" Presidental Debate "

[Love2Laugh08]

I'm pretty sure most of you will watch some/all of this so I wanna know what you think about what they had to say!?



(Its not over yet)



I watched some of it but I don't really understand what they mean...



Anyone wanna make a recap of what each said!





Or just comment on the debate!

[Spitfire]

It just ended a minute ago here, and I found it pretty interesting. But one of the main things that they brought up is that Kerry is flip-flopping on what he says. I think Bush did the best today though. Kerry seems like he just wants to pull everybody out of Iraq and stick them all in North Korea. Overall, I think that Bush is a better choice, and that if Kerry won, he would end up putting our nation into more trouble as far as war, terrorism, and supporting nations. There were a lot of good issues, and I cant really remember them all to explain very well.

[Emily]

It just got over here too.



I was pretty impressed with John Kerry. For the most part, I didn't know much about him except what Bush and his supporters had said about his 'flipflopping', but to me he was very convincing. He seemed like he had a plan and was ready to go.

[Sovek]

What I saw is that Kerry is an idiot. He thinks if he is elected that he can automaticly win the war on terror better than bush.



Next he says we should have multi-national talks to Iraq before attacking them, While one the other hand we should have 1 on 1 talks with North Korea, what an idiot.

[Spitfire]

I dont think Kerry knows what he is talking about. He thinks that he is going be able to pull troops out in 6 months?? I dont. We are in this, and now we have to stay in it until we have succeded in the mission. If he pulls everybody out, the 1,000 deaths will be for nothing and the training of the Iraqi troops will be pointless becuase they will not yet know what to do and how to run their army. But hey, I am a Bush supporter for a lot of reasons that have to do with how Kerry isnt fixing the problems, just trying to quickly take us out of this one so that he can put us in a bigger one.

[5a5]

i though Kerry was stupid, most of the things he said didnt make sense to me, he was waving his hands like crazy, and contradicting himself all the time.., idk i actually liked how Bush handled it so far

[Doug]

Before I speak, I want to say that I looked at this as objectively as I could. I found things that both candidates did right, and things they did wrong.



In the beginning, Kerry was asked a question. He answered the question a simple yes, and then went on to give his thanks to Lehrer, Florida, etc. That took a good 20 seconds and I really disapproved of him doing that. We all know he's thankful, just answer the damn question.



Kerry looked incredibly decisive when he spoke. He was very well prepared and came armed with a lot of facts. He gave a clear description of what he would do differently than Bush, something he had not done in the past, and I think he is beginning to overcome the "flip-flopper" label.



One thing that really stuck with me is that Bush had many, many pauses. It seemed that he was unprepared and would have rather been somewhere else. There was a lot of "uhh" and silence. Even when he asked for the extra 30 seconds for rebuttal, there was silence. That stuck with me, especially since Kerry did not do that, and I think that it will stick with the American public.



I thought that Kerry's decisiveness and clarity really made it seem that Bush was out of place (and possibly out of line) saying, "The only thing consistent about my challenger's position....uhh...is that he's inconsistant." Bush said this after Kerry said that he has a clear position and outlined it. I thought it was very out of place.



Lastly, when talking about the "Coalition of the Willing." Bush said, in responding to Kerry's charge that it is not a strong coalition, "We have England, and, uhh, we have Poland." When I heard this, I thought exactly what Jon Stewart of the daily show said, "Poland?!? Your number two country is Poland?!?" Kerry refuted the coalition saying that the second largest number of troops from a country (with us being one) is about 4,200. After that, countries have less than a hundred. Keep in mind, we have about 100,000 (I believe).



That's about all I can remember clearly at this time, however if I remember more, I will certainly share it with you. Overall, I think Kerry did exceptionally well. He exceeded my expectations, and I learned new things about him that affirmed my support of him. I really honestly tried to make a case in my mind that Bush came out AT LEAST even on this, but I sincerely could not.



Doug

[Doug]

Now, I'd like to respond to the allegations and comments from the rest of you:



First, to Emily: Welcome back! I'm happy that you could look at this objectively. If memory serves, you were pretty pro-Bush. Are you still pretty pro-Bush or are you leaning towards undecided? The way I read it, you seemed to be a bit undecided.



Spitfire: Can you point out to me where Kerry flip-flopped in the debate? I did not catch it and Bush certainly did not, if in fact he did. Kerry never said he wanted to send troops to North Korea. He said that he wants to have bi-lateral talks with them in an attempt to stop their proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by spitfire+--<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'<tr<tdQUOTE (spitfire)</td</tr<tr<td id='QUOTE'if Kerry won, he would end up putting our nation into more trouble as far as war, terrorism, and supporting nations[/b]

How? Even Bush wouldn't say that? Where do you get this information from? Also, Kerry said he's going to work much closer with nations for their help. How would that turn them away?



Kerry didn't say he was going to pull all of the troops out in six months. He says that if all goes according to his plan, especially in regards to getting troops from other nations into Iraq, we can begin to pull some troops out. This would happen because there are multi-national troops in there to take the place of American troops. There is a large difference.



Sovek: Why do you personally insult Kerry? There was absolutley no need for that comment. He doesn't believe he can automatically win the war on terror, he has never once said that.



<!--QuoteBegin-Sovek

Next he says we should have multi-national talks to Iraq before attacking them, While one the other hand we should have 1 on 1 talks with North Korea, what an idiot. [/quote]



Even President Bush has said that we should treat every country differently. He does not plan on invading North Korea because, in his words, it's a different situation. He said that they are a much different situation than Iraq and that they are even a different situation than Iran. Please don't take this offensively, but you seem to be speaking from ignorance, without thoroughly investigating the issues.



Love2Laugh: Lol, I was hoping to start this topic with a summary. You beat me to starting it. I'm sorry you couldn't understand what they were saying, but realize you're not the only one. Hopefully you will understand as the years go on. If you want me to explain anything, feel free to ask. We all need help sometimes.



Doug



PS Jenna agrees with me too!

[Paris In Flames]

Very well said Doug.



Thank you.



Cheers,



Jenna

[Brad]

I wholeheartedly agree with Doug. Something I may add, though, was Kerry's repeated mentioning of his war-vet status...



While mentioning it once or twice would be appropriate, he used it quite frequentely, which turned me off, personally.



But, on the other hand, Bush probably mentioned Kerry's 'flip-flop' reputation at least a dozen times, even after Kerry cleared it up.

[Doug]

Yeah, he did mention it a few times. I think I counted 4. Which really isn't bad because he didn't say something like "I served in Vietnam." He equated his experiences to what the troops are feeling and what the country is going through...very well, I might add...and didn't make it seem like he was trying to bring a ton of attention to it.



Doug

[Brad]

Yeah, I'm sure it will work well with most voters, actually. So it was probably a good idea of Kerry to mention it. Overall, Kerry did quite good in that debate, and Bush didn't foul it up, but he didn't improve his position much, either.

[The Black Hat]

Kerry proved to be a true idiot tonight. He was throwing facts out and they were easily shot down by Bush. In the very beginning, you could clearly see Kerry shaking slightly. Watch the hands! During the entire speech, when Bush was talking, you could see Kerry scribbling, doodling on paper. He was very repetitive.

[Emily]

[Jaegermeister]

Ok I'm not going to get into huge debates about this, I'm just going to lay out my opinion and let you guys chew on it. Personally, I think John Kerry presented himself much better last night. One thing that really really pissed me off, and I can't wait for next week's debate, is how for the first hour and 15 minutes all the questions revolved around Iraq. There are so many much more important issues going on back home that I am much more concerned about. I am sick of constantly hearing about Iraq and how many new people died there. We have our "victory", now let's pack up and get home. I realize that Iraq needs to be stable, but if we stay over there too long Iraq will be dependant on us and in effect they will be our puppet state.



Ok, now, on to the candidates. Like I said, I think Kerry did much better. In the language category he was very articulate and very eloquent. Bush however, had frequent pauses, sometime punctuated by "UHHHHHHH". His speech was plain, and just kind of seemed to roll out of his mouth. In the composure category, again, I think Kerry marked it. Kerry stood erect and tall, always waited for his cue to speak, and at least appeared to be listening to Bush with polite interest. Bush I think composed himeslf much like a high schooler trying to win the debate for school president. He leaned on his podium, often jumped the gun, and would forget that he could have cameras on him at all times, because his facial expressions betrayed the emotions he felt about Kerry's answer.



Now, on to their actual words, I think Bush suffered from BRS last night..... you know, Broken Record Syndrome. He felt obliged in almost every answer to mention how "his opponent" waffled on his stance and yada yada. Well, my personal opinion is mention it once or twice, I get it. Don't waste your time attacking the other candidate, rather spend your time playing yourself up. Now, Kerry did talk a lot with his hands, but, as I said to my friend Sam at the end of the debate "Wow Sam, I think we have found someone who talks with their hands more than you do." So talking with the hands doesn't bother me. It's a simple and effective thing to put your hands to use for so they don't hang dumbly at your sides. Now, I personally was really put off by Bush's lack of plan. All he had to say was that "we must have the final victory." He doesn't give a time frame or a plan of action on how to do that. John Kerry at least touched on his plan, and told people to find out more look on his website (God I love the internet). Kerry shows a plan and determination to get the troops home. Good. I don't wany MY friends over there dying ANY MORE. I have had a friend injured in Iraq. He is fine, but still, I don't want my friends in that kind of danger, ESPECIALLY not when I'm not there to take part in the danger with them. (No I'm not in the armed forces, though if I could join I would strongly consider it). I want my friends home, and I do not want them to be controlled by Bush, who was the first president EVER to take a preemptive strike. The US has always followed a defensive positioning, and now Bush has changed that. I do not now nor did I ever see any link between 9/11 and Iraq. Why we went in there is still a mystery to me. Because I do not believe the US is so philanthropic that we would just casually relieve a country of its dictator simply because he is evil and we happen to be in the area. There was an ulterior motive behind it, and as Bush's "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" ploy gets weaker and weaker, I'm left wondering what the real reason is. I do think Kerry also did show a consistant line of reasoning. Sure his position has changed, but I feel like if you follow Kerry's convictions, you will get to perfectly logical descisions for each "waffle" .



Anywho, I think I've said enough.



TJ



Oh and PS. Watching the debate is much more fun when you are playing the debate drinking game like my friends and I were

[yoaliens3000]

honestly, it was a pretty boring debate. easy to call from the beginning. bush would obviously be said the one who lost it, all kerry did was bash on bush's job for the past four years. obviously bush has nothing to bash kerry about expect that he cant make up his damned mind. kerry might have "won", but i doubt it will have much of an impack. i'll be watching the polls.



some of the stuff kerry said was really disrespectful tho. disrespectful to our allies. disrespectful to our troops. bush is correct, he is definitely sending a negative message to them.

[pynkgodde55]

The Debate



For those of you who missed it here's the link where you can read the transcripts.





I thought that Kerry's repetive mention of him serving in "war" was hilarious. It thought that Bush could've given up the whole "he changes his mind" speech but overall I thought Bush did better. He defended himself and us while Kerry just harped on all the bad decisions Bush has made in office. I don't believe that Kerry will do anything to get troops out of Iraq in that short amount of time due to the fact that its virtually impossible to do that and have a free Iraq. I think Bush is more realistic.

[Doug]

Black Hat: Did you honestly WATCH and LISTEN TO the debate??? Those facts that he was "throwing out" were actual facts and Bush did NOT knock them down. Kerry showed that his policies are based on fact (not to say that Bush's aren't) and that he is a true candidate for President. Honestly though, if you say "Kerry is an idiot," then that just invalidates any other argument you have.



Emily: Hmm, apparently memory doesn't serve, lol. Sorry about that.



TJ: Heh, I've gotta question how much of the debate is remembered if you played a drinking game.



Pynk: The point of a debate is so that the challenger can challenge an incumbant President on his record and say what he would do differently. Kerry did both of those, and Bush attempted to do that in 2000. So, Kerry's "harping" is not a bad thing, it's what a challenger is supposed to do. Although I don't agree with "Bush is more realistic," I'd like to stay on topic, so I won't speak on that.



A couple of things I remembered from last night



- During the cutaways, I remember seeing Kerry smirk a couple of times while Bush was talking. While I was doing the same, I worry that it will show Kerry as arrogant and believe he shouldn't have done that.



- I counted about 4 times that, when Kerry mentioned troops going from Afghanistan to Iraq, he called it "outsourcing". Saying things like, "The President outsourced that job too." I thought that it was incredibly clever (I laughed) and, for anyone that caught it, it reminded them of the Bush Administration's comments on outsourcing. Very smart move on Kerry's part.



- When Bush was asked if Kerry's election on Nov. 2nd would make the nation less safe, he completely dodged the question and said, "He won't be elected." I thought that was a very arrogant statement and will be noticed by the public.



- When Kerry did mention Vietnam, he did it the right way. He analogized it to what we're going through today. He didn't say anything like, "I should be elected because I served in Vietnam." He said things like, "What I learned..." and "what it's like not to know what's around the next corner..." I thought those really brought it home to Americans, and I thought he did very well in that respect.



Doug

[pynkgodde55]

[FryGuy]