anyone else excited??? it's in my backyard!! I wish I coulda gone to support my man, W! 
Debate tonight....
- Thread starter Brian2by2
- Start date
I was looking forward to it, but after watching for an hour and a half, I feel unsatisfied.
Mostly more of the same: Bush painting a rosy picture, saying everything is going just as planned, and Kerry claiming he can do better, with very little detail.
Mostly more of the same: Bush painting a rosy picture, saying everything is going just as planned, and Kerry claiming he can do better, with very little detail.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ojas said:What?!? Another variation of this expression?
Caught it before you did.
I made an edit just one minute before your post. 
I’ll be quicker next time...steveny said:Caught it before you did.
Argh! That’s a new one, too!steveny said:
Is it just me, or is politics increasingly trying to appeal to the lowest common demnominator? I'll be surprised if they are not mud-wrestling for votes by next election. 
Late Edit:
Both candidates are exceptionally vague about putting thier positions down on paper, but what issues they have addressed are pretty well (and imparially) covered by the League of Women Voters. Click Here for a handy little grid. It does not have a voting record to see how well those positions are substantiated, but it is the best I have found. If anyone has something better, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Late Edit:
Both candidates are exceptionally vague about putting thier positions down on paper, but what issues they have addressed are pretty well (and imparially) covered by the League of Women Voters. Click Here for a handy little grid. It does not have a voting record to see how well those positions are substantiated, but it is the best I have found. If anyone has something better, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Last edited:
See, I can't understand how Kerry could be deemed the winner...
Bush didn't articulate well...never has. So based on that, sure Kerry spoke well.
But Kerry was vague, never gave any details as to what he plans to do, and the first 5 or 6 questions he completely avoided the topic and just started speaking.
I thought Bush did a very good job at showing how indecisive Kerry is, however, he could have done better.
I'm also confused as to why Kerry thinks its appropriate to possibly send troops to Iran over genocide, but not to Iraq for the same reason?
"If you don't like Kerry's views, just wait until next week"
Bush didn't articulate well...never has. So based on that, sure Kerry spoke well.
But Kerry was vague, never gave any details as to what he plans to do, and the first 5 or 6 questions he completely avoided the topic and just started speaking.
I thought Bush did a very good job at showing how indecisive Kerry is, however, he could have done better.
I'm also confused as to why Kerry thinks its appropriate to possibly send troops to Iran over genocide, but not to Iraq for the same reason?
"If you don't like Kerry's views, just wait until next week"
nkb said:
What he said.
Perhaps it's because we went to Iraq not for the purpose of preventing genocide, but rather, to find these "weapons of mass destruction." I'm sure if from the outset, Bush stated that the reason for a preemptive strike on a sovereign nation was for the prevention of genocide, no one would question his motives as the brutality of Saddam's regime is well documented. But to invade Iraq under one guise (supposed links to Al-Qaeda and WMD) only to continually change the reason why we're there to begin with because the original assumptions turned out to be untrue, is what bothers people.Brian2by2 said:
Well, that may have something to do with the fact that you are strongly biased. Based on interviews with undecided voters, and some of the analysis of the networks, it appears that Kerry had the upper hand.Brian2by2 said:
I agree that Kerry was vague in a lot of his answers, which is not new, but you have to be blind to think that Bush wasn't at least as vague as Kerry.Brian2by2 said:
If you consider constantly repeating "my opponent is indecisive" is a very good job of showing how indecisive Kerry is, then you don't have very high standards.Brian2by2 said:
Genocide in Iran wasn't discussed. I think you are confusing Iran possibly seeking nuclear weapons capablility, and references to the genocide that is going on in Sudan. Both of those were mentioned in the same argument.Brian2by2 said:
However, you are equating sending troops with waging war. We send troops all the time, that doesn't mean we declare war each time.
I strongly recommend reading some of the articles on www.factcheck.org, a non-partisan group that objectively researches and analyzes the political rhetoric, including yesterday's presidential debate.
They rip both candidates for making misleading or false claims.
If you want to make sure that you are not being taken in by the obvious bias of either side, this is a great site. They research every claim made to see if it has any merit, and they provide context for a lot of the quote snippets that are being used.
They rip both candidates for making misleading or false claims.
If you want to make sure that you are not being taken in by the obvious bias of either side, this is a great site. They research every claim made to see if it has any merit, and they provide context for a lot of the quote snippets that are being used.
[/B]nkb said:
I actually watched the debate with my democratic parents. My mom is for Bush in this election but my step-dad is strongly opposed to Bush and was voting for Kerry until last night. He was downright ashamed at Kerry's debate. He wasn't overly impressed with Bush but he felt all Kerry did was dodge questions, answer vaguely and attack Bush.
But when Bush was asked what he would do, he didn't just talk about what Kerry was going to do. The first three questions Kerry answered where directed at him, but all he did was talk about what Bush did.
Well, he did catch Kerry quite a few times. For example, Kerry said our boys are over there with no armor. Well, Kerry did vote against an allocation of funds to help supply more armor to our soldiers. Kerry also said we should wait for the UN, however, he voted against an alternative resolution that wouldnt' allow us to enter Iraq without the UNs support. He also voted for the war in Iraq in the first place and said that Sadaam should be ousted. Now that he goes against that, Bush needs to reitterate what Kerry said because every answer he was giving contradicted his previous claims, and more importantly, his voting record.
Ya, you're right. I think I misheard Sudan and Iran and then when Bush answered, he resorted back to Iran for a second and then proceeded to Sudan without mentioning it, so I think I got confused...my bad
But even in Sudan, why is it ok to send troops there and not to Iraq? Sadaam has killed over 200,000 people!! Most are his own.
I understand that Bush said he was going for the WMDs and the link to Al Quaeda. To me, not complying with UN regulations and requirements is like admitting guilt, and I too wanted to use force to get him to comply. I mean, we did give him an ultimatum...it was about time someone threatened to use force.
What about Poland?!
I think Kerry did a better job and came off stronger. Bush was constantly on the defense and seemed nervous and kept repeating the same thing over and over. Of course, getting attacked is never fun, so overall I think he did OK.
I also think Kerry came out ahead last night, however, the subject (the mess in Iraq) heavily favored Kerry. If he had lost the debate on a subject that a lot of Americans are not happy about, then that would have meant some serious missteps on Kerry's part.
What bugs me the most though, is that it seems like it doesn't even matter to the candidates that they are making misleading claims. I agree with White94, it's getting to the point where it's all about mudslinging, and that's very disappointing and disconcerting.
What bugs me the most though, is that it seems like it doesn't even matter to the candidates that they are making misleading claims. I agree with White94, it's getting to the point where it's all about mudslinging, and that's very disappointing and disconcerting.
I'll give an objective view by an otherwise biased and partisan viewer. Strictly on the issue of "who won the debate," it was Kerry. I say this as a lifelong Republican but also as someone with a background in debate (I was New York State debate champion in college - isn't it amazing how I can type while patting myself on the back?).
Bush made the classic "Gore mistake" by failing to control his facial expressions, body language or other "tics" while Kerry was speaking. Despite the overly extensive "rules of engagement" established for the debate, he should have realized most, if not all, networks would resort to a split screen to catch candidate reaction to commentaries being made.
He is not the most adept speaker to begin with and in a setting with a polished and rehearsed adversary his shortcomings become glaring. Much of his canned rhetoric reminded me of Ross Perot's style and his "often in error but never in doubt" attitude.
Ultimately, neither one did much more than solidify their base of support but neither also made any major blunders that might otherwise sway the "undecideds" who seemingly are unable to make up their minds in a fairly polarized climate.
Bush made the classic "Gore mistake" by failing to control his facial expressions, body language or other "tics" while Kerry was speaking. Despite the overly extensive "rules of engagement" established for the debate, he should have realized most, if not all, networks would resort to a split screen to catch candidate reaction to commentaries being made.
He is not the most adept speaker to begin with and in a setting with a polished and rehearsed adversary his shortcomings become glaring. Much of his canned rhetoric reminded me of Ross Perot's style and his "often in error but never in doubt" attitude.
Ultimately, neither one did much more than solidify their base of support but neither also made any major blunders that might otherwise sway the "undecideds" who seemingly are unable to make up their minds in a fairly polarized climate.
Now I understand that a majority of people think Kerry won, but I don't see it and if you read this article, I don't understand how Kerry won.
From CNN...
There just isn't anything negative about Bush and those are peoples opinions...the same people (I presume) that think Kerry won.
Sure he was more articulate...Bush isn't a very well spoken man. I would never base my vote on that. Bush is able to relate to a lot of people much better because he is more 'common' in his methods, in my opinion.
From CNN...
There just isn't anything negative about Bush and those are peoples opinions...the same people (I presume) that think Kerry won.
Sure he was more articulate...Bush isn't a very well spoken man. I would never base my vote on that. Bush is able to relate to a lot of people much better because he is more 'common' in his methods, in my opinion.
Ditto. Flapjack is simply a better debater. However, I think Kerry spoke in tongue a few times, which Bush didn't catch, and those statements will end up haunting him in future GOP commercials.RSO 34 said:
KGP said:
I'll agree that Kerry is a better speaker, but I still think that his debate, while better, lacks truth. He's already contradicted himself in so many ways beyond just the war in Iraq. Did he gain more credibility last night? Not with me, but as mentioned, I'm pretty biased.
As for content and who "won" the debate, I think that link I just posted would make the 'winner' status controversial.
I personaly want to hear them debate on our countrys future, not the past three years. We went to Iraq and ousted a murdering tyrant. I think Bush did this because he thought they were in possesion of WMD. Lets say your an attorney, and you have an investigator investigate a case. Now you go to court with what info you were provided by the investigator. That info turns out to be wrong. Are you to be called a liar and said that you went to court on other deceptive terms? So I do not have a problem with our troops being in Iraq. Not one single soldier is there because they were forced. I believe that they are brave men and women that believe in thier cause and are willing to die for it. Ive lost friends because of the war in Iraq and I will be seeing more friends leave soon. What I do have a problem with is that Kerry would vote not to give funds for soldier body armour, but vote to go to war. Who is looking out for our soldiers, him? He votes to go to war when emotions are high and it is the popular thing to do, then when he feels that the popular thing is to be against the war, he's against it. I didn't get to see the debate but I read the transcript this morning. Neither one of them really hit on issues pertaining to how they will lead this country to a safe, economicly stable next four years.
I think Bush was really strong on his "Grand Diversion" point...
I too have a lot of high school friends in Iraq...I've even contemplated joining myself. I think that everyone over there is there because they want to be and because they believe in this.
There are other reasons we're there, beyond WMDs. Sadaam is a murderer. He's a vicious tyrant. The people there were being murdered. By freeing Iraq, it will <hopefully> send a message to other Muslim countries and peoples.
Of course we have financial desires too...anyone who says they wouldn't like to pay less for gas is lying to you
I think Bush also schooled Kerry on the Bi-later vs. Multi-lateral talks with N. Korea. Kerry wants Bi-lateral talks, but at the same time wants to include China......thats Multi-lateral talks Mr. Kerry
He also schooled him on the Iran sanctions.
And I'm very suprised that Bush didn't catch Kerry on the $200 billion war costs...its not predicted to hit $200 billion for another 10 years (i don't know how they got that number either)
I too have a lot of high school friends in Iraq...I've even contemplated joining myself. I think that everyone over there is there because they want to be and because they believe in this.
There are other reasons we're there, beyond WMDs. Sadaam is a murderer. He's a vicious tyrant. The people there were being murdered. By freeing Iraq, it will <hopefully> send a message to other Muslim countries and peoples.
Of course we have financial desires too...anyone who says they wouldn't like to pay less for gas is lying to you
I think Bush also schooled Kerry on the Bi-later vs. Multi-lateral talks with N. Korea. Kerry wants Bi-lateral talks, but at the same time wants to include China......thats Multi-lateral talks Mr. Kerry
He also schooled him on the Iran sanctions.
And I'm very suprised that Bush didn't catch Kerry on the $200 billion war costs...its not predicted to hit $200 billion for another 10 years (i don't know how they got that number either)
