Presidential Debate - Page 2

Funka Genocide · 10-01-2004, 07:48 AM

I maintain that Bush and Kerry didn't swing anything in this debate. As sad as the facts are, most have already made up their mind. This morning someone said to me "did you see the presidential debate last night? Bush kicked Kerry's ass!" I couldn't help but stare dumbly at the man, he just saw what he wanted to, and no amount of logic or discussion will change that. People who vote for Bush either have some stake in his goals, big business and such, or just don't want to think too deeply. I'm not sorry for saying that either. There may be a few Bush supporters out there with actual reasons based on political logic, but for the most part his constituents are composed of non political thinkers. They look at him and say "well, he's been doing it for four years already, and I don't really know what all the ruccous is about, so I'll just vote for him." People who take the world at face value and don't delve any deeper than a surface, thats what composes the majority of our country and thats who will vote for Bush. There aren't enough swing voters to win this, and unless the country has some sort of miraculous bout of "I give a damn" this thing will go Bush's way.

And I am so pissed of about that!

Sky Warrior Bob · 10-01-2004, 11:10 AM

My opinion is this, you're only as good a debater, as the material you have to work with, and how well you understand it. Personally, I don't think Bush has taken a hands on approach to this war, and it shows in the debate. If you want the Bush administration's real take on the war, you have to talk to people aside from Bush.

I also have come to the opinion that Bush simply can't read from a script. While talking on his own, he does have a tendancy to ramble, but most of his 'Bushisms' seem to come from his attempts to read from a script. So frankly, I think he either needs far better script writers, or needs to start talking a whole lot more, from the hip.

Sky Warrior Bob
PS - Yes, I think Bush lost, and lost big time.

Luna Santin · 10-01-2004, 12:16 PM

TRANSCRIPTS, for your reading pleasure: BBC (.pdf), CNN, and FOX. Pick your poison. I haven't spotted any differences yet, but I haven't really been looking for any.

Personally, I thought Bush started off well, but give Kerry at least a slight advantage by the end of things. I don't think I heard any new points or impressive arguments -- ratio of rhetoric to detail was too high. Being as anal as I am, I couldn't help but be amused at the dualistic treatment of Poland. :3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

The daily show isn’t the only unbiased source of news

I bite my thumb at anyone who honestly uses Daily Show their primary news source. Funny? Yes. Do I love it? Yes. I see it as humor based on the news, not news itself. It'll give you the gist of quite a few issues, but doesn't go into enough detail that I'd say it could give people an accurate idea of what's going on. Of course, the same could be said of most any TV news program, so I guess it's possible I'm being unreasonable. <_<

Hamelin · 10-01-2004, 12:48 PM

I was at a political lecture on Wednesday featuring Mary Matalin and James Carville (clicka), and as Carville was speaking about how one should look at debates he blunt out said that the regular strategy almost any politician uses in a debate is, when posed with a question, they answer it quickly, get it out of the way, and use the rest of the time to change the topic to something that they would rather talk about.

I couldn't help but think, Well, then why even pose specific questions to the candidates? What's the point if they're only going to answer the question superficially then move on to something else that is only a bit related at best?

Starbuck_II · 10-01-2004, 02:00 PM

Bush did do terrible. I worry about a so called "great debater", after all isn't Bush supposed to be a Master debater, no pun lol

Kerry won this won, but I guess one could say victory is in the eyes of the beholder?

ChaosMage · 10-01-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Santin

I bite my thumb at anyone who honestly uses Daily Show their primary news source. Funny? Yes. Do I love it? Yes. I see it as humor based on the news, not news itself.

Actually, I use the Today show as my primary source of news because its a faster rundown on the headlines than I get on CNN and lets me get out of the house by 7:10 with a superficially decent understanding of whats happened over the past 24 hours or so. For more indepth news, I head on over to the New York Times, which I get free in my email. I then turn to the Daily Show to aid in the removal of any political spin that might've been in either of my two news sources and frankly to see a little political incorrectness in the news, some blunt honesty.

For example, when Bush started listing Allies, "Great Britain, Poland" Jon Stewart cut him off and says, "Your second country is Poland!?" You know Kerry wanted to do the same thing, but he couldn't. "He actually forgot Poland." Again, Jon cuts off Bush. Its refreshing to see the news media, even though its loosely affiliated, giving some honest impressions of whats going on in the world and not the politically correct bullshit that has to come out lest someone wants a suing from a political party for libel.

10-01-2004, 02:42 PM

Yeah, I am going to have to say that Kerry took this debate. I think the main reason is that Bush is apparently not too good at talking.

Anyone who thinks Bush "kicked Kerry's ass" is uh...not clearly thinking. To put it nicely. He did well on most things, but stammered and stared too much. He also got way too defensive -- politics are not supposed to do that. It gives them a very bad outlook.

Anyway, I'm very curious to see how the upcoming debates will be. I think I'll tune into them to see how they go. (Just to note: I am looking for the VP Debates the most, since both guys are, from what I've heard/seen, incredible talkers)

DragonDaimyo · 10-01-2004, 08:29 PM

I was just watching the news and I figured out some things that really are sticking with me. I now must state that Kerry won the debate. He was the superior debater. He was fluid with his speech, he was poised and calm the whole time. I'm a solid Bush fan, but I must say that John Kerry was very impressive. I was surprised.

That having been said, I have to say that Bush won the argument, or in other words, his positions made the most sense. And I'm not the only one. Polls show that the majority of people agree with the President on the issues that are most important to them.

Also, a fun little fact to know and tell. Current polls state that that about 53% of people think Kerry won the debate, as opposed to about 37% for Bush. I just saw a statistic that said that about 34% of people said that Reagan won his first debate (I think during re-election, but seeing as he won solidly both time, does it really matter?). That's right, people thought Reagan did worse than people think Bush did last night, but we all know that he won big. So don't base your votes on that debate. More is sure to come.

Psrdirector · 10-01-2004, 11:59 PM

regan was also a crappy president. Well for one bush never one the first election, and if he steals this one also i will be really mad.
And debates do change things, especioly telivised debates, you see lots of people vote for who looks better (yeah stupid reason but surprisingly big one) Kenndy vs. Nixon was one of the first telivised debates, even though political anylists said Nixon was better, most people in America said Kenndy one cause they couldnt see Nixon (he wore a grey suit on black and white tvs he sorta blended in to the back ground) not only do the arguments change peoples votes, but a big thing is who looks better on th debates. We are a superfiscial country where you can be elected for looking good

10-02-2004, 01:03 AM

Actually, Psr, the debates have little effect on the decisions of most people. The only people it REALLY has any effect at all on are the undecided people -- like myself.

And, just to tell you...If you told people who are in their 30's to 50's that Reagan was a bad president, half of them would at least try to slap you silly (not joking there, either). I can't say if he was or not as I was not...er...quite alive at the time if my years are correct.

Uh...yeah.

I still say Arnold Schwarzenegger should be the president...

10-01-2004, 11:10 AM	#12
Sky Warrior Bob bOB iZ brOkeN Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a nice place to visit... Posts: 3,755	My opinion is this, you're only as good a debater, as the material you have to work with, and how well you understand it. Personally, I don't think Bush has taken a hands on approach to this war, and it shows in the debate. If you want the Bush administration's real take on the war, you have to talk to people aside from Bush. I also have come to the opinion that Bush simply can't read from a script. While talking on his own, he does have a tendancy to ramble, but most of his 'Bushisms' seem to come from his attempts to read from a script. So frankly, I think he either needs far better script writers, or needs to start talking a whole lot more, from the hip. Sky Warrior Bob PS - Yes, I think Bush lost, and lost big time. __________________ :bmage: Because breakdancing is evil, and so am I, you will click on this link: The power of evil compels you... You are in error. No one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation. Yes I know the breakdancing BM link doesn't work, and I don't care.

10-01-2004, 12:48 PM	#14
Hamelin OMG! Sea Monster! Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 881	I was at a political lecture on Wednesday featuring Mary Matalin and James Carville (clicka), and as Carville was speaking about how one should look at debates he blunt out said that the regular strategy almost any politician uses in a debate is, when posed with a question, they answer it quickly, get it out of the way, and use the rest of the time to change the topic to something that they would rather talk about. I couldn't help but think, Well, then why even pose specific questions to the candidates? What's the point if they're only going to answer the question superficially then move on to something else that is only a bit related at best? __________________ daily deviations

10-01-2004, 02:00 PM	#15
Starbuck_II Paladin, I like swordz 2 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Portsmouth, Virginia Posts: 119	Bush did do terrible. I worry about a so called "great debater", after all isn't Bush supposed to be a Master debater, no pun lol Kerry won this won, but I guess one could say victory is in the eyes of the beholder? __________________ "With the power of Conviction there is no Sacrifice!" "Power is not for yourserf, it is for others. If you have to power to help another it should be your duty to help them. That is what I think and that is what I follow. But then again I am only a Spoony bard, who are you?" Chris, my bard in Soul Fire

10-01-2004, 08:29 PM	#18
DragonDaimyo Man without an avatar. Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, hidden underneath the fridge Posts: 380	I was just watching the news and I figured out some things that really are sticking with me. I now must state that Kerry won the debate. He was the superior debater. He was fluid with his speech, he was poised and calm the whole time. I'm a solid Bush fan, but I must say that John Kerry was very impressive. I was surprised. That having been said, I have to say that Bush won the argument, or in other words, his positions made the most sense. And I'm not the only one. Polls show that the majority of people agree with the President on the issues that are most important to them. Also, a fun little fact to know and tell. Current polls state that that about 53% of people think Kerry won the debate, as opposed to about 37% for Bush. I just saw a statistic that said that about 34% of people said that Reagan won his first debate (I think during re-election, but seeing as he won solidly both time, does it really matter?). That's right, people thought Reagan did worse than people think Bush did last night, but we all know that he won big. So don't base your votes on that debate. More is sure to come. __________________ DO NOT MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF DRAGONS! for you are crunchy and good with ketchup! :rmage: "A fire dragon's organs are vulnerable to ice spells! I am a genius!!!"

10-01-2004, 07:48 AM	#11
Funka Genocide Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,566	I maintain that Bush and Kerry didn't swing anything in this debate. As sad as the facts are, most have already made up their mind. This morning someone said to me "did you see the presidential debate last night? Bush kicked Kerry's ass!" I couldn't help but stare dumbly at the man, he just saw what he wanted to, and no amount of logic or discussion will change that. People who vote for Bush either have some stake in his goals, big business and such, or just don't want to think too deeply. I'm not sorry for saying that either. There may be a few Bush supporters out there with actual reasons based on political logic, but for the most part his constituents are composed of non political thinkers. They look at him and say "well, he's been doing it for four years already, and I don't really know what all the ruccous is about, so I'll just vote for him." People who take the world at face value and don't delve any deeper than a surface, thats what composes the majority of our country and thats who will vote for Bush. There aren't enough swing voters to win this, and unless the country has some sort of miraculous bout of "I give a damn" this thing will go Bush's way. And I am so pissed of about that!

10-01-2004, 02:42 PM	#17
LordTobias Guest Posts: n/a	Yeah, I am going to have to say that Kerry took this debate. I think the main reason is that Bush is apparently not too good at talking. Anyone who thinks Bush "kicked Kerry's ass" is uh...not clearly thinking. To put it nicely. He did well on most things, but stammered and stared too much. He also got way too defensive -- politics are not supposed to do that. It gives them a very bad outlook. Anyway, I'm very curious to see how the upcoming debates will be. I think I'll tune into them to see how they go. (Just to note: I am looking for the VP Debates the most, since both guys are, from what I've heard/seen, incredible talkers)

10-01-2004, 11:59 PM	#19
Psrdirector Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the worst State in the damn world Indiana Posts: 1,261	regan was also a crappy president. Well for one bush never one the first election, and if he steals this one also i will be really mad. And debates do change things, especioly telivised debates, you see lots of people vote for who looks better (yeah stupid reason but surprisingly big one) Kenndy vs. Nixon was one of the first telivised debates, even though political anylists said Nixon was better, most people in America said Kenndy one cause they couldnt see Nixon (he wore a grey suit on black and white tvs he sorta blended in to the back ground) not only do the arguments change peoples votes, but a big thing is who looks better on th debates. We are a superfiscial country where you can be elected for looking good

10-02-2004, 01:03 AM	#20
LordTobias Guest Posts: n/a	Actually, Psr, the debates have little effect on the decisions of most people. The only people it REALLY has any effect at all on are the undecided people -- like myself. And, just to tell you...If you told people who are in their 30's to 50's that Reagan was a bad president, half of them would at least try to slap you silly (not joking there, either). I can't say if he was or not as I was not...er...quite alive at the time if my years are correct. Uh...yeah. I still say Arnold Schwarzenegger should be the president...