Americans, are you watching right now?
Once this is over, I'd like to get some input from what other people have to say about the current debate tonight.
Take care all.
Printable View
Americans, are you watching right now?
Once this is over, I'd like to get some input from what other people have to say about the current debate tonight.
Take care all.
Cant.... damn TV is busted
Watching it right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me in my LJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
I taped it and I'm about to go watch it. I heard a few minutes of the beginning of the debates, but I haven't really paid attention. *watches*
I watched most of it and I agree with Kerry on foriegn policy a lot. Kerry explained why his plan would work and why the current plan isn't working. All Bush could do is say 'My plan is working and his can't' and offered no explaination.
I hate them both but Kerry sound and looked good tonight. The Bush couldn't stop stumbling when he talked and was some what hunched over.
Kerry was quick to reply to everything for the most part and rarely stumbled.
Thats just how they presented themselves. I don't agree with Bush at all. I am a person for as much globalization as possible and Bush in xenophobic and doesn't care about the rest of the world and only the USA(which I think makes the US look like a tyrant and an enemy to most and actually will put us in more harm in the future).
What does everyone think?
This debate has drastically changed my view, and though I disliked both candidates before, I find myself agreeing with Kerry more and more.
Like ed, his views on foreign policy seem extremely reasonable to me. Bush has proved to be a complete idiot when it comes to trying to get allies. In the debate he mentioned the countries that have supported us, but Kerry was quick to rebuttle by describing the small numbers they offer. "90% casualties, 90% cost," Kerry said a couple times.
Bush screwed up, as far as I'm concerned. He was very unproffessional. He paused awkwardly far too often, he avoided Kerry's challenges and hid behind his constant, "Mixed message," excuse. ed was also right that Bush rarely gave support as to why his methods were working. Kerry didn't have that burden, however, as his ideas had not been put to the test.
My dad, who I watched it with, pointed out that, in the beginning, both Bush and Kerry were looking towards the crowd or Lehrer. I was a bit taken by this. I didn't really notice, but once I did, it was really, really awkward. Once I was aware of this, I kept waiting for them to look. Eye contact is important, even if you're on TV, looking at the camera is just as good.
Kerry was a lot more organized in his approach. He constantly took notes, and when you looked at him, you knew he was listening to Bush. He was sly and when Bush said something without clarifying what he was refering to it, Kerry turned it around on him. That may upset some, but that strikes me as intelligent, and I'd like an intelligent president.
Kerry made the mistake of saying, "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place," and Bush mashed that into him for the rest of the debate. I think Bush used it too much, and in the end, it didn't mean the same thing anymore and it's effectiveness was completely lost.
Kerry thrashed Bush's rear.
I would like to point out that the canidates were not looking at the camera the whole time and also not necessairly looking at the audience. In front of the person dishing out the questions and time limits was a green, yellow and red light thing(just like the canidates had on their podium) so that they would know when they had to stop speaking and when to start wrapping it up.
While it is a bit distracting it helps to keep things more organized and helps things to move faster and flow smoother.
True, but they spent a great deal of time watching those lights then.
I know. I think they did the best job they could. They have to look at the commentator, the opponent, the audience, the lights AND us. I think they did a fairly good job of it. Not great but not horrible either given all the different spots to focus on.
I couldn't agree more with the assessments given thus far:
Kerry seemed very into the debates, into what was being said and was quick to response and most importantly had a clear message and stuck with it in a clear way. He was very knowledgable on global politics, in fact seemed more so than Bush did, which isn't a good sign.
Bush in my opinion was his usual self, in that he couldn't really articulate his answers and by the end seemed almost disinterested, which will be unforgiving in this era of "Image" TV. He seemed to be hoping that his points would come together but instead seemed to only continue to string together phrases that, as others have said, rang hollow by the end.
A few polls that shot up after the debate on CBS, ABC, and NBC had Kerry with a big victory in this debate and that many undecided voters were clearly in favor of what Kerry had to say over Bush.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a true race now.
Take care all.
I really REALLY hope the polls show this next week. Thats when we will really know if what was said stuck around. In the coming days people will think about what was said a lot more and decide if they REALLY TRUELY agree with what was said. I say wait till next weeks polls and you know there is going to be a change.
I thought this was going to be the easiest debate to win for Kerry. The economy should be easy also but Bush will hammer those tax cuts for everyone. I hope Kerry has a message of being more fiscally conservative...or at least smart about it and tries to decrease the deficit and maybe attempt to do something about the debt(Long shot...I know).
Yeah, because Bush was really pissed off at Kerry. I notice how his face got all red.Quote:
I hate them both but Kerry sound and looked good tonight. The Bush couldn't stop stumbling when he talked and was some what hunched over.
I just think Kerry is a flip-flopper. He voted for the war then voted against it, and before on. He also kept talking about he's going to rebuild things but he never said how.
I agree with Bush...Quote:
My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way - wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a great diversion.
30 Allies in collolition forces...We are fighting with 90% of everything over there. That means the other 30 countires are doing 1/3 of 1 percent. Great collolition there :rolleyes:
He said he would START getting us out of Iraq. We will stay there as long as we have to but his plan calls for a majority of forces out in 4 years and not 6 months.
EDIT: I see you delete A LOT of what you put down noname. Guess I am going to have to be a jerk and put down the jist of what you said.
He complained that Kerry was going to get us out of Iraq in 6 months. He also said something about Kerry complaining that we didn't have a big collolition when we went in and said we had 30 countires.
Then the rest was really a huge complain about vietnam and swift boat stuff.
I am going to target those 30 countires again and ask how many of them made a big commitment outside of the UK and Austrialia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Well Bush won the debate IMO. At least he isnt as big as a "flip flopper" as Kerry is. What can we expect of the U.N. to not help, when France, Germany, and Russia at the time had oil contracts with Iraq. Even the oil for food program, France supplied Iraq with weapons. You can even call Jaque Chirac, Jaque Iraq.
And ''90%'' of the troops over there are ours. And the rest are coalitions forces from 30 different countries, at least those countries are helping out.
edit:I'm just really tired to think right now with SATs coming up. To tired to debate, and I dont think its worth debating over since its rather petty. We all can just agree that you think that way, and I think this way. :) Thats why I deleted alot of my last post, but it looks like you saw it to soon.
I hate them both. I still think I hate Kerry more though.
Well normally don't say much when people edit their posts and I see it but I had already post my response myself damn it :D
I also agree that we think way to differently. I am such a global person.
chaos: Well really, they both are candidates I don't like. For one, Kerry kept moving the spotlight to Osama, while Bush kept going on about "you have to take the offensive" along with Saddam.
Rubedo: Truly, that took up most of the time. Although, Kerry seemed more prepared. Bush made quite a few mistakes, but, he too did make some points I suppose.
Trowa: Perhaps they should give Neider a chance?
Leaders often have to change their minds; it's a part of coming to the right conclusion. Admitting error, listening to new information. Bush just blunders ahead with whatever he sets his heart on, regardless of what arises. Hell, there were times when I supported the idea of military action against Iraq, dependent on certain conditions. However, the conduct of the war, its consequences, the reasoning behind it don't stand up to just and reasonable scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
Who's running the interim administration in Afghanistan? Whose peacekeepers are dying to protect Iraq? Whose operations have helped with peacekeeping in the Balkans, restored democracy to East Timor and recently cleaned up the Solomon Islands corruption? The UN.Quote:
What can we expect of the U.N. to not help,
And who was the biggest beneficiary of the "oil for food" programme, the biggest supporter of the flawed sanctions? The US, of course. Saddam Hussein waged war on Iran when both sides were armed by the US. His grip on power was firmed by US support. It's severly hyppocritical for the US to blame other nations for not supporting the invasion it led.Quote:
when France, Germany, and Russia at the time had oil contracts with Iraq. Even the oil for food program, France supplied Iraq with weapons. You can even call Jaque Chirac, Jaque Iraq.
President Bush is entirely content to condemn other nations to destruction, because in his opinion they pose a threat, or harbour undesirables. People die because of his whims, and he tells us that his God is giving his blessing.
Under Kerry, the US would have fewer inflexible, hard-line do-or-die policies. Other nations would be more prepared to trust the US, because of Kerry's apparent ability to listen to reason, rather than forming one cemented opinion and closing his eyes to any information except that which backs up his notions. I don't hate Bush, but I do see his leadership as presenting a huge risk to the safety of the US, international alliances, and the free world in general.
chaos: I agree with what Big D had to say. Kerry admitted that he made a mistake, accepted it, and changed it. Bush on the other hand, stayed with his decision even if it was wrong.
Rubedo: Although, he did stay with his decision, continuing something wrong wouldn't be what I'd truly want. I'd say Kerry would be my choice, but anything can happen. Before, I detested both of them.
Having spent the last two hours listening to talking heads on both the left and right, the answer is more or less the same:
Kerry won the debate. If this was being scored like an actual debate, he'd have dominated across the board, though I'd hardly call this an actual debate to be frank. When neither candidate could directly question the other, it ended up being more or less two people talking about their views without either calling each other out directly. Yet, despite that, Kerry who I think we can all agree is a much more skilled debater, was more able to use standard debate tactics to call Bush out on certain thigns said. On the other hand, Bush remained on his point, and while I really feel it's a flawed one, his supporters thought he stayed on message.
Also of note, many many people noticed how Bush became flustered when Kerry pointed something out, and if this is any indication of how the second two debates will go, Republicans beware because it's usually the cooler, more collected of the two that gains the upperhand.
Kerry had a lot to gain tonight and he did so. Bush didn't really say anything profound nor did he really change anyone's opinion because he hardly strayed from his same message.
The real tests now are to come: the town hall meeting in St. Louis, where we will see who really can act on their feet, the third debate in Arizona which will supposedly be a discussion of economics and domestic affairs and finally, the single vice presidential debate in Ohio. If things hold up or hold pattern as they have through this first debate, the race will be a lot closer than it appears on the surface.
Also to keep in mind before factoring in polling and the apparent gaps that the candidates have or had: this may well prove to be the election that ups the ante in the voter process. Judging from what I've gathered, there is a large influx of new blood who have never voted before and right now, their views haven't factored into the current polls. The question is, will these new voters be for Bush or Kerry?
Take care all.
Kerry is not a flip flopper. He's just a liar. He gave bush the authority to go to war knowing all to well that he would invade iraq. There was no moral reason behind the invasion of iraq at all, but there was a political reason, and that's why kerry voted for it. Now he is just twisting the truth and trying to use the war against geroge bush. I hope it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
If anybody is a 'flip flopper' its Bush. We went to war because of WMD's. No wait, we went to war because he posed an imminent threat. No wait, we wen't to war to 'liberate' an oppressed people. No no, wait, i got it now, we went to war to spread democracy and revolutionize the middle east. And we call Kerry the flip flopper? Please...
I watched this at an absurd time on BBC News. I thought that Kerry nailed Bush on the debate, however I did get a little a bit scared when he said:
"I am going to hunt down and kill the terrorists." He had a psychotic glint in his eye! It was good to watch though. Very interesting.
I didn't see a lot of it, but I recorded it. I'll probably watch it tonight.
From what I saw though, Bush represented himself quite poorly. His points aside, he stuttered a great deal and used the word "um" far too much. Both of these things should NEVER happen in a debate.
How is this an excuse? If I'm mad at someone and debating with them, it pushes me to do better. If someone can't control their temper in a simple debate, I shudder to see how they will handle much more important matters with the power of the presidency behind them...Quote:
Yeah, because Bush was really pissed off at Kerry. I notice how his face got all red.
... oh wait.
Oh, well, I was sure Kerry was going to speak better. Bush can have people write speeches for him, he can have Cheney, and Ashcroft and the rest of the pigs in the Republican party backing him up. However, well, everyone knows Bush is not exactly bright. On a face to face with an intelligent person- and I may not like Kerry much but he is intelligent- Bush cannot go into his speeches or seek for help: He is alone and relies on his wisdom and intelligence. And those are not his great atributes.
If the Americans are so unimpressed with a 'flip-flopping' candidate, then they shouldn't be so high in praise for Tony Blair. He has done U-turns on most major policies I can think of. The two that spring to mind were that: 1: he said that unilateral action should not be taken without the UN's consent 2: he said that he would not instigate top-up fees for universities. There were many other policies as well he has flip-flopped over. No reverse gear, my arse.
And from what I can gather from most news sources, Kerry had a clear, but narrow, win over Bush.
The eyes of the rest of the world, there is no bigger "flip-flopper" than President Bush.
I hate both those corporate lying bastards both with a passion (both of the suckers mentioned the Iraq war for Israeli security twice), but Kerry definitely flattened Bush in the debate. The American newspapers are mostly owned by Republicans I'm assuming because a lot of them even went as far to say "DEBATES A TIE". The press is supporting Bush big time. What debate? I don't recall Bush ever even putting Kerry on the verge of a sweat. He looked and sounded horrible.
And a big point I would like to make is, he had no reply to Kerry's comment on Halliburton.
Kerry won. Although he too is an ass.
All polling indicates Kerry won the debate. Which makes me happy. Which is all that matters. ;)
You've just written my US History additional point exam essay...THANK YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphier
No seriously thats my thoughts exactly on the debates...though the way they were looking didn't really stand out to me...meh.
Oh yes I should probably point out that the debates tend to look bad because of all the stipulations placed on both debaters by the different parties so that they really aren't debates more than a mockery thereof.
Kerry is certainly more eloquent. Bush got a bit repetitive.
Kerry contradicted himself though, quite blatantly.
I can't believe how trite it is to call Kerry a "flip-flopper." Throughout the course of the entire debates, Bush has said things tot he extent of "We are now safer because of my initiative with homeland security." What's actually interesting, and makes Bush WAY more of a flip-flopper than Kerry, is that he opposed Homeland security legislation when it was first proposed, but then he realised that public opinion went along with it so he changed his mind. Loser.
The debates were more amusing than popular late nite [sic] television, including: Conan, Leno and Letterman. I have not laughed so hard before. :p