Debate shows Grace Poe (and her fans) need to stay at the Holiday Inn

holiday inn

I think per square foot, the Philippines may very well have more tools than Ace Hardware. How else can you explain why so many people seem to have been so impressed with presidential aspirant, Sen. Grace Poe-Llamanzares’s (GPL) performance on that very non-substantive presidential debate a few days ago? Sure, she probably was the candidate who gave the most recitation of statistics and facts but what good would merely parroting information be if her plans, platforms, and visions are pretty much loaded with motherhood statements and broken record promises? Aside from a failure in logic in some of her statements, she also offered no specifics on how she’ll deliver on her lofty goals whatsoever! And we’re supposed to be impressed with that?

During round 1 she was asked to address her having the thinnest resume amongst the lot of contenders. She acknowledges the fact that she is the most inexperienced candidate as she does not have enough government experience. However, in her effort to spin the issue to her advantage, she said: “There is no proof that you will do better because you have been in office longer”. So going with that logic, I suppose that fire-breathing dragons do exist simply because no one has ever conclusively disproven them! But here’s a question, since when does absence of evidence necessarily equate to evidence of absence? The issue is not about treating experience to be the sole criteria for qualification and competence as dogmatic truth. The issue is about justification for caution or even skepticism. In all probability, a more experienced person will perform better than an inexperienced one. Questioning GPL’s qualification and competence for the position she is applying for is about taking a caution on selecting her for the highest post of the land. Isn’t that what the voters are supposed to do? I mean why would VP Binay bashers have no issues warning voters not to elect Binay because of alleged corruption issues if Binay has not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law on those corruption allegations yet? We simply cannot assume that the assertion of GPL being the best choice for the job is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. This smacks of the logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

In round 2 the candidates were asked on their plan to reduce poverty. GPL offered a tall order of suggestions such as free irrigation, free lunch at public schools, and more subsidies in the agricultural sector. Feisty Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (MDS) gave GPL a smack down when she retorted:

“Promises are easy to make. Which president has ever reduced poverty? Where are we going to get the money for these programs?”

Yes, MDS was correct to ask the question. Where are we going to get the money for the programs GPL is suggesting? GPL did not offer any revenue increasing plans to support her lofty goals or ways to plug the holes causing government waste. Even if revenue is increased, how can she ensure that those goals would be totally met given that one of the biggest problems affecting the country’s social welfare (as well as public spending) is government waste through corruption? It is not that the current government or previous governments have not made such lofty goals and promises to the country as what GPL is making. The question is – how is GPL going to achieve realization of those goals and promises? Vito Tanzi laid out a good description on how corruption can affect public expenditure in different ways. This may explain why despite a trend of growing government revenue and expenditure, the Philippine government still failed miserably in providing needed infrastructure and social welfare improvements. The main revenue generator of government is taxes. But if the cause of waste is still not addressed, the lofty goals would still not be realized and the people’s money will continue to be wasted. Plus, a government can only tax individuals and businesses so much before it hits the point of diminishing returns.

In the final round, the candidates were asked about Mindanao issues. GPL was asked if she will push for the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) or whether she will pursue a new agreement. As many Filipinos know, proponents of the BBL assert that the BBL is a “holistic approach to end poverty and conflict in Mindanao”. So given this “end poverty” twist, GPL didn’t really say a direct answer to the question but instead offered a litany of motherhood statements. She said:

“We need a transparent, inclusive, sustainable talks and agreement and consult everyone, including Christians in Mindanao…we also need to invest more in the growth of Mindanao.”

So will she or will she not support BBL? Will she pursue a new agreement or not? While the root of conflict and a lot of problems in Mindanao may be attributed to poverty and while (economic) growth may benefit Mindanao and its people, again she offered no specifics on how she will achieve her vision. The closest thing she mentioned to something specific is her plan to allocate 30% of the government budget to be spent on Mindanao. Here’s a question – since when has the government had the reputation of spending tax payer money wisely? Pumping in more and more money into an economy won’t result in a radical turn-around if the causes of government waste and inefficiencies are left unaddressed and not fixed. Nowhere in her litany of facts, statistics, and motherhood statements did she ever touch on how she will address and fix the causes of government waste and inefficiencies. I don’t even believe she mentioned any specific causes of problems. Take for instance, the energy crisis plaguing Mindanao. An article by the Asia Foundation accounted the problem to inefficiencies such as red tape. We didn’t hear anything from GPL about such causes. All we heard from her were feel good statements.

The problem with candidates like GPL is the simplistic belief that increased government spending will automatically bring economic prosperity and stability. Without addressing the causes of problems such as budget waste, inefficiencies and red tape, merely pumping in more money would not result in a healthy economy (or even a healthy citizenry). A government can only tax the people and businesses so much before it reaches the point of diminishing returns. A government can only borrow money so much before it falls towards the cliff of insolvency. Perhaps GPL and her fans should stay at the Holiday Inn next time so that there can be some sort of basis for believing that GPL is really smart.

(Image taken from LinkedIn)

print

24 Comments on “Debate shows Grace Poe (and her fans) need to stay at the Holiday Inn”

  1. Because Senator Grace Poe was duped and manipulated by the 32 years of MADPnoy kulangkulang99 third world status legacy, all these senatongs and tongresman of senatong tanda and his napolis list of money bathub auditors are fooling the pilipinos for almost thirty years of robbing the Pilipino taxes to the point of the bone,

    1. Because Senator Grace Poe was duped and manipulated by the 32 years of MADPnoy kulangkulang99 third world status legacy, all these senatongs and tongresman of senatong tanda and his napolis list of money bathub auditors are fooling the pilipinos for almost thirty years of robbing the Pilipino taxes to the point of the bone,

      Thanks for reading, Eterio! I wouldn’t say that the reason why GPL is somewhat of a “kulang sa pito, sobra sa walo” is because of the crooks in government. I think that’s just the way she is…. good in speeches (she was praised as very eloquent so let’s give her that) but lacking in depth. People who are good in talking are probably more suited as legislators because that is what congressmen and senators do…. just talk and debate all day. They really have no accountability. It’s all politics. People in executive positions, on the other hand, have more accountability. In business or the corporate world a lousy executive will face the wrath of the shareholders. This goes the same in government where a major screw up by a person in an executive capacity can face the ax. (Except under the Aquino government where the KKKs are coddled and protected by the yellow king.)

  2. I’d put my life in her hands than any of the other candidates. the others cant simply be trusted. I disagree with you that the people were over-reacting with her performance. Many political analysts agree that she did better among the others.

    All of them did not say their platform of course because they had 90 seconds! Maybe it’s up to the rest of us to research on them instead of criticizing them on that debate.

    1. I’d put my life in her hands than any of the other candidates. the others cant simply be trusted.

      Putting your life in the hands of an inexperienced politician is your choice and I do not wish to take that choice away from you. I’m sure you have your reasons to trust GPL over the other candidates. Good luck with your choice.

      I disagree with you that the people were over-reacting with her performance. Many political analysts agree that she did better among the others.

      I don’t believe I said people were over-reacting with her performance. What I suggested was – many people were easily impressed by her performance. The article was an attempt at a critical analysis of GPL’s performance and an attempt to question why many people were impressed by what really was a superficial and logically flawed message GPL delivered. The only glaring reason that I can see why people were impressed by GPL’s performance was that she was the most articulate amongst the candidates. A lot of Filipinos are easily swayed by eloquence. Take Chiz Escudero, for instance. Escudero is certainly very articulate but if one looks at his record, he really has a mediocre record (http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2015/06/grace-poe-really-know-good-quality-choice-vp-chiz-escudero/ ). Anyway, going back to GPL, her youth and looks certainly gave her a fresh and pleasing look. But like I mentioned, under critical analysis of the message she delivered, her message severely lacks in substance.

      All of them did not say their platform of course because they had 90 seconds!

      Hmmmm…. I don’t think I can buy that. 90 seconds should be enough to state the gist of one’s platform. Think of it as kind of like a verbal executive summary. I am not a fan of Duterte but I think he did a good job given the time constraint. He didn’t resort to verbosity (unlike what GPL did), he often did not need the full time allotted to him, and he stated things as they were (not too much palabok). I really like it when he answered the question on the BBL. I think he effectively drove the point that the BBL or similar schemes won’t be necessary under Federalism where regions would be more in control of their budget and not be at the mercy of Imperial Manila. GPL’s response was all pretty much motherhood statements.

      Maybe it’s up to the rest of us to research on them instead of criticizing them on that debate.

      I think we can do both. It is certainly good to do research on all of them (and we should), but there is nothing wrong with criticizing the candidates on that debate (or in future debates).

      Thanks for reading!

    1. GPL will be worst than than GMA, if elected!!!!!

      Thanks for reading, maria! I’m sure you have your reasons why you believe that and I would be happy to read more about your reasons if you would be willing to share them here.

  3. You are correct on parts of your analysis. However failed to mention, others did far worse or even with faulty data.

    I was really disappointed with total performance of Miriam. She was point on budgeting, problem is she herself doesn’t have a solution or least presented one.

    Essentially what you are telling us don’t believe on GPL, but believe other candidates who didn’t present anything, far worse performance or worse gave the incorrect information?

    1. You are correct on parts of your analysis. However failed to mention, others did far worse or even with faulty data.

      Thanks, DT. The article was intended to focus on GPL and what was perhaps a misplaced admiration on her performance by lots of people. A critical analysis of the other candidates’ performance is another topic and would probably be better in a separate article (perhaps one article per candidate).

      I was really disappointed with total performance of Miriam. She was point on budgeting, problem is she herself doesn’t have a solution or least presented one.

      Well, MDS offered interesting suggestions to solve the poverty issue. She said she will allocate more budget for education, health, and infrastructure. To achieve this goal, she said the government must decide with conviction either to increase or to decrease taxes. She said the government must find revenue-generating measures from some sectors while decreasing the taxes on small sectors. She drove her point with these:

      “Hindi naman papayag ang gobyerno na kulang sa pera ang ating budget kaya the remedy will be to decrease sub taxes, for example, the estate tax should be erased. Panggulo lang ‘yan. Naging judge ako marami akong estate tax cases na sampung taon na hindi pa ma-resolba,”

      “Pangalawa, the [local] real estate tax should be abolished,” as she pointed out that the government may instead just increase the national-level property tax.

      I believe these were a lot more substantive than the pie in the sky promises of GPL.

      Essentially what you are telling us don’t believe on GPL, but believe other candidates who didn’t present anything, far worse performance or worse gave the incorrect information?

      No, what I was suggesting was that people should critically analyze GPL’s message (same goes with the message of the other candidates), instead of merely being swayed by eloquence or popularity. MDS, was obviously a mere shell of her old self at the debate but she gave some interesting proposals worthy of serious thought. Duterte had a better performance (from my point of view) especially when he responded to the question on the need for BBL. He suggested BBL or similar schemes won’t be needed under a Federalism style of government where regions would have more control of their budget and developments instead of waiting for mercy from Imperial Manila. Binay, was severely lacking in energy and didn’t really offer much but a promise to replicate what he did in Makati to the entire country. Roxas was basically running on an ultra negative campaign while merely parroting the Daang Matuwid spiel.

      Thanks for reading!

      1. Well, I disagree on the points on Mindanao budgeting. The problem with the mentality of Dutert think that Mindanao actually contributes a lot to the national coffers or his group just didn’t make an effort to research which is quite the opposite of the reality. The current budget of PNoY administration for DPWH in Mindanao is 29.5 %. If we were to actually use in Duterte’s words “give Mindanao their fair Share” this would mean a decrease compared to the current budget whether it be based on GDP %(15%) or BIR collection 5% of the country.

        Having local governments having more control of their finances means 84% (based on BIR collection) of the current national coffers stays in NCR in a hypothetical scenario. This would result in greater disparity because now Manila gets their “fair share” and no more subsidies for Mindanao or the other provinces.

  4. Poe is the most prepared and I admire her a little for that. She took this debate seriously and it showed. But I believe she will be DQed soon.

    1. Poe is the most prepared and I admire her a little for that. She took this debate seriously and it showed. But I believe she will be DQed soon.

      Sure, I would give her that. She prepared her canned lines and memorized 25 second speech on how poverty plagues the country. She also came prepared with facts and statistics worthy of being included in a Trivial Pursuit game. While these were certainly impressive, she really didn’t give out anything about how exactly she can solve the problems highlighted by her memorized facts and statistics.

      With regards to her DQ case, well… on a level playing field I think she will be DQ’d. But, with a politicized Supreme Court under a puppet CJ, I won’t be holding my breath on that.

      Thanks for reading!

  5. Electing the power holder whether in Timbuktu or Shangri-la has always been about choosing the lesser evil unless the least evil of them all, none of the above is given as a choice.

    1. Electing the power holder whether in Timbuktu or Shangri-la has always been about choosing the lesser evil unless the least evil of them all, none of the above is given as a choice.

      Thanks for reading, Jose. I agree… elections have become a matter of picking the lesser evil. But how do we really define evil in election sense? Is it about corruption? Is it about lack of experience? Is it about health issues? Is it about being iron-fisted and foul mouthed? Or is it about insensitivity and incompetence?

  6. Question, which one is more important experience or knowledge? There are many USA presidents that did not have experience that changed the country for better. Grace Poe has a degree in politics from Boston College. Who else has a political degree. School lunches are considered a basic part of government in most 1st world countries. The Philippines has been electing celebrities and members of the corrupt political system and then they ask why does the system stay the same. There is a thin line between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not having knowledge of politics on global level, which only one candidate has studied. Stupidity is voting for members of a corrupt system and expecting them to make a difference. Examples Duarte has killed people and its okay for him not to follow the law. He thinks that speed boats can stop a bullet proof naval ships and bring down stealth fighters. One candidate is going to probably die before her term is up. The other one has no energy during the debate. If you want a change in the system try doing something different for once.

    1. A lot of Failipino politicians graduated from Ivy League colleges in the United States because their political families can afford to pay for their expensive education. This doesn’t make these political dynasty offsprings straight shooters.

    2. Question, which one is more important experience or knowledge?

      Ah… are you assuming that GPL necessarily has knowledge? Okay, let’s grant (without necessarily accepting yet) that GPL has knowledge. I would still say experience counts more. You see, as with a lot of entitled know-it-all kids nowadays, they brag about having so much knowledge but they severely lack in wisdom. I believe wisdom comes with experience. Nowadays you an easily get knowledge at a click of a mouse.

      There are many USA presidents that did not have experience that changed the country for better.

      I see. I suppose that makes McDonalds hamburgers to be the best in the world because it has been sold to billions of people? Be careful of the logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Numerum, my friend. 🙂

      Grace Poe has a degree in politics from Boston College. Who else has a political degree.

      – VP Binay has a Bachelors degree in Political Science from UP (1962) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jejomar_Binay#Education

      – Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has a Bachelors degree in Political Science from UP (1965) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Defensor_Santiago#Early_life

      – Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has a Bachelors degree in Political Science from the Lyceum University of the Philippines (1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte#Education

      I’m sorry….. what was your point?

      School lunches are considered a basic part of government in most 1st world countries.

      First of all, I’m not sure if you are aware of this… the Philippines isn’t a First World country. Second of all, school lunches are not spelled out in the constitution as a basic part (or role) of government.

      The Philippines has been electing celebrities and members of the corrupt political system and then they ask why does the system stay the same.

      The only one closest to being a celebrity amongst the presidentiables is GPL (having been the adopted child of a celebrity royalty of the Philippines). Sure, pretty much everyone in Philippine politics is tainted by the corrupt political system, but does that really justify putting in power someone with a very thin background and experience? Remember, we are talking about the lives of 100 million Filipino people here. In 1986 a housewife was catapulted to power… look at the result of that. Besides, your argument smacks of one big slippery slope (another logical fallacy). It is an argument that suggests that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. You seem to be correlating the number of times people have elected members of the corrupt political system with the cause of the rotten system of government the Philippines has. But correlation is not causation. Not convinced? Okay, let’s make things simple. The US population is predominantly white (~62% ; see http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/ ). The US also has a high crime rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States ). Using your logic of correlation is causation, are you suggesting that “whiteness causes crime”?

      There is a thin line between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not having knowledge of politics on global level, which only one candidate has studied. Stupidity is voting for members of a corrupt system and expecting them to make a difference.

      Really? So GPL has knowledge of politics on a global level and other don’t? Who told you that? Really? Only GPL has studied politics? I guess you didn’t look at the educational background of VP Binay, Sen. Santiago, and Mayor Duterte, right? So would you consider yourself ignorant of this as it is obvious that you don’t have knowledge of the educational background of the other candidates? Now wouldn’t you consider resorting to logical fallacies (e.g. argumentum ad numerum and correlation is causation) to be rather stupid?

      Examples Duarte has killed people and its okay for him not to follow the law. He thinks that speed boats can stop a bullet proof naval ships and bring down stealth fighters.

      Sure, he boasted about killing people but can you prove that he really did without violating Duterte’s right against self-incrimination? (Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution reads: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”)

      One candidate is going to probably die before her term is up.

      Assuming MDS is sick, is there a constitutional provision that states that only healthy candidates are qualified to run?

      The other one has no energy during the debate.

      Is there a constitutional provision that states that only energetic candidates are qualified to run?

      If you want a change in the system try doing something different for once.

      Didn’t the people catapult to power a political greenhorn in 1986? Besides, would you really elect someone merely for the sake of being “different”? Why not elect one of the many nuisance candidates instead? Go ahead… petition the Comelec and the SC to put them back on the list! 🙂

      Thanks for reading!

  7. We in the U.S. has bad experience with Pres. Obama. Pres. Obama was a first term Senator. He has no management and foreign policy experiences. He ran for President and won.

    Look at how he did a lousy job, for the U.S.

    The Donald Trump phenomena in the U.S.; is there; and the political pundits cannot understand it.

    Donald Trump of the Republican Party, has his message clear; understood from the grass root level, to the highly educated. He has built a successful business, to prove, he can manage the country. He is very intelligent, with a lot of charisma.

    Donald Trump has a German father; his mother is from Scotland. He graduated on top of his class in a New York Military Academy. And, graduated from Pennsylvania School of Business.

    So, experience counts in managing a country. However, we have to see the track records of these candidates. Their platform; and what can they do to us. How they can solve our present problems. We are the employers.

    1. LOL, you you just proved my point because you failed to do your research. I am a supporter of Trump by the way, but your facts are wrong. Obama was not new to politics. He served three terms in the House, before becoming Senator. He also graduated top of his class from both Harvard and Colombia. You also forget he is a millionaire and was a partner in the law firm where he worked. Trump is graduated from Wharton school of business from the University of Pennsylvania, but that is no harvard. He is not the picture perfect story of success in business. You do not go bankrupt three times and be considered successful in most places. The fact that his family has money to help him restart over is what has saved his fortune and that the US courts make the debts disappear and take the lost. The problem with this practice is that if he runs the country like a business it may be a good thing or bad thing. Remember the government shut down that Ted Cruz led to balance the budget? Remember that the military receive paychecks late and many retirees pension where at risk. The balancing of the budget will come. I hope everyone and are prepared for it when the paychecks stop coming when Trump is president. After all it is just business. Don’t you agree?

  8. Question, was I wrong or are you wrong? The answer is yes to both. I did not research the degrees of the other candidates. Here are the points made that shows some people are wrong also. 1. The philippines is only a third world country , because you choose to be victims. OFW’s work all over the world including America in every thing from medicine to science with the same education received here in the Philippines. Why are these same people not using thier knowledge here? At least GPL has came back to the Phils to try and make it better versus your other traitors to the country who do not come back and improve the country. 2. School lunches are not in the constituion. It is not in anyone’s constitution. It is just something that is provided to make sure kids have at least one balance meal a day. What is wrong with that? Are you saying that it is a bad thing to feed children at school? 3. Obama was not the first president without experience. Many of of the USA great presidents including George Washington did not have experience. Sometimes experience is bad thing when your system is corrupt. Everybody forgets about the President Nixon and the Kennedy’s. 4. GPL’s track record. there is not a discussion about the bills she has tried to pass in this article. The post on this website scoring the debate was fair to all candidates. So when will we see a full article criticizing each candidate since the debate. Fair treatment should be observed by everyone. http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2016/02/fight-night-recap-fighter-fare/ 5. My last point. GPL’s freedom of information act will uncover and expose where the money is and provide the funding need for the programs. Consider this. If all government records become open for any reporter or person to investigate corruption will be cut. The philippines recently had $357 billion USD just disappear from its budget. That is about 1 trillion dollars. Is that enough to pay for free lunches and irrigation? The sad part is every year the missing amount of money from the government grows and no one appears to care. Will this missing amount of money make a difference in the life in this Philippines?

    1. Question, was I wrong or are you wrong? The answer is yes to both. I did not research the degrees of the other candidates.

      Uhm, I think it is pretty obvious that you were wrong. You suggested that it is only GPL who studied politics by virtue of her political science degree. The facts show that other candidates studied politics too and they do hold political science degrees as well. So with regards to your point on the political degree or educational background, there is no question that you were wrong. But I suppose you already know why you got it wrong because you said it yourself, you did not do any research on the degrees of other candidates. But that’s okay, everybody makes mistakes. It doesn’t make you less of a person so don’t be too hard on yourself. 🙂

      Here are the points made that shows some people are wrong also.

      Hmmmm…. Okay, let’s assess your points.

      1. The philippines is only a third world country , because you choose to be victims. OFW’s work all over the world including America in every thing from medicine to science with the same education received here in the Philippines. Why are these same people not using thier knowledge here?

      I guess that is your own definition and you are entitled to your subjective opinion. It is pretty widely accepted that a Third World country is defined as an underdeveloped nation with widespread poverty. (Please see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/third-world ) So based on the dictionary, it has nothing to do with victim mentality (or choice). I think the OFWs you mentioned chose to work outside of the Philippines because either there are no available gainful opportunities for them in the Philippines, or the earning potential abroad is so much greater than at home. (Or perhaps even both.) But can you blame them? I certainly won’t blame them. Even US Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton once said: 

      “But let’s be very honest here. Too many of them (Pinoys) feel that they cannot progress in their own country. Too many of them feel that the elite in business and politics basically call the shots, and there’s not much room for someone who’s hardworking, but not connected.”

      “Too many of them believe that even if they get the best education they can, that there won’t be an opportunity for them, and so they take that education and help build someone else’s economy, very often here in the United States,”

      (Please see http://www.philstar.com/business/615265/p-noy-can-he-deliver-social-media )

      At least GPL has came back to the Phils to try and make it better versus your other traitors to the country who do not come back and improve the country.

      First of all, GPL came back to the Philippines not to try and make it better but because her father died and she wanted to help her mom Susan Roces arrange FPJ’s funeral and settle FPJ’s estate. She returned to the Philippines for FPJ’s funeral on Dec . 13, 2004 and she returned to the US on Feb. 3, 2005 (barely 2 months stay in the Philippines). She acquired her Dual Citizenship only on July 7, 2006. That was 1 year and 7 months after she initially came back to the Philippines. When I took my oath for Dual Citizenship, it took about a week to gather all my documents and only took me half a day to process everything at the Philippine Consulate. GPL took 1 year and 7 months to get her Dual Citizenship in order? Then she only renounced her allegiance to the US before she assumed the role of MTRCB Chair. If she is as patriotic as you claim her to be, why did she renounce her allegiance to the US only about after 6 years from her return to the Philippines when her dad died? Tsk..tsk..tsk… don’t kid yourself by suggesting that her comeback was initially motivated by her sense of patriotism. It appears that she only renounced her allegiance to the US out of convenience because she was merely offered a job by PNoy. Ask yourself, had she not been offered the MTRCB position, would she have renounced her allegiance to Uncle Sam? Your idol sure doesn’t sound too patriotic. She sounds more like a mere opportunist. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that.

      2. School lunches are not in the constituion. It is not in anyone’s constitution. It is just something that is provided to make sure kids have at least one balance meal a day. What is wrong with that? Are you saying that it is a bad thing to feed children at school?

      🙂 Hahaha…. Funny…. You just dished out another logical fallacy and this time it is Argumentum ad logicam. You are arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can also arrive at true conclusions. You are suggesting that my argument is false because of what I said that the Philippines is not a First world country and that school lunches are not spelled out in the constitution as a basic part (or role) of government (contrary to what you said that school lunches are a basic part of government in most first world countries). But using my statement as conclusion to your argument that school lunches are good is false because my statement has nothing to do with whether school lunches are good or not. My statement was merely a factual statement that doesn’t address whether school lunches are good or not. It merely refutes the veracity of your claim (that school lunches are part of most first world countries). Even you, yourself admitted that school lunches are not spelled out as basic parts of government in any other countries. It is like saying this:

      You: “Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4.”

      Me: “Wait a second! You can’t just cancel the six!”

      You: “Oh, so you’re telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?”

      🙂 hahaha Nice try but still no dice!

      3. Obama was not the first president without experience. Many of of the USA great presidents including George Washington did not have experience.

      George Washington was a soldier. That experience certainly comes in handy for heads of state during wars or when countries are under military threat. Remember that Washington was president from 1789 to 1797. America was just fresh from winning the Revolutionary War in 1783. But the British threat was still very much alive back then. In fact, in 1812 the US went to war again with the Brits.

      Sometimes experience is bad thing when your system is corrupt. Everybody forgets about the President Nixon and the Kennedy’s.

      So in that case, are you suggesting that inexperience is better under a corrupt system? Please explain using sound logic. (Premise: System is corrupt; Conclusion: Inexperienced leader is better than an experienced one under a corrupt system. Your objective is to explain how your conclusion would follow from your premise. If you can’t use sound logic, again… you may succumb to another logical fallacy.)

      Oh and by the way, what does Nixon and Kennedy have anything to do with the logic of your argument? Or is this merely an attempt to showboat to your readers that you know so much trivial stuff? 😉

      4. GPL’s track record. there is not a discussion about the bills she has tried to pass in this article.

      The article was not intended to discuss her bills. It was intended to merely critically analyze her performance at the debate. A discussion of her Senate Bills calls for another article and topic. Besides, authors here at GRP are free to write what they want to write.

      The post on this website scoring the debate was fair to all candidates. So when will we see a full article criticizing each candidate since the debate. Fair treatment should be observed by everyone. http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2016/02/fight-night-recap-fighter-fare/

      Well, I’m glad you liked my colleague’s article. I liked it too. But Charles had a different purpose in his article. He assessed the performance of all the candidates at the debate. My focus was merely on GPL and how possibly misplaced her fans’ admiration of her performance at the debate was. So you see, you are comparing apples and oranges.

      5. My last point. GPL’s freedom of information act will uncover and expose where the money is and provide the funding need for the programs.

      Well, good for her. But as president (if she doesn’t get DQ’d and if she wins the election), her job is to execute laws. The proposed FOI bill goes through the legislative mill, not the executive branch. She only gets to sign it (as president) once it gets the approval from both Chambers. Besides, let’s say the FOI bill gets approved and ratified and it does help uncover where the loot is. Do you really think it will end up funding her lofty programs given the corrupt system the Philippines has? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. 🙂

      Consider this. If all government records become open for any reporter or person to investigate corruption will be cut. The philippines recently had $357 billion USD just disappear from its budget. That is about 1 trillion dollars. Is that enough to pay for free lunches and irrigation? The sad part is every year the missing amount of money from the government grows and no one appears to care. Will this missing amount of money make a difference in the life in this Philippines?

      Every peso and centavo matters. But what do all these things have anything to do with the article? I don’t even think GPL even offered her FOI bill as her means to fund her lofty programs. Maybe you should run for president and join the debates and offer this FOI bill as the source of fund for lofty promises and programs. Your idol didn’t do that at the debate which supports my contention that she really didn’t offer anything at the debate but mere motherhood statements and lofty promises. 🙂

  9. Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man/woman who lies to himself/herself and listens to his/her own lie comes to a point that he/she cannot distinguish the truth within him/her, or around him/her, and so loses all respect for himself/herself and for others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.