[RD] The threat to American Democracy

with complete deadpan, "this is serious business" tone
Deadpan is only incidentally to be equated with seriousness.
Deadpan involves a mismatch between content that is outrageous and delivery in a matter-of-fact tone of voice that suggests the speaker is unaware of how outrageous is his content.

You're probably as correct about Putin, however, as you are mistaken about comedy.
 
Last edited:
Deadpan is only incidentally to be equated with seriousness.
Deadpan involves a mismatch between content that is outrageous and delivery in a matter-of-fact tone of voice that suggests the speaker is unaware of how outrageous is his content.

You're probably as correct about Putin, however, as you are mistaken about comedy.
I understand that there is a distinction between deadpan and seriousness of content/subject matter. However, Obama can, and did, combine deadpan delivery of a joke, with a general tone of "this is serious business" throughout the debate. Essentially Obama used that combination of tone and delivery, to belittle Romney, and demonstrate that he was so experienced/qualified in comparison to Romney that, for example, "we don't use horses and bayonets anymore dumbass (deadpan)" the implication being, "I am the POTUS and I understand the needs of the military, while you do not (this is serious business)", and "the US Navy isn't a game of Battleship dumbass(deadpan)", "We have a variety of naval battle platforms that can adequately compensate for sheer number of boats in the water. As POTUS I understand this and as nonPOTUS you do not (this is serious business)."

In summation, I thought the debate with Romney was a pretty good display of Obama's comedic skills, and I am right. You are wrong. And I'm having none of your "Oh you just don't understand the nuance of comedy" malarkey. I'm at least 12.3% more funny than you and as you correctly point out, my take is backed up by the reaction of the internet/media... so there:p.
 
I think Putin's invasion of Crimea had nothing to do with Putin being tilted/insulted by Obama no longer regarding Russia as a threat and maybe something to do with Putin recognizing that the US, particularly under Obama, was not prepared to deal with Russia as the threat that it really was.

Mmmm I think it was rather Putin saw Obama as weak after the Syrian "red line in the sand" after Assad used chemical weapons to gas his own citizens. The subsequent premature withdrawal from Iraq and the ISIS crap further cemented an implication of weakness.

Putin is less like an actual human being and more like a shark. If he smells blood and thus weakness in the water, he goes after, tries to take a bite, and get some free lunch. This would also explain why not long after Biden's disastrous pull out from Afghanistan (and it's fall back to the Taliban) Putin smelled yet more blood spilt into the water and decided to slowly start building up for a "training exercise" and begin his "special operation" in Ukraine not long after.
 
your "Oh you just don't understand the nuance of comedy" malarkey

It's not that you don't understand the nuances of comedy; you don't understand basic principles, like the very nature of deadpan, even after they've been explained to you by a person of far superior intelligence. Deadpan is not just a matter of tone; it's a mismatch between tone and content. It requires a claim that is outrageous at the level of content, but delivered in a matter-of-fact fashion, as though the speaker were not aware of the outrageous claim he is making. "The eighties wants its foreign policy back" is not an outrageous claim. It is a sarcastic comment. If a sarcastic comment is made in a tone of voice appropriate to deadpan, it fails as both forms of humor. As you yourself have admitted, when you acknowledged that nobody laughed at Obama's supposed "zinger."

As to which of us the funnier, setting aside your Joij-like whipping of invented statistics out of your own as-
Spoiler :
pirations,

we can simply refer the matter to a judge whose assessments you, of all people, can scarce impugn: that judge who recently gave to a post of mine a
that he had for a while denied all other posters on the site (yourself perhaps chief of all).

(And next time you invent statistics try to put a little more effort into your fake numbers than 1-2-3. It's nearly as pathetic as Trump's "person, woman, man, camera, TV." Embarrassing, really. You're sort of a Brett Maher of comedy.*)

*topical humor
 
Last edited:
It's not that you don't understand the nuances of comedy; you don't understand basic principles, like the very nature of deadpan, even after they've been explained to you by a person of far superior intelligence. Deadpan is not just a matter of tone; it's a mismatch between tone and content. It requires a claim that is outrageous at the level of content, but delivered in a matter-of-fact fashion, as though the speaker were not aware of the outrageous claim he is making. "The eighties wants its foreign policy back" is not an outrageous claim. It is a sarcastic comment. If a sarcastic comment is made in a tone of voice appropriate to deadpan, it fails as both forms of humor. As you yourself have admitted, when you acknowledged that nobody laughed at Obama's supposed "zinger."

As to which of us the funnier, setting aside your Joij-like whipping of invented statistics out of your own as-
Spoiler :
pirations,

we can simply refer the matter to a judge whose assessments you, of all people, can scarce impugn: that judge who recently gave to a post of mine a

that he had for a while denied all other posters on the site (yourself perhaps chief of all).

(And next time you invent statistics try to put a little more effort into your fake numbers than 1-2-3. It's nearly as pathetic as Trump's "person, woman, man, camera, TV." Embarrassing, really. You're sort of a Brett Maher of comedy.)
Well my examples to you were not about the "80s want its policy back", intentionally... so you've been caught strawmanning ;). Also Obama implying Romney was comparing the US Navy to the board game Battleship was exactly the kind of "outrageous" statement befitting a deadpan, so once again, you've outsmarted yourself.

As for 1,2,3... glad you noticed. I actually put a moment of thought into that, and I was confident that you would be sharp enough, not only to notice, but petty enough to make fun of it :D So thanks for both proving me right and showing that I was superior enough in intelligence to bait you into making fun of something so obvious and also obviously trivial. :clap:Like shooting fish in a barrel;)

Also, as I already pointed out, the lack of reaction was at least, partly because the audience had been verboten from reacting and they were at least trying to abide by that. Part of audience reaction is mood and peer pressure. So if the audience is all trying to maintain a certain decorum and abide by certain rules, they are sometimes... astonishingly, I know, able to adhere to that.... which is part of why crowds don't boo and jeer and heckle at golf. Your earlier point about laughing being involuntary, while technically correct, is missing this nuance.
 
Last edited:
you've been caught strawmanning
Gee, I'm sorry. I thought the point at issue between us was whether
this particular moment is an example of O's comedic skills
I think I got that impression because you asked me
Where are we in disagreement?
and that's what I gave as my answer.

Battleships and bayonets have all along been beside the point (that is at issue between us). And are, incidentally, further examples of sarcasm, not deadpan.

If I could think of a way to make it as simple as 1-2-3 for you, believe me I would. But since I have it on good authority that you have to put thought into that, I suspect you're hopeless.

OlafMicDrop.gif

(Courtesy of Buster's Uncle)
 
Last edited:
Gee, I'm sorry. I thought the point at issue between us was whether

I think I got that impression because you asked me

and that's what I gave as my answer.

Battleships and bayonets have all along been beside the point (that is at issue between us). And are, incidentally, further examples of sarcasm, not deadpan.

If I could think of a way to make it as simple as 1-2-3 for you, believe me I would. But since I have it on good authority that you have to put thought into that, I suspect you're hopeless.

View attachment 650987
(Courtesy of Buster's Uncle)
Ah, I see. You are intending "this particular moment" much more precisely, as in that "80s want their foreign policy" clip. I was intending it more loosely, as in his performance in the entire debate, particularly including those other famous quips. You seemed to be discussing those as well, so I thought we were on the same page. Seems I was mistaken.
 
'Sall good.

I think you know I have the highest estimation of you--as a poster as a thinker, as a humorist. Well . . . next highest.

For the bayonets line, he does supply a sufficient pause to mark it as a laugh-line. (Though I think he goes on to muff it with the "we have these things called" sequence; and ditto I don't think the battleship line is funny (though I think it is point-scoring).)
 
Battleships and bayonets have all along been beside the point

Battleships if equiped with railguns can provide excellent shore bombardment capability.

Bayonets would make good use when attached to the 19th century rifles Vladimir Putin is handing out to his conscripts. Mass wave attacks over the entrenched positions is what they were made for.
 
I'd have to go back to that moment, but the way I remember it, Obama wasn't proposing rapprochement with Russia, he was just mocking Romney for mentioning Russia at all, as any kind of threat whatsoever. He was suggesting that Russia was inconsequential.

Well he did send out Hillary Clinton to approach them with the "reset button".

If Russia really was considered inconsequential at the time, then wouldn't this prove my theory that Obama didn't like and didn't trust her? Give her a no nothing job essentially!
 
Well he did send out Hillary Clinton to approach them with the "reset button".
Oh, I think rapprochement was his basic approach once he was president, just not part of that key (non) laugh-line in the debate with Romney.
 
Oh, I think rapprochement was his basic approach once he was president, just not part of that key (non) laugh-line in the debate with Romney.

Look if he's going to go so far as claiming Russia is inconsequential in the debates, how the hell would he be able to take rapprochement seriously as a policy moving forward? It's clear as day that rapprochement was considered the "tedious" and "non important" job from the begining, hence why it was reserved for his former arch enemy Hillary Clinton.
 
You do bang that drum, Joij.

She wasn't limited to Russia. You'll remember that she had full responsibility for all operational details at the embassy in Benghazi.

Sec of State is arguably a more important position than veep.
 
Last edited:
You do bang that drum, Joij.

She wasn't limited to Russia. You'll remember that she had full responsibility for all operational details at the embassy in Benghazi.

Sec of State is arguably a more important position than veep.
Its not even arguable. Sec of State is waaay more powerful and important.
 
With the order of succession being the single exception.
 
Does that bit where Republican party members are involved in shootings at Democrats' abodes (or even the crazed attack on Nancy Pelosi's home and husband) count as a threat to democracy? Asking for a friend.
 
With the order of succession being the single exception.
Of course, but even then, its an interesting, arguably illusory exception, because the mere fact that the Veep is in the line of succession is irrelevant, until the line of succession is actually activated and they take over as POTUS... but by definition, when that happens, they are no longer Veep, they are now POTUS, so any power and importance they derive flows from the fact that they are POTUS, not Veep.

EDIT: Thinking about it some more... there is another aspect of the exception you identified, that I had not initially considered when I read your post. Precisely because the Veep is first in the line of succession, by the very virtue of one of the main purposes if not THE main purpose of the office, they also enjoy, by default, the unwritten, but pretty rigidly followed, first-right-of-refusal for their party's nomination, should the POTUS they serve with win re-election. I'm thinking that actually is a pretty valuable, powerful and important position to be in, their party's automatic Presidential nominee, especially once their POTUS second-term Mid term election ends and the General election campaign begins in earnest.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but even then, its an interesting, arguably illusory exception, because the mere fact that the Veep is in the line of succession is irrelevant, until the line of succession is actually activated and they take over as POTUS... but by definition, when that happens, they are no longer Veep, they are now POTUS, so any power and importance they derive flows from the fact that they are POTUS, not Veep.

EDIT: Thinking about it some more... there is another aspect of the exception you identified, that I had not initially considered when I read your post. Precisely because the Veep is first in the line of succession, by the very virtue of one of the main purposes if not THE main purpose of the office, they also enjoy, by default, the unwritten, but pretty rigidly followed, first-right-of-refusal for their party's nomination, should the POTUS they serve with win re-election. I'm thinking that actually is a pretty valuable, powerful and important position to be in, their party's automatic Presidential nominee, especially once their POTUS second-term Mid term election ends and the General election campaign begins in earnest.

I somehow don't think Harris will end up being the auto-nominee in 2028, even if Biden serves out two full terms.
 
Top Bottom