06-05-2022, 02:14 AM
Gotta say I don’t have a problem with qualifying statements. The more detail the better. The categorical statement is usually the sign of dishonesty and is watered down after the event by qualifications that weren’t made clear before an election.
The same issue arises with assessing the veracity of witnesses. The bombastic witness who states everything with certainty tends to impress the audience when compared to witnesses who try to be as candid as they can be about what they can’t be sure about.
Confusing bombast for honesty and competence is what made Trump possible. Unfortunately, our election campaigns aren’t geared towards drawing out the detail or the qualifications that should be provided. It’s much more important to see our candidates kicking a footy or eating a hot dog.
The same issue arises with assessing the veracity of witnesses. The bombastic witness who states everything with certainty tends to impress the audience when compared to witnesses who try to be as candid as they can be about what they can’t be sure about.
Confusing bombast for honesty and competence is what made Trump possible. Unfortunately, our election campaigns aren’t geared towards drawing out the detail or the qualifications that should be provided. It’s much more important to see our candidates kicking a footy or eating a hot dog.