her "plans" is downright smarmy. She has a "how dare you question me" attitude and a blank stare when asked about modest detail.

Her plans are nothing but handouts. "I have a handout for that". Free college, free healthcare, free reparations, free child care, free everything.

She attacks successful businesses like Google and Facebook and wants to break them up - what ever that means. How do you break up a search engine or network?

She is terrible on trade. She is even more of a protectionist than Trump is. She blames free trade for the job losses in manufacturing caused by automation.

Her wealth tax is unconstitutional and is woefully inadequate to pay for any of her handouts.

I cant think of a single redeeming virtue of hers other than she is not Donald Trump.
  #357  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:43 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,326
posted in wrong thread....
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 10-16-2019 at 08:46 AM.
  #358  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:16 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
She is an awful candidate. Her evasiveness on her "plans" is downright smarmy. She has a "how dare you question me" attitude and a blank stare when asked about modest detail.

Her plans are nothing but handouts. "I have a handout for that". Free college, free healthcare, free reparations, free child care, free everything.

She attacks successful businesses like Google and Facebook and wants to break them up - what ever that means. How do you break up a search engine or network?

She is terrible on trade. She is even more of a protectionist than Trump is. She blames free trade for the job losses in manufacturing caused by automation.

Her wealth tax is unconstitutional and is woefully inadequate to pay for any of her handouts.

I cant think of a single redeeming virtue of hers other than she is not Donald Trump.
I agree with much of that.

Andrew Yang schooled her on the issue of automation but a combination of her being the media darling and Yang being a media outcast means it won't get much notice.
  #359  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:20 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
I just watched a live clip of Warren speaking at some kind of teachers' rally in Chicago. (It popped up on YouTube after a different video finished playing.) I have to say, there is simply no way around this - her voice sounds like she is perpetually about to cry. I don't know how else to put this, that's the way it sounds. I haven't ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so .....beseeching? Bleating? Quavering? I don't know what other words to use. It sounds weak. It sounds grating. It's downright hard to listen to for prolonged periods of time.

This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn't speak this way. Gabbard doesn't speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don't like, but still) doesn't speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. If that tone of voice were coming from a dude, it would be every bit as unsettling to me. What can I say?

I think this is a weakness of Warren's. I've made no secret of the fact that I think Buttigieg has the best speaking delivery of any of the candidates - that's my gold standard of how it should be.

edit - here's a clip - listen for yourself.

Last edited by Lamoral; 10-22-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #360  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:24 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
I agree, she's no great orator like, say, Donald Trump. But I'm not gonna hold that against her.
  #361  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:41 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
Well, it's something that can be improved. It's possible to be coached and trained to improve your vocal delivery. It would, in my opinion, really improve her chances.

Is she going to do it?

I know if it was me in the position, I would be working like hell at it over the next year. Actors do it all the time. And she's auditioning for a job that's a hell of a lot more important than being an actor.
  #362  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:50 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Well, it's something that can be improved. It's possible to be coached and trained to improve your vocal delivery. It would, in my opinion, really improve her chances.

Is she going to do it?

I know if it was me in the position, I would be working like hell at it over the next year. Actors do it all the time. And she's auditioning for a job that's a hell of a lot more important than being an actor.
If she does that she'll probably be criticised for being "inauthentic".
  #363  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:16 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
She'll already be criticized for anything and everything; it's a moot point. That's WHY her direct first-hand delivery, straight from her mouth to the voters' brains, is so important. That's why it's important as hell for ALL the candidates.
  #364  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I just watched a live clip of Warren speaking at some kind of teachers' rally in Chicago. (It popped up on YouTube after a different video finished playing.) I have to say, there is simply no way around this - her voice sounds like she is perpetually about to cry. I don't know how else to put this, that's the way it sounds. I haven't ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so .....beseeching? Bleating? Quavering? I don't know what other words to use. It sounds weak. It sounds grating. It's downright hard to listen to for prolonged periods of time.

This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn't speak this way. Gabbard doesn't speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don't like, but still) doesn't speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. If that tone of voice were coming from a dude, it would be every bit as unsettling to me. What can I say?

So much this. I'm not that worried about her beating Trump, but by 2024 people are going to be incredibly tired of hearing her screechy-preach at them.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #365  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:26 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So much this. I'm not that worried about her beating Trump, but by 2024 people are going to be incredibly tired of hearing her screechy-preach at them.
Even if true, so what? I don't recall there being a Constitutional requirement to run for two terms -- just a limit.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #366  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Even if true, so what? I don't recall there being a Constitutional requirement to run for two terms -- just a limit.

"So what"?

(1) It strikes me as highly unlikely that she won't run for reelection.

(2) Even if she somehow doesn't, the scenario where her approval ratings have tanked and she pulls out of the race is not a strong one for Democrats--as Hubert Humphrey discovered.

(3) We will get a lot more done in Congress (maybe even holding it in the 2022 midterms) if we have a Democratic president people like to listen to.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #367  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:49 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
...its nice to know that we are at the :: read notes :: "critique the women's creaky voice" stage of the elections. Nice to know that people are focusing on the important things. Her first-hand delivery, straight from her mouth to the voters' brains, is perfectly fine. Its perfectly normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Well, it's something that can be improved. It's possible to be coached and trained to improve your vocal delivery. It would, in my opinion, really improve her chances.

Is she going to do it?

I know if it was me in the position, I would be working like hell at it over the next year. Actors do it all the time. And she's auditioning for a job that's a hell of a lot more important than being an actor.
LOL.

How many people are complaining about Warren's voice? How is this even an issue? Just try googling "elizabeth warren's voice" or "elizabeth warren's vocal delivery." Would it surprise you to find that almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery? It would be a disaster for her to "work like hell" on her voice for the next year to please a single person on the straightdope message board. That doesn't make any sense. Her voice sound perfectly fine on the clip you posted. Absolutely fine. She didn't sound like she wanted to cry. It didn't sound weak. It wasn't grating. I have no problems listening to her for long periods of time.

We get it. You don't like Warren as a candidate. But that doesn't mean you have to nitpick every single little thing about her. That says more about the person doing the nitpicking than it says about Warren.
  #368  
Old 10-22-2019, 07:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Sure, BB: go right for the gender defense even though both Lamoral and I have pointed out that we see no problem with a variety of other Democratic women's voices. (And I have also said I do have a problem with Bernie's voice, as well as someone like Robert Kennedy Jr.)

I actually have seen the voice thing raised quite a bit, but always by people making your case, that the criticism is sexist. But they generally say it's something you hear from the hoi polloi at the Iowa State fair or whatever. And that's a key point. It's people who aren't on Twitter, which is the key group in the general election.

Although there are presumably lots of people on Twitter as well who privately think this, but are not keen to get roasted/canceled.

I actually don't think it's likely she can change her voice much even with media training. But she clearly has already gotten training to counter her "resting grouchy face". Take a look at all the forced smiles at the last debate compared to the first one. It does not look convincing, however.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #369  
Old 10-22-2019, 07:19 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,257
There's not a thing wrong with Warren's voice except that she's the front-runner.

Warren has been in the public eye for, what, a decade or more? Since she became a national figure with the Consumer Protection Agency and all the news surrounding that?

So if we were to look*, would we find posts from those criticizing her voice here, talking about her voice back then?




*in social media sources in general, given that not everyone complaining had an account on SDMB ten years ago.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 10-22-2019 at 07:21 PM.
  #370  
Old 10-22-2019, 07:23 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sure, BB: go right for the gender defense even though both Lamoral and I have pointed out that we see no problem with a variety of other Democratic women's voices.
...I made an observation of fact, that's all.

Quote:
I actually have seen the voice thing raised quite a bit, but always by people making your case, that the criticism is sexist.
I said nothing about sexism.

Quote:
But they generally say it's something you hear from the hoi polloi at the Iowa State fair or whatever. And that's a key point. It's people who aren't on Twitter, which is the key group in the general election.
What people "generally say" is what is at issue here. What you are actually talking about is "the people that you hear." The people that you are hearing might not be representative of what people actually think.

Quote:
Although there are presumably lots of people on Twitter as well who privately think this, but are not keen to get roasted/canceled.
LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No one has a right to tweet publicly and get only positive responses. If you donít like that, donít use Twitter.
You are a literal stan for "cancel culture." If people get "cancelled" its because of people like you.

Quote:
I actually don't think it's likely she can change her voice much even with media training. But she clearly has already gotten training to counter her "resting grouchy face". Take a look at all the forced smiles at the last debate compared to the first one. It does not look convincing, however.
She doesn't need to change her voice. I don't see a difference in her face. You see what you want to see.
  #371  
Old 10-22-2019, 07:57 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Pretty funny that BB claims no one is talking about this.

Start here, with too great a variety of characterizations of her voice for me to quote:

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/...oice/84146484/

But there are a few others that do offer pithy excerpts:

https://www.quora.com/Would-Elizabet...bout-something
Quote:

Would Elizabeth Warren be more likable and electable if her voice was stronger? She always sounds like she's about to cry, especially when she’s impassioned about something.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ere-ncna955021
Quote:
“Warren and her hectoring, know-it-all style leaves” women disappointed, Democratic analyst Dan Payne wrote at the time, complaining that “all she does in her ads is complain about national problems,” and describing her as “preachy” and “lawyer-like.”
Payne suggested she “lose the granny glasses,” “soften the hair” and get coaching to “deepen her voice, which grates on some.” She should also practice “ a little modesty,” he said, and “stop the finger-wagging” because “it adds to her strict schoolmarm appearance and bossy manner."

https://www.thenation.com/article/el...-firing-squad/
Quote:
But now Warren is a bungling racist with a screechy voice

https://www.telegram.com/article/201...109169735/1246
Quote:
The ads are considered a big improvement over the ones where voters were subjected to her actual voice and opinions, even though the message is basically the same.
This, too, spells trouble for Warren. A candidate appears in a television ad, speaking in her normal, God-given voice, and the ads are so off-putting to voters that her campaign goes to great lengths to make new ones in which she’s not allowed to talk. It’s like one of those high-concept commercials that never show the product.

https://thinkprogress.org/massachuse...-9193d388018b/
Quote:
Massachusetts Senate challenger says she’ll win because men find Elizabeth Warren’s voice grating
"Men, three times a week they'll say, 'it is like nails on a chalk board,' truly."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...-debate-stage/
Quote:

The entire being of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) regularly seems to vibrate with feeling, whether she’s correcting a crowd for laughing at the wrong moment or recalling her childhood tribulations.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #372  
Old 10-22-2019, 08:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
There's not a thing wrong with Warren's voice except that she's the front-runner.

Warren has been in the public eye for, what, a decade or more? Since she became a national figure with the Consumer Protection Agency and all the news surrounding that?

So if we were to look*, would we find posts from those criticizing her voice here, talking about her voice back then?




*in social media sources in general, given that not everyone complaining had an account on SDMB ten years ago.
First of all, an arched eyebrow and undirected accusations of inconsistency is a super lame "argument". Secondly, some political appointee working on a specific policy committee does not get remotely the same attention or oratory critiques as a politician running for the presidency. You should know that.
  #373  
Old 10-22-2019, 08:28 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
...LOL.

Your very first cite is to a website called "Tiger Droppings". Its a fucking messageboard about sports, with article like "Wow, Actress Kate Beckingsale Really Gets Stretched out before her workouts" and "Cincinnati fan cuts her jeans in the back to show off her Bangals leg tattoo" highlighted on their front page. Your second cite is to quora which uBlock Origin has got on its blocklist for bad trackers. Your third cites Dan Payne, a pundit who gets paid for "hot takes", the fourth cite actually says the literal opposite of what you think it does, the fifth cite is from two-thousand-and-fucking-twelve and the fact that they may have done ads where she wasn't talking then has no relevance to what they are doing now, the sixth cite was from a challenger to Warren, and I'm not going to click on the seventh because I only get three free articles from the Washington Post and I'm not going to waste a click considering how useless the rest of your cites have been.

But all of that is beside the point: because if you thought that I meant "literally nobody else on the planet has ever talked about Warren's voice" then you are mistaken. I did a cursory google search. I found nothing. That means nobody of note is having this discussion. I'm sure SirWinston and Hemphead over at tigerdroppings.dot.com have strong opinions on Warren. But if you think that's enough to swing an election then its over to you to make that case.
  #374  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:50 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Amazing how far the goalposts have moved since earlier today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
How many people are complaining about Warren's voice? How is this even an issue? Just try googling "elizabeth warren's voice" or "elizabeth warren's vocal delivery." Would it surprise you to find that almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery? It would be a disaster for her to "work like hell" on her voice for the next year to please a single person on the straightdope message board. That doesn't make any sense.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #375  
Old 10-22-2019, 10:26 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
There's not a thing wrong with Warren's voice except that she's the front-runner.

Her voice is part of the persona she projects and right now her persona is that of a Female Dukakis - a weak ineffectual old matron with little respect outside the 10-15% faithful who already support her.

Democrats can fumble this layup away if they don't get behind someone who inspires confidence among the center and Obama has done his two terms.
  #376  
Old 10-22-2019, 10:39 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Amazing how far the goalposts have moved since earlier today.
...what goalpost have been moved?

You cited a guy named "Hemphead" posting on a place called "tigerdroppings." You cited an opponent, an "ask questions" forum, a pundit and somebody from 2012."Almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery" is a statement that is backed up by your cites, which shows a bunch of nobodies complaining about her vocal delivery.
  #377  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:02 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I just watched a live clip of Warren speaking at some kind of teachers' rally in Chicago. (It popped up on YouTube after a different video finished playing.) I have to say, there is simply no way around this - her voice sounds like she is perpetually about to cry. I don't know how else to put this, that's the way it sounds. I haven't ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so .....beseeching? Bleating? Quavering? I don't know what other words to use. It sounds weak. It sounds grating. It's downright hard to listen to for prolonged periods of time.

This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn't speak this way. Gabbard doesn't speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don't like, but still) doesn't speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. If that tone of voice were coming from a dude, it would be every bit as unsettling to me. What can I say?

I think this is a weakness of Warren's. I've made no secret of the fact that I think Buttigieg has the best speaking delivery of any of the candidates - that's my gold standard of how it should be.

edit - here's a clip - listen for yourself.
Actually, regardless of her speaking voice, she made a bad political mistake by wading into the mess of the the Chicago Teachers Union strike. I hope for her sake she knows what a hornetís nest that strike is here. Itís fine to support them if you want. But they ainít no cute and cuddly group of teachers who just want whatís best for the children.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #378  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
BB, what happened to "a single person on the straightdope message board"?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #379  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:59 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
Regardless of how big its internet footprint is, the phenomenon exists. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just pointing something out.
  #380  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:46 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BB, what happened to "a single person on the straightdope message board"?
...did you miss "Would it surprise you to find that almost nobody is complaining about her vocal delivery?" You quoted those words. I wrote those words. What is it, do you think I meant when I said "almost nobody?"

And did you miss the context of ""a single person on the straightdope message board"? Its seems that you did considering your decision to remove the context from that quote.

I said " It would be a disaster for her to "work like hell" on her voice for the next year to please a single person on the straightdope message board." The person demanding that Warren works like hell on her voice is here on this messageboard. It wouldn't surprise me if you found a few others. But it should have been obvious that my statement was directed at the person on the straightdope messageboard or said Warren should "work like hell."

No goalposts shifted.
  #381  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:17 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Regardless of how big its internet footprint is, the phenomenon exists. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just pointing something out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I just watched a live clip of Warren speaking at some kind of teachers' rally in Chicago. (It popped up on YouTube after a different video finished playing.) I have to say, there is simply no way around this - her voice sounds like she is perpetually about to cry. I don't know how else to put this, that's the way it sounds. I haven't ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so .....beseeching? Bleating? Quavering? I don't know what other words to use. It sounds weak. It sounds grating. It's downright hard to listen to for prolonged periods of time.

This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn't speak this way. Gabbard doesn't speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don't like, but still) doesn't speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. If that tone of voice were coming from a dude, it would be every bit as unsettling to me. What can I say?

I think this is a weakness of Warren's. I've made no secret of the fact that I think Buttigieg has the best speaking delivery of any of the candidates - that's my gold standard of how it should be.

edit - here's a clip - listen for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Well, it's something that can be improved. It's possible to be coached and trained to improve your vocal delivery. It would, in my opinion, really improve her chances.

Is she going to do it?

I know if it was me in the position, I would be working like hell at it over the next year. Actors do it all the time. And she's auditioning for a job that's a hell of a lot more important than being an actor.
...you did a bit more than just "pointing something out." And all you are pointing out is your perception of Warren's voice. You think it sounds like she is going to cry. You think it sounds weak. And grating. Its what you hear. But these aren't objective standards.

You've made the case that her voice is a major liability for her campaign. You've argued that she should be "working like hell" to fix her voice. You think that fixing her voice would improve her chances. But you haven't demonstrated any of these things. You can't quantify your opinion.
  #382  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:40 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
First of all, an arched eyebrow and undirected accusations of inconsistency is a super lame "argument". Secondly, some political appointee working on a specific policy committee does not get remotely the same attention or oratory critiques as a politician running for the presidency. You should know that.
The issue I pointed out was that Warren's front-runner status is what's occasioning the complaints about her voice. We didn't see impassioned posts about problems with her voice before she was the front-runner, and we don't----yet----see impassioned posts about problems with the voices of other women in the race. If any of them become the front-runner, that is likely to change.

Your "you should know that" remark does not fit this sub-forum, unless I've misunderstood the rules. If a moderator would be kind enough to clarify, I'd be grateful. (It doesn't rise to the level of my personally contacting them, I don't think.) Your remark also demonstrates that you've missed the point: our complainers were not criticizing Warren's voice when they saw no chance that she might, within a few months, become President. And they are not criticizing the voices of the other women who currently, have very low chances of becoming President.

The irritation with a female voice is directly correlated with the odds that the owner of that voice might gain a position of power "over" the complainers. (Power over the complainers being largely symbolic in the case of a President unless the complainer actually works in government, really.)

Examples of the complaints are quoted here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
...I haven't ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so .....beseeching? Bleating? Quavering?...
This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn't speak this way. Gabbard doesn't speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don't like, but still) doesn't speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sure, BB: go right for the gender defense even though both Lamoral and I have pointed out that we see no problem with a variety of other Democratic women's voices. ...



Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I agree, she's no great orator like, say, Donald Trump. But I'm not gonna hold that against her.
Me, neither. (And you posted a nicely-succinct way of disposing of the 'irritating voice' issue.)
  #383  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Me, neither. (And you posted a nicely-succinct way of disposing of the 'irritating voice' issue.)
Yes, "better than Trump" is nice and succinct. Kudos on this brilliant new strategy of explaining everything and everyone.
  #384  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:31 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,902
I can only speak for myself but just for the record, I have been criticizing the voices, body language, and various other mannerisms of the following candidates since the very beginning of this primary:

Warren
Biden
Klobuchar
Hickenlooper
Bullock
Gillibrand

Whether on this board or on other places, I have voiced my distaste for all of these peoples' style of speaking and otherwise presenting their ideas. Not their ideas themselves, mind you - just the way they come off when they talk, look at their audience, etc, because to me that represents their chances of being able to win, which is the ONLY thing that I care about at this point.

Those who would say, "well, whatever they sound like, they're still better speakers than Trump" have, in my opinion, not been paying attention to Trump. Yes, he speaks inarticulately, he goes off on tangents and has a stream of consciousness delivery and speaks in facile superlatives all the time. But he's also an absolute master of playing off of his audience, reading the crowd, throwing in little one-on-one interactions and shout-outs to individual audience members, making the crowd laugh, and generally making his audience feel like they have a personal connection to him.

It's my firm belief that this decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning is more responsible for his victory than any other single thing about him. Because I look at politics through the eyes of Don Draper, not Mr. Spock.
  #385  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:09 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Yahoo Finance: Warren's plans would cost $4.2 trillion every year

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...161552386.html
  #386  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:02 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, "better than Trump" is nice and succinct. Kudos on this brilliant new strategy of explaining everything and everyone.
The emotion is clear. But, your point?
  #387  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
If you just had to guess, what do you think my point was? Really roll it around in your brain because it's so nuanced.
  #388  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:14 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If you just had to guess, what do you think my point was? Really roll it around in your brain because it's so nuanced.
Again: lots of emotion. But no argument. If you have one, why not present it?
  #389  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
I did. I have no interest in playing along with your little playing dumb act here.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-25-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #390  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:43 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
It's my firm belief that this decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning is more responsible for his victory than any other single thing about him. Because I look at politics through the eyes of Don Draper, not Mr. Spock.
...Mr Spock would point out that the 2016 was mired with interference from Russia, it would point out the active voter suppression that purged thousands from the rolls and kept many others away on polling day, it would point out the surge in propaganda and bots that were micro-targeted using methods and the same people that helped make Brexit a thing.

I would think that even Don Draper would be onboard with the idea that we focus more on getting people out to vote than we do on "fixing Warren's voice." Because it wasn't the "decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning" that was responsible for Trumps victory. It was because they used every dirty trick out of the bag that they could. And the Dems were simply unprepared for it. Things are going to be worse in 2020. Facebook have started a "news service" that, believe it or not, features Breitbart. America is already facing a deluge of propaganda from the current administration. And it will be getting worse.

"Fixing Warren's voice" (and there is nothing to fix) ain't gonna change a single thing at the next election.
  #391  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Mr Spock would point out that the 2016 was mired with interference from Russia, it would point out the active voter suppression that purged thousands from the rolls and kept many others away on polling day, it would point out the surge in propaganda and bots that were micro-targeted using methods and the same people that helped make Brexit a thing.
Your first and last point are one in the same. Mr Spock would note the middle thing will happen again.

I know the urge to immediately push back on anything looking remotely like a compliment towards Trump but come on. The guy is a great carnival barker.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-25-2019 at 09:16 PM.
  #392  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:53 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Your first and last point are one in the same.
...except that they aren't. The last point is talking about things like this. Not Russia.

Quote:
Mr Spock would note the middle thing will happen again.
Mr Spock would have no doubt the middle thing is going to happen again and the Dems should consider this one of their highest priorities going into the next election. Not fixing Warren's voice. (If she is the nominee)

Quote:
I know the urge to immediately push back on anything looking remotely like a compliment towards Trump but come on. The guy is a great carnival barker.
I acknowledge he's a great carnival barker. But that doesn't mean his "decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning is more responsible for his victory than" all the other things that were responsible for his victory. I'm not pushing back on something that "looks like a compliment." I'm calling it as I see it.
  #393  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:48 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
So as I mentioned in another thread we have several candidates proposing policies that range from very likely to unquestionably unconstitutional under current law and that would require a Constitutional Amendment to be implemented. With Sen. Warren you have a former law professor (though not Con Law) advocating for a wealth tax and extending the Judicial Code of Conduct to SCOTUS. Under current Constitutional law a Federal wealth tax that taxed the ownership of Real or Personal Property would need to be Apportioned amongst the states. Pretty much making it a non-starter in practice. And while the Federal Judiciary is a creation of statute, SCOTUS is a creation of the Constitution and a co-equal branch (and not insignificantly, the very body that would ultimately decide such a question). And while I may have missed it, I have seen no mention by Sen. Warren of a proposed Constitutional Amendment connected to either proposal and so it is presumed that the intention is to impose the policy via statute.

So the question, especially in regards to Sen. Warren, is are these candidates so ignorant and/or biased that they believe that these policy proposals would pass Constitutional muster? Or is it the only other real possibility, that they know that these policies have next to no chance of being implemented for this very reason and, as far as I have seen, are omitting that information and counting on low-information voters to not know any better?

(Sen. Sanders gets a partial pass in this regard since he seems to at least acknowledge that eliminating Corporate Personhood would likely take an Amendment. However, he also doesn't seem to fully grasp the concept or the implications of its elimination and it remains a massively stupid idea with way too much appeal among low-information voters. And like Sen. Warren, he also seemingly endorses a clearly unconstitutional wealth tax.)
  #394  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
She is a lawyer who made her bones studying the financial sector. She probably knows better than you about the constitutionality of her wealth tax.
  #395  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:55 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yahoo Finance: Warren's plans would cost $4.2 trillion every year ... [from yahoo]
The U.S., in its entirety, currently spends about $3.5 trillion on health care.

There may be some website that looks at Warren's financial figures with some nuance. But if they couldn't figure out to subtract off $3.5 trillion, then Yahoo ain't it.

Last edited by septimus; 10-26-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #396  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:31 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
She is a lawyer who made her bones studying the financial sector. She probably knows better than you about the constitutionality of her wealth tax.
Have you read my direct quotes from the Court's decision in Sebelius in the GD thread yet? If so, do you have a way of reasonably reconciling that holding with the proposed wealth tax? And how exactly does Sen. Warren's experience as a specialist in Bankruptcy Law, or even Commercial Law more generally, make her an expert in Constitutional Law? You do realize those are different areas of jurisprudence and specialization right? I mean it's right there in the respective categorizations. And given that and given that you know nothing about my own qualifications how can you possibly logically deduce that she probably has a superior level of qualifications/ knowledge than I do? Another desperate swing and a whiff on your part. The latest of many.
  #397  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
?And how exactly does Sen. Warren's experience as a specialist in Bankruptcy Law, or even Commercial Law more generally, make her an expert in Constitutional Law? You do realize those are different areas of jurisprudence and specialization right? I mean it's right there in the respective categorizations. And given that and given that you know nothing about my own qualifications how can you possibly logically deduce that she probably has a superior level of qualifications/ knowledge than I do? Another desperate swing and a whiff on your part. The latest of many.
Sorry, what was your area of specialization again?
  #398  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:25 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Sorry, what was your area of specialization again?
I've specialized to a significant degree in Constitutional Law. What was your area of legal expertise again?

And the real take away here is that according to SCOTUS I'm right and Senators Warren and Sanders are wrong (assuming they both view their proposed wealth tax as Constitutional under current law and they've given no indication otherwise as far as I know).
  #399  
Old 10-26-2019, 03:23 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,618
Well, until someone cites a real lawyer with name attached, I'm going to go with the actual Constitutional expert who penned the ABA article. Thanks though.
  #400  
Old 10-26-2019, 04:06 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
... Because it wasn't the "decidedly unique and non-politician-like style of campaigning" that was responsible for Trumps victory. It was because they used every dirty trick out of the bag that they could.
Studies have pointed to racial resentment more than anything else. There's never just one reason, but often a mix of many. However, the racial resentment theme seems to be backed up by a lot of studies from different entities.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...-anxiety-study

As for "dirty tricks", have their been any studies that show that it was important or decisive? I haven't seen any.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017