Search Results: interview questions

I know this age identification thing is getting out of hand lol, but let me add context to my question:

When they asked Borges in an interview if he considered himself a man of the 19th century, he unquestionably answered, “Yes.” Borges was born in 1899.

I think it goes beyond having literally been born in that century. He despised his era; he despised what the 20th century brought to the world, so I see it more as a very conservative posture and identification rather than really meaning that he is someone from the 19th century, since he has no recollections from that century, and when we think about 20th-century figures, many of them were born in the 19th century (Hitler, Einstein, Churchill, Sartre, Kafka, Bertrand Russell, etc.). Borges did have a love for authors and philosophers of that century, and many of the anecdotes that he tells about his ancestors happened in the 19th century, so it is more of a longing than a literal identification.

So my question goes in a similar way: in what meaningful ways would you consider yourself to be a 20th-century person despite being mostly a 21st-century one? Or the world evolves so fast that it makes this impossible to answer as Borges did?

"The President of the United States has to be able to be on their toes all the time and answer questions. It's so obvious she's been avoiding the one-on-one interviews, and the voters deserve better." - Steve Shurtleff, former Democratic speaker of the NH
House of Representatives

Not attacking either political side when it comes to this idea. This is an open ended non-partisan question.

Anyway I would absolutely love to see JD Vance debate Kamala Harris and Tim Walz debate Donald Trump.

This would be a very badly needed and informative vantage point for American voters to better analyze VPs/presidential candidates. Reason being it would be much more challenging for all the candidates to prepare for their opponents which is a good thing. It would force candidates to think fast on the spot. Get the truth out.

The VP would likely be the aggressor given they can criticize the presidential candidate given they are the ultimate decision makers when it comes to policy. Also the VP would have to defend their own running mates with the opposing presidential candidate’s criticism. It would be like a hostile & unpredictable interview but not necessarily a fist fight.

It would also give more attention and prominence to the VP’s role, abilities and personality. The VP is after all just one gun shot, heart attack, etc. from being the president of the United States.

If both sides could agree to two debates (and maybe do a coin toss on which match up goes first) it be so much better for the American voter. Because it would expose more strengths and weakness of all the candidates. Give a much better picture of what the American voter is really buying.

Anyway I posted this as a non-partisan question. Please avoid attacking Trump, Kamala, etc right off the bat. However I would love to see this and I imagine so would most other people.