Presidential Debate

All bias and ideology aside it looks like Kerry came on in front. Bush kept interrupting Kerry, he kept stumbling verbally and he couldn't seem to remember anyone's name. The worst part was near the end when the moderator actually had to coach him along.

 

Yeah i definitly noticed bush would take the questoin and just completely stray away from the whole topic.........all i was hearing was Iraq this Iraq that Iraq smacked me with a baseball bat...........and all that terrorism crap too.........bush shuold have stayed on track with that.........then he kept getting confused between saddam and osama........i think he kinda bombed this debate.......kerry sounded very fluent and ready for the questions he was asked............

 

wow. a major difference of opinions. First namynam, this debate was over forign policy you nincompop.

Bush used kerrys words against him very well. Bush also gave very good rebuttles to everything kerry said. As well as kerry doing the same, that is why it is a debate.

I liked the fact there were not too many personal attacks, they stuck to the issues, and i dont feel like bush lost at all. I didnt know stumbling on a word would cause that. Bush made Kerry look very, very indecisive on his stance on these issues, and even proved him wrong on several things he said.

The moderator didnt coach anyone, i noticed a few times he gave each candidates views clearly because as politicans, they both were confusing on some statements.

In case u didnt know, this debate was over iraq and forign policy, not social or economic agendas. This debate was for each candidate to give their stances on forign policy. The moderator made the questions, so focusing on iraq was not bush's fault, it was the fucking questions.

Also, Bush did an exelent job of pointing out kerry's flip flops, kerry bashing our allies (excluding france and germany of course), and he used his own words against him.

There are still 2 more debates Namynam, so calm down, watch the 2 debates focusing on the isses that are importent to you.

I thought they both did good accually, they both stayed on topic, and it all boils down to their difference in idologies on forign policy.

remember, all of you who bash bush for "ignoring" warning of al queda attacks, this is a post 9/11 world, we look at all of these threats more closely now, and everyone agreed, bush, edwards, kerry that we should have invaded iraq at the time.

Bush also pointed out how diplomacy wont work because it has been done for over a decade with no results.

Bush has a several nations apporch to north korea with i think is the best approach to this situation.

Want to talk about someone straying away from the question, you must have muted your T.Vs when kerry spoke then.

 

First of all don't resort to name calling (even if it's a relatively vague and benign one). Now regarding the rest of your post, I just saw a poll (either on cnn.com or foxnews.com) stating that 90% thought Kerry won.

 

ninconpoop wasnt ment to be a bad name. sorry if it offended anyone. i cant think of any nicer name than that. The debate was over forign policy, it was a known fact it as over this, and for him to use such foul language wondering why iraq was discussed so much, maybe someone should have read up. Then they would have known it was over forign policy.

I went to both, didnt see any polls, it franquelly happend 30 mins ago, too early for polls, but i havent seen anywhere that says one side or the other won. I guess we will have to wait until the newest polls come out in the next few days. Im not calling you a liar, but i really didnt see polls on eather of those sites, i would like to see them forreal.

again, sorry for calling you a nincompoop. That language is far worse than the f bombs you were letting fly, and i will never say it again.

"All bias and ideology aside it looks like Kerry came on in front"
Krazi, you are totally unable to look at this without a bias based on many comments you have made in the past.
Oh kerry looked in control blah blah, whatever bro.

 

Well, I had what I was gonna say in mind, but then saw that Gilligan had already said some of them. But I'm too baked to change it now so a little bit of what he said will be reiterated.

The topic of the debate was foreign policy. They weren't only talking about Iraq, they talked about Osama, North Korea, international ielations, nuclear proliferation in Russia, etc. There will be a couple more debates where other topics will be discussed.

All political opinions aside, I thought each side did a fairly good job. Bush seemed kind of shaky and nervous, while Kerry seemed pretty confident. Kerry kept talking about how if he is elected he will take care of something in X years/months/whatever, but never layed out a plan for how he was going to do it. I thought Kerry had a few remarks that really scored him some points though, specifically his "We must distinguish between the war and the warriors" rebuttal.

As for Bush going off topic, so did Kerry. Thats politics. As a politician you need to know what can get you in trouble and you need to steer clear of it. There are just simply some issues that, no matter how they are answered, will have bad results for a politician so they will steer the answer away from the question. Every politician does it from every corner of the political spectrum.

And as for whoever said diplomacy hasn't worked for the past ten years...I guess if you consider continous bombing raids while starving over a million children to death with sanctions to be diplomacy...

EDIT: And oh yeah, I frankly wouldn't trust CNN or FOXNEWS on who won, especially this early after it finished.

 

torchy, what countries are you talking about bombing and starving? He said the sanctions on iraq hasnt worked. We havent bombed them in recent years(until the war) nor starved them out. Hussain cut off his oil revenue and i would say it was him who killed and starved his people.

We havent bombed north korea or iran which were the other 2 countries discussed in the debate.

I agree with you on the polls, the debate was an hr ago, i havent even seen polls, and i dont trust internet polls. Im sure gallop or someone will conduct polls over the weekend and we will see which side accaully won.

That being said, i thought it was a good debate, with both sides making good points and defending their stances.

This is my opinion, so take it as you will.
1)Bush 5 nation plan for talks with korea is better than kerrys
2)Bush expose the many positions that kerry has had on iraq, which shows him to be indecesive and sending a mixed singal to our allies and our troops.

On this iraq war, terrorism, and being more decesive, Bush has and will maintain a strong lead.

Kerry has a chance when they debate econimical issues to gain some ground on Bush. I think that will be the key debate of the 3.

 

The only thing I'm going to say about this is about the poll... I looked on both cnn.com and foxnews.com and could not find it, but I do know after the debate one of the reporters said that they set up a poll where 35% of the people asked were republican, and guess how many people thought Bush won? 36% of the people polled thought Bush won.. so my point is, it all depends on who you ask, and I dont understand why everyone has to be so hatefull about it.. so not everyone agrees with you.. Gosh, is that REALLY a first? Do you really think you're going to sway someone else? at this point, not likely... you dont need to bash on anyone, especially the two who are debateing. There is a reason they are there and you are not... and it's more than just because they're rich. From what I saw, personally, Kerry did his typical and Bush did his typical... If you think they guy you're rooting for is perfect, I hate to break it too you , but you're wrong... anyways... that's all I wanted to say on the matter...

 

Who's getting hateful? It is possible to discuss politics without letting it get to you personally. I am very thankful that most of the people on this forum have the ability to do that. I have exchanged words on politics with Gilligan, for example, on a few different threads and I think we may disagree on pretty much everything, but no hard feelings arouse from it (at least on my end, and I don't think I'm making a wrong assumption on Gilligans end). People's opinions differ, that doesn't mean that the exchange of them is hateful.

Of course the sanctions on Iraq didn't work. Sanctions don't hurt the government, they hurt the people. The bombing raids on Iraq didn't stop after the Gulf War, the US, Britain, and Turkey have been bombing Iraq since the end of the Gulf War.

Is the economy the third debate? Whats the topic for the second one?

 

ah..once they have a script and are argueing over the temperature of the room, it's not a debate any longer. I don't doubt that scary kerry was a far better orator than bush, but he's changed his mind so many times on so many issues, he really has no platform to stand on any longer. I wish I could have seen the debate between David Cobb and Micheal Badnarik. That would have been sweet.

 

That's just it, to you he seemed to change his mind. But whenever I ask for specifics I always get links to newsmax and drudge articles complaining about semantic issues. He really has been consistant except for one major change and that was reasonable considering evidence that the info used to make the decision to go to war was flawed. I'd much sooner vote for a man who's willing to own up to a mistake than a man who stubbornly grasps onto vague 'values' that could cost lives.

 

This debate was foreign policy issues only. The domestic policy debate is on Wednesday, October 13th. That might explain it.

And just in case anyone else is wondering, the rest of the debates are:

Vice-Presidential debate: Tuesday, October 5th.
Second Presidential debate (town-hall style debate, where "random" people just ask them questions): Friday, October 8th.
And as I mentioned, the third one is Wednesday, October 13th.

 

He did change his mind, when somone says they would have invaded iraq then says they wouldn't a week later...that means they changed their mind. Furthermore..he voted for the war, and voted against funding it...to make a "political statement", What kind of statement is that?! Yeah send'em to war..but don't give'm bullets or guns? That's not even a big issue for me though...I mean..what the hell do you think he is going to change over there?! He can't do anything, this has to be seen through, or you are going to have a bunch of really pissed of iraqi's. The big issues for me are gun rights, which scary kerry has voted against everytime, and the economy.

 

I didn't support Kerry before the debate last night, because he never seemed like a strong candidate with any strong convictions, but after watching the debate I am definitely a supporter, I think he did a good job outlining what specifically he stands for. I thought Bush should have been a lot better prepared than resorting to the "Flip Flop" argument every other question.

And, without trying to throw my own political opinion in, just to try to clarify, Kerry's stance is that Saddam Hussein was a threat who needed to be removed from power (thus his vote to authorize the use of force), but he doesn't agree with the way it happened (thus his vote to decline funding). Specifically, according to him, he wanted international support and for war to be a last resort.

1200+ dead American troops...I think we already have a bunch of really pissed of Iraqis. And, quite frankly (unfortunately I have to break my attempt at an unbiased post), I trust someone who was in the military, who knows what it's like to be shot at, and who has the support of many officers, including generals posted in the middle east, than someone who's only service was in the Texas Air National Guard (whether or not he actually served his terms).

 

i thought they both debated well last night. it was a little obvious that bush was shaken up by kerry. i dont think bush expected kerry to fair well in the debates. i myself must state im surprised. i just want to point something out right quick. if any of you were in congress, the president presented to you so called evidence that a country had wmd, and he wanted approval for war, you would be going on the evidence that was presented to you. lets say you conquer the country and now its time to find those wmd's that got everyone scared to want to go to war about. youre searching and searching and searched the whole damn country and not find one weapon. would your position change on the war that you helped start? flip flopping on the issue, the only issue i can see is he (kerry) was told iraq has these weapons, he signed off to go to war, and correct me if im wrong, but that was the main reason we went over there right? i mean iraq didnt send any planes into any buildings or for that matter have one iraqi citizen on any of those planes. if you come to find out after not finding one wmd, and youre dealing with a country full of borderline fundamentalist that the decision you made to go to war was under false pretenses, i would be pissed and flip flop my position also. you really cant hold the man for that. i am curious about his plan, which seems to be top secret, but still, if he could debate that well and frustrate the president to the point where he looked like he wanted to throw a tantrum, i think he may be my man. and again, i know there are some bush supporters in here & im not trying to offend any of you guys, but bush didnt say anything any different than he has been saying. he sounded more like a broken record than anything. but then again, if you already have your candidate picked out, that was your personal pick for the winner.

 

yea most polls i have seen show each candidate winning different areas of the deabate, and i think i saw one that said kerry won 53% to 47% so i think it was a pretty close debate. I think it is the strongest kerry has looked in the public eye, which helped his case. He finally stated his stance on iraq and many forign policy ideas, so i guess it is down to the next 2 debates to see who the country likes.

NP RMJL, im not here to start a political war, just to express my views and dispell myths. When you get people who feel strongly about opposite views tempers can flair.

Again, sorry for calling anyone a nincompoop. That was the least offensive thing i could think of. I just thouhgt it was common knowledge the debate was over forign policy and the anger and hostility in the opening post shocked me.

 

I wish they had a debate with kerry, bush, badnarik and cobb. Now that would be worth watching! No Holding back....ONLY ON PAY PER VIEW!!