Presidential Debates
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What did you think?</div> Did you watch the debates? What did you think?
Kerry about 4 or 5 times started his sentence with something like "When I was in Vietnam..." or "What I learned in Vietnam..."
Maybe it is because I'm bias towards Bush, but I'd say he kicked some tail this time.
Kerry about 4 or 5 times started his sentence with something like "When I was in Vietnam..." or "What I learned in Vietnam..."
Maybe it is because I'm bias towards Bush, but I'd say he kicked some tail this time.
Comments
Bush++;
While Kerry may have referred to his war record a hundred times, Bush mentioned Kerry's inconsistencies at least a hundred more. Also, I hope Bush never writes a book, because it'll have so many redundancy errors, you'll forget if you'd already read the book before.
Bush dodged questions like a mofo, and seemed to never be able to find any conclusions to his counterarguments. He would make outrageous claims, and then trail off into oblivion. I felt like I was playing a game of mad libs, there were so many blanks to fill. At least listening to Kerry didn't feel like I had a Britney Spears song stuck on infinite playback for a hundred freaking years.
All in all, what a waste of my time. Now I'll be up til 11:00 doing HW, not to mention a complete loss of faith in politics. I probably will be watching the next debate though - an entire hour and thirty minutes on something besides "homeland security" would be nice.
However I knida figured it would go like this, Kerry knew this was his only chance to catch up with Bush's lead and he was on his presidential A-game. Debating is much more a strength of Kerry then Bush, and we saw that tonight.
Right now I think they're on even ground, no one won this debate, but Kerry didn't lose it. So the next one will decide for me at least.
By the way I think Bush said "mixed message" exactly five thousand and fifty three times.
Seriously, how many times did he say "IT IS HARD WORK!"
That's right, it is! And all you had to do was make a goddamn speech so a thousand kids could do all this "HARD WORK" for you and die! Look, even I'm getting sidetracked.
Anyway, I consider this a loss for Bush as he failed to justify his war in Iraq, and the connection between Saddam and Terrorism.
Also, Kerry brought up his war record SEVEN times in the debate. I think doing something like that is ten times worse than Bush saying 'hard work' and denouncing Saddam Hussein. Thats like Kerry jumping around in a pink tutu screaming for people to look at him. He just wants attention because he did something Bush didn't.
I know plenty of vets, all of which are better people than John Kerry, and they served in the same war. Sure he deserves respect for it, but he shouldnt bring it up every time someone poins a video camera at him.
Also, camO.o, Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. He might not have attacked us directly, but look at the crap he's done to Iraq, is that not terrorism? I say Bush won this argument, he had a faily good rebuttle for everything John Kerry said.
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/</a>
In my opinion, Bush dodged a lot of questions by answering them all the same way which was basically, "theres a threat and we can't waver in our message". That doesn't speak to the validity of his "solutions" at all which Kerry btw effectively challenged every time.
Kerry on the other hand was much more articulate and answered every question quite directly, had plans for fixing the mess America is in on its foreign policy and he also melted my fears of the flip flopping he has been continually been accused of.
With regards to the flip flopping it sounded to me like Kerry was saying that if you recognize theres a mistake and what you are doing isn't working, you should change tactics; I don't think thats flip flopping at all, its smart.
Bush on the other hand seems to be sticking with the wrong tactics even after they have reaped bad results which is scary because it means even more Americans will die under his leadership.
Not to mention they asked Bush directly if he would send troops to another war and he says we went to war because they attacked us. But Kerry and also the reporters afterwards remind us that "they" was Osama Bin Laden, not Sadaam Hussein according to the 9/11 commision. Notice Bush refused to even utter the word "Osama" in the entire debate and he was the one who attacked us.
So anyways, I'm looking forward to more hiney kicking from Kerry in the next debate. He really took over the room tonight.
Hmmm continually firing at our planes patroling the no fly zone, and participating in an assassination attempt on a former president isnt an attack?
Anywho, I don't think there is ever a clear winner. There never is, everyone comes in with preconceptions and the canidates only win if they are able to change this preconceptions. As for me, I need to find a transcript of the debate as my schools football team was playing. anyone know where i can get one?
Also, reporters are liberals (99.9% of them are), so they are innately biased, so it doesn't suprise me that they said Kerry won.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html</a>
Looks like the consensus is that Bush got stomped.
Granted they are internet polls, but they seem to be pretty decisive.
The next debate is on domestic policy, IIRC. That will be far more interesting. I think that Kerry is going to make a good showing on that one and will beat Bush. By how much, I can't say, but I do think the victory will go to Kerry.
At any rate, I doubt either of them will wrest my vote out of the hands of Badnarik.
Edit: I missed the polling links. Wow. Those are really lopsided. I'm sure the pollsters are out in force, or will be tomorrow. It will be really interesting to see if the debates have a big effect on the race. I bet it will make this race hella tight.
Ah, internet polls are decided by whichever sides' influential bloggers can get out and rally the troops first.
I had to work late and didn't get to see them, dammit-- though I have read that initial reaction seems to indicate that regardless of who was considered to 'win' or 'lose', those polled personally didn't seem inclined to change their vote.
Trend-wise, you can see that in this very thread. Victory is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
It was a clear victory for Bush in my eyes. Towards the end, everyone here anyway was saying how Kerry was inconsistent and didn't know what he was talking about. Then, all my friends are conservative, and so I think how you looked at the debates is largely determined by your personal political views.
I'm hearing people on the news pro-Kerry saying how Bush was oozing utter babble for at least 25 minutes of the debate, and then I hear the pro-Bush people saying how Kerry had no idea on earth what he was saying and that it was clear Bush was taking a commanding lead. It's kinda funny actually.
Kerry: "I will also kill a lot of terrorists."
go canada. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I say Bush won over you with his ****. If you'd been paying attention, Kerry pointed out multiple times that N. Korea was just as strong a threat, but we're not shooting the hell out of them, now are we? (Not that I'm suggesting you need to be half as intelligent as Kerry to make a point out of that) Go look in the MSN poll, about the only people who have managed to somehow convince themselves that Bush came off the better are the die-hard Bush junkies. I'd hardly consider the results of a poll 1.5 hours after the debate is heavily influenced by web blogs and other "linkages." Dozens of people probably logged on the MSNBC site for more information on the election following the debate.
Throughout the entire debate, Bush had nothing except Kerry's inconsistencies to go on. Bush did surprisingly well when he was on the offensive, and his criticism of Kerry's flippy floppiness was just as well articulated as Kerry, but when put on the defensive, his responses were hesitant, inconclusive, and full of uhs and uhms. During his 30 second counterarguments, he almost never finds a suitable conclusion to his argument, and sort of trails off half-assedly. Kerry, on the other hand, was strong and confident throughout the debate, and I'll be damned if he muttered a single "uh" throughout the entire 90 minutes.
While Bush's awkwardness may not be much more than a lack of debate experience, I'd say it was more like he just had nothing good to say. In fact, I noticed that he quite often avoided the question completely, and resorted to previously noted "pro-soldier and anti-saddamage" rants. Take the very second question for example, which I believe was somewhere along the lines of <i>If your opponent were to be elected, do you think he would be able to prevent another 9/11 type attack?</i> He simply spurned the question by stating how Kerry would not win the election, and transformed the question into an opportunity to promote his views and capability as a leader.
Oh btw guys, this is the discussion forum, if you can't take the time to make an intelligent post, then refrain from posting, kthx.
P.S. and don't forget Bush's freudian slip: "We're trying to capture Saddam... uh, Al Qaeda."
Also, reporters are liberals (99.9% of them are), so they are innately biased, so it doesn't suprise me that they said Kerry won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either you've never heard of Fox News or you're being funny.
Bush included them in the axis of evil for different reasons other than terrorism if you ask me
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#survey
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html</a>
Looks like the consensus is that Bush got stomped.
Granted they are internet polls, but they seem to be pretty decisive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one should ever take an internet poll seriously, or any poll where you "choose" to vote, because then it's not random and you are getting a baised voter sample.
Statistics 101 dude
Since we are dealing with a secluded sample of voters, and we know the internet does not represent the majority of the voters, we can concluded these polls to be... approx = 0
Not this flawed logic again. How many times do we have to debunk this - this is the same sort of stupidity that Gabe from Penny Arcade had to deal with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I got a ton of mail from people asking if we need volunteers for Child’s Play 2004. If certain hospitals find themselves overwhelmed with donations and need help sorting through them we may put the word out for readers in that area to help. Unloading all the toys is a big job and if a hospital needs help we’ll let you know.
I also got a mail from someone telling me that the Buzzcomix forum wanted to help us out this year. This surprised me at first since most of the guys over there really seem to hate us for some reason. I thought that perhaps they had decided to put aside their dislike for PA long enough to support a good cause. I hit the link he gave me and discovered that they still don’t like us very much. One of the guys posting in the thread really got to me and I wanted to address some of his complaints here. He started off by saying this:
“Sorry to wet-blanket all of this, but true chairty can only occur when it is done without the knowledge of others. Otherwise, it becomes a form of ego validation.
Sticking up big signs that shout WE'RE HELPING THE KIDS is not altruistic in the slightist.”
I understand that at some point everyone turns seventeen and thinks they are smarter than everyone else. We’ve all been there. I’d hate to think of the **** I said when I was seventeen made public and archived forever on the internet. I know that in a few years he’ll look back at this post and shake his head. I still wanted to comment on it htough.
It’s a nice thought but the reality is that if we did this by ourselves we could have given a couple hundred dollars each. However by “sticking up big signs” we were able to raise almost $200,000 in toys and cash. So we’re not being altruistic, do you think the thousands of children that benefited from Child’s Play 2003 would agree or even care? If there was just one guy draining his blood and keeping it in his fridge would that be more altruistic than the Red Cross? Or do you think the Red Cross is full of **** because of the huge flags they fly wherever they go? The bottom line is that the more you promote a charity the more good it can do.
Then he followed up with this post:
“This isn’t like Make A wish or some similar organization. They live it. They do it every day. Where will you, Gabe and Tycho be on December 26th? At the hospital hugging the wee ones? Somehow I doubt it.
Now I could be wrong, but until I get shown otherwise, this is nothing more than Christmas Charity, ultimately meaningless because it does not show true compassion to your fellow human being. And that's what I find repulsive about these "acts of compassion"
But I think we do agree on one thing, assuming that's what your meaning is: If it takes Christmas charity to get people to break out of their selfish little shells at least once a year, then it's an improvement. But please spare me the **** that this is being done for the kids and the kids alone.
Our culture has taken self-aggrandizement to artistic levels. Wrapping yourself up in a cloak of compassion once a year in the hopes that someone will notice is just a sick twisting of what the true meaning of charity is.
Anyway, get back to me when this is a weekly event.”
Once again this post smacks of “seventeen-ism”. Unless he’s typing this post with one hand and giving blood with the other he can go **** himself. You’re telling me that unless I can help someone every single day it’s worthless to help anyone ever? Unless I spend every day at the hospital hugging sick kids I shouldn’t bother trying to help them at all? What you’re asking for is certainly admirable but in reality it’s not possible. I’m not Mother Teresa, I just draw a comic strip about games. The majority of people couldn’t and wouldn’t devote their lives to charity. If we all lived by your rules no one would ever help anyone, not even once a year. Your outlook means that since you can’t help everyone you never have to help anyone. How convenient for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These guys didnt help with consistency, they just helped when and where they could, and someone had the gall to claim the whole thing a fiasco because they didnt do it for life. Which is exactly what Kerry is promoting.
The Americans have already bitten off more than they can chew in Iraq, what on Earth would prompt anyone with half a brain to say "omg but you arent fighting ALL the bad guys, so there goes your moral reasoning". Did the Allies attack Stalin in WW2? He was just as bad, if not worse than Hitler. Following this inanitiy to its ultimate conclusion, the allies should have fought both. And lost. America should be judged on what it does with each action taken individually, which is why I criticise its handling of Rwanda and Sth America, but applaud the Iraq war.
Which internet poll has actually EVER supported Bush. Find one that doesnt come from www.bushftw.com. So explain to me why it is that polling in America finds it about a dead heat?
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133316,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133316,00.html</a>
AND SOMETHING USERFUL
THE TRANSCRIPTS AND VIDEO!!!!~
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html</a>
Statistics 101 dude
Since we are dealing with a secluded sample of voters, and we know the internet does not represent the majority of the voters, we can concluded these polls to be... approx = 0 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No need to be condescending. Of course it isn't accurate, but its interesting that it's the widest gap between Bush and Kerry I've ever seen on an internet poll.
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133316,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133316,00.html</a>
AND SOMETHING USERFUL
THE TRANSCRIPTS AND VIDEO!!!!~
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be nice if the poll was actually taken after the debate, or has anything to do with the debate, I think.