+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Presidential Debate (/thread-7853.html)
Presidential Debate - Yrrek - 10-01-2004
Now, I did not watch all of the debate, I was becoming angry with the candidates mud-slinging. But here are a few things I noticed:
1) Bush not standing up strait
2) Both candidates showing far too much emotion
3) Mud-slinging...ugh
4) Too much focus on others faults, and not enough on their plans to better the situation
Opinions?
Presidential Debate - Taem - 10-01-2004
Yrrek,Sep 30 2004, 07:07 PM Wrote:Now, I did not watch all of the debate, I was becoming angry with the candidates mud-slinging. But here are a few things I noticed:
1) Bush not standing up strait
2) Both candidates showing far too much emotion
3) Mud-slinging...ugh
4) Too much focus on others faults, and not enough on their plans to better the situation
Opinions?
[right][snapback]56788[/snapback][/right]
All I hear Bush saying is, 'Kerry won't be decisive as Commander and Chief' over and over again, not to mention he is avoiding numerous questions and comments (such as 'why are we focusing our attacks on Iraq instead of Afganistan', how korea got platonium, etc.). I give Kerry all the points in this debate so far. As for "mud-slinging", I have yet to hear either canditate say anything that is untrue or name-calling. A debate wouldn't be a debate if there weren't facts to argue over! That's not mud-slinging!
Presidential Debate - Dozer - 10-01-2004
Considering it's still running, I'll be talking about it the present tense. I am getting the opposite feeling, I feel the two are too nice to each other, except for the issues about Iraq. Everything thing else is just a "I agree, I respect his decisions" etc.
And it is entirely too moderated and scripted.
Presidential Debate - Yrrek - 10-01-2004
Ok, so they aren't openly calling eachother names etc., but I get the idea they are implying it, and are trying to irk eachother on. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems Bush is getting very worked up over many accusations made by Kerry. For instance, how Iraq should not have been the target as there are many other greater risks in the world; Iran, N. Korea; Kerry also mentioned a genocide in Dafur that I was un-aware of.
I think I will go do a little searching for the genocide...
Presidential Debate - [wcip]Angel - 10-01-2004
The debate is now over (in Norway. Yes it started 3 o'clock at night here, and I still bothered to watch it.)
I wasn't overly impressed with either candidate. I'm off course not talking about the slip-ups and word mismatches. That can happen to anyone, let alone someone who's being watched carefully by a billion people. I'm talking about avoiding the issues. Kerry's default response was "I fought in Vietnam, I am therefore great leader. *bangs on chest*". Bush had several, but his most prominent was "my adversary changes his mind as often as I change my socks". (And what the hell was that "We are standing on the mountain looking into the valley, and it is a valley of hope"-crap?)
Both avoided the questions. That being said, when they did in fact respond to the questions, I felt Kerry performed slightly better than Bush. There was one issue I was conserned with. Bush named the number one threat "weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the enemy"; not "weapons of mass destruction." Kerry pointed out that nuclear disarmament was supposed to be mutual - that the US would also partake in its nuclear disarmament. It's this "everyone should disarm besides us"-notion, I find so arrogant in Bush's statements.
Presidential Debate - Minionman - 10-01-2004
At the beginning I wasn't really watching but what you say about not describing their plan and mudslinging was true when I was watching. The first part i always knew what they were going to say about each other, thanks to reading bits and pieces off the forums. Towards the end it got more interesting with what seemed like mostly straight answers and some actual plans. As to whether Kery or Bush did better, it's hard for me to tell.
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
My view is it was more of the same. Bush was inarticulate and Kerry flip-flopped.
Bush repeating the Kerry quote "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" was annoying. I'm glad he gave it up after the 5th time or so. :rolleyes:
I nearly fell off the couch with the Kerry flip-flop when he first complains "We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties.". Then he says "That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe." Um... yeah... :blink:
Presidential Debate - Medicine Man - 10-01-2004
I didn't actually hear Senator Kerry state that the US would engage in 'mutual' disarmament of nuclear weaponry. He may have implied it, but he didn't state it outright. There has been a lot of 'strategic inferences' these last few years... too many for my liking.
That said however, I did think that Kerry came out marginally better than Bush. The Senator was a bit more proactive when answering the questions, and was definately on the attack during the debate. Bush mainly concentrated on defending his actions and repeating the negative PR about Kerry as much as possible -- not that impressive.
I have no idea which of them will appeal more to the American people though.
Presidential Debate - Munkay - 10-01-2004
Medicine Man,Sep 30 2004, 10:21 PM Wrote:That said however, I did think that Kerry came out marginally better than Bush. The Senator was a bit more proactive when answering the questions, and was definately on the attack during the debate. Bush mainly concentrated on defending his actions and repeating the negative PR about Kerry as much as possible -- not that impressive.
I have to agree that it Kerry came out marginally better. I went into the debates expecting the opposite actually. Bush is a strong debater, (please before anyone bothers to comment on 'how poorly he speaks,' there is more to oration than the mispronounciation of a word.) and I was uncertain who would be on the attack and who would be on the defense.
Bush defeneded himself well, and I beleive he made a strong final statement. I think Kerry marginally won for I felt he did a good job staying off criticisms of him, while at the same time keeping good pressure on Bush for his mistakes. He did what he had to, which was make a very clear, very concise statement about his stance in Iraq.
I still have a lot of work left for tomorrows classes, so I will have to wait until later to continue this.
Cheers,
Munk
Presidential Debate - D-Dave - 10-01-2004
MEAT,Oct 1 2004, 04:14 AM Wrote:As for "mud-slinging", I have yet to hear either canditate say anything that is untrue or name-calling.Well at least one thing was straight forward untrue and that is the claim made by Bush stating the nuclear material dealer (I'll be damned if I can EVER remember his name not even thinking about spelling it correctly) was "brought to justice" while he was not captured.
[right][snapback]56789[/snapback][/right]
After the discussion his spokeswoman tried to sidestep the question about this and repeatedly stated that he is no longer able to do trading...to that I say how do you know if you do not have him locked up?
More importantly he is most certainly not "brought to justice".
Sounds an aweful lot like the "Mission accomplished" claim...
Presidential Debate - Roland - 10-01-2004
Sir_Die_alot,Sep 30 2004, 11:17 PM Wrote:My view is it was more of the same. Bush was inarticulate and Kerry flip-flopped.
Bush repeating the Kerry quote "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" was annoying. I'm glad he gave it up after the 5th time or so. :rolleyes:
I nearly fell off the couch with the Kerry flip-flop when he first complains "We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties.". Then he says "That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe." Um... yeah... :blink:
[right][snapback]56806[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, gotta love Kerry, eh? :unsure: What a jackass.
I'm sorry, but Kerry completely lost any chance at getting my vote. The more time went on, the more I was leaning towards Bush (I AM "Republican", after all, although I registered as Independent, IIRC; but I'm actually a "Classic Republican", as a friend of mine pointed out, so I don't usually see 100% eye to eye with either party, LEAST of all the Dems). Tonight just affirms my beliefs - stay the hell away from Democrats, especially Kerry / Edwards.
As if Kerry didn't shoot himself in the foot enough on his own (that boy MUST have gone to war, because he's so good at shooting things - like his own foot!), Edwards just sweetened the deal by being a TOTAL patsy. I swear he's just a shelled out human with a tape recorded in his throat.
Not that Bush didn't have some slipups, but I'd have to say his BIGGEST fault was his absolute need to repeat himself, and occasionally disregard (sometimes accidentally, I think) the directed question just to repeat himself. However, I still feel he's going to be a MUCH better leader. He may be damned repetitive, and he may stutter & pause a bit much (hell, so did Kerry though), but at least he gives the same damn answers in a 90 minute period. Kerry couldn't even do that! He contradicted himself more times than George Lucas in Episodes I & II! It was like trying to imagine Back to the Future, only to watch the main characters realize at the end of the movie that time travel is impossible. :P He just made every argument complete hogwash by arguing with himself! It's true what they say - you ARE your own worst enemy, especially when running for President!
My God, what a sad state of affairs. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I think he has some good strengths and a good heart, albeit a sometimes confused head. Regardless of his faults, though, I can't see him doing much, if any damage in the coming four months. I CAN see him rebuilding, or furthering the rebuilding, of Iraq, while also tackling the other major issues that are cropping up. All I see Kerry doing is flapping his mouth and screwing the American public, licking the boots of the rest of the world, and all while another terrorist attack hits U.S. soil, mayhap Boston this time. :P
This isn't a great election year, but neither was the last one. Hell, I haven't seen much of a good election in years, for that matter. But at least I've finally solidified who I'm going to vote for, and the fact that I am actually going to vote. I guess it's finally time I stopped just complaining about the crap in this country and start actually doing something - although I must admit to my sudden source of enthusiasm. Reading Blade magazine, I catch a LOT of articles about liberal media and government slandering (LITERALLY - there's a legal case going on about NBC actually slandering, among other things, a private custom knife & sword-maker, world-famous for his art pieces; he was actually driven out town because of it), attacking, and just outright banishing anything to do with knives, and a lot of stuff that's not even remotely connected but still grouped with them. In short, knee-jerk far-left reactions with wide, sweeping consequences that don't address the original problem at all. Or, the usual business for Democrats and Liberals. :P I won't be able to stand under a Democratic President again, I don't think - least of all one who's on such shaky ground as Kerry is.
It WAS a very interesting debate, though. Got me and my g/f to argue over politics for a few short bouts, though! ;) Always a good idea to just let politics slide when it comes to close relationships. To quote her: "If I say I back Kerry, you'll kill me. If I say I back Bush, my family will kill me." To which I replied: "You can vote for whoever you like. But if Kerry gets into office, I'm moving to Canada for the next four years." Sadly enough, I think I'd actually consider it. :P
Enough rambling. I'll be waiting eagerly for the next debates, hoping to watch Kerry shoot himself in the foot some more (if only because it's MUCH more amusing than watching Bush act like a broken record - both me and the missus were getting a little impatient with it ;))
Presidential Debate - Jester - 10-01-2004
"I nearly fell off the couch with the Kerry flip-flop when he first complains "We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties.". Then he says "That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe." Um... yeah..."
I understand very little of military procedure, but I'm not understanding how this is contradictory. Wouldn't the logical response to:
a ) no reduction in tasks to complete
b ) not having soldiers do "double duties"
... be to increase the number of available soldiers to do the jobs? And is that not what "add two active duty divisions" means?
Jester
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
Where is he suppose to find these people for his new divisions if not from the "Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties"? Perhaps Kerry has secretly acquired the technology to Spaarti cloning cylinders and will grow us an army!
Presidential Debate - Jester - 10-01-2004
Maybe he's planning on stepping up recruiting? Or, god forbid, a draft of some kind? Surely there must be plenty of people eager to go kill people in a foreign country. Else, why would so many be so enthusiastic about the job he's doing in Iraq?
There are options available that are slightly more feasible than conjuring people from the air, or cloning them with fictional technology...
Jester
Presidential Debate - eppie - 10-01-2004
Quote: He may be damned repetitive, and he may stutter & pause a bit much (hell, so did Kerry though), but at least he gives the same damn answers in a 90 minute period. Kerry couldn't even do that! He contradicted himself more times than George Lucas in Episodes I & II!
I was checking out threads from before I registered last week, and a thing that got my attention was a post from you in which you assured your fellow lurkers that WMDs were found in Iraq. Of course those that don't believe everything FoXnews says did anyway not believe that, but that's not the point. The point is that now, you have more information (even Blair and Bush admitted that Iraq has no WMDs) did you change your opinion, or can you not change it because than you are flip-flopping?? To me the complaints about Kerry's flipflopping tell that the republicans don't have anything worse to tell about the guy. Bush did not flipflop but to keep repeating that Iraq had WMDs turned out not to be true. So what is worse??
Quote: I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I think he has some good strengths and a good heart, albeit a sometimes confused head. Regardless of his faults, though, I can't see him doing much, if any damage in the coming four months. I CAN see him rebuilding, or furthering the rebuilding, of Iraq, while also tackling the other major issues that are cropping up. All I see Kerry doing is flapping his mouth and screwing the American public, licking the boots of the rest of the world, and all while another terrorist attack hits U.S. soil, mayhap Boston this time. :P
Ouch.. "licking the boots of the rest of the world". I mean if as president you don't care what e.g. the UN says about something, and you make your own decission, that's allright with me, but then you (Bush) should also be man enough to step out of the UN. The fact that the USA is the most powerfull country in the world should not mean that they just do anything they like.
I think that in this "state of war" your president says your in, first it is not wise to p**s of the middle eastern world, and second it is not wise to also do the same with your allies.
Kerry seems a lot wiser and more considerate to me, and most important will be able to create much more goodwill in the world, and that is the most important property of a strong leader.
Presidential Debate - ShadowHM - 10-01-2004
Roland,Oct 1 2004, 12:41 AM Wrote:To which I replied: "You can vote for whoever you like. But if Kerry gets into office, I'm moving to Canada for the next four years." Sadly enough, I think I'd actually consider it. :P
[right][snapback]56833[/snapback][/right]
Hi Roland
I really hope that you were indeed speaking with your tongue in your cheek with that comment.
You know, we got some damn fine citizens here from those who objected to the Vietnam War. Many of the conscientious objectors who moved here to avoid the war stayed to become contributing members of our country.
On the other hand, there were those who hid here for the duration and then went back home when they thought it was safe. :blink: Your comment made you look like you would join the latter group. Think about it.
Presidential Debate - ShadowHM - 10-01-2004
Yrrek,Sep 30 2004, 09:43 PM Wrote:Kerry also mentioned a genocide in Dafur that I was un-aware of.
I think I will go do a little searching for the genocide...
[right][snapback]56793[/snapback][/right]
You could start here for an overview in Times magazine on the topic.
Presidential Debate - Occhidiangela - 10-01-2004
For Jester: The comment Senator Kerry made about "double duty" is disingenuous at best. For decades, reservists were "weekend warriors." They drew two paychecks, one from their regular job, and one from Uncle Sam for their drill duties, staying trained to go to war if necessary.
Since Desert Storm, but more importantly, since Pres Clinton took a slow draw down and accelerated it, the active forces have lost a lot of manpower and force capability that gets put into the Reserves. This allows a few things.
1. Making force structure end strength look like it has met draw down goals.
2. In the case of National Guard units, kept a bit of money flowing into State coffers.
More importantly, when America goes to war, its not "them" who go to war. The Reserve units are so imbedded in the ability of active forces to wage protracted operations that we simply can't go to war without mobilization. Contrast that to the draft years where President Johnson did no activate the Reserves since he could not stand the domestic political heat that would have drawn.
As to Senator Kerry claiming he'd add two divisions to the Army, I cannot believe him. HIs record and his long term sentiments regarding slashing defense and intelligence spending is too strong for that to be a credible claim. I am amazed he uttered those words, it is completely out of character for him.
You get as much military capability as you pay for. We pay for enough to embark on global security as a policy. We still do not have a bottomless pit of manpower.
Anyway, I hope that explains to you a little of what is behind those remarks.
Double Duty? There's some double talk. When you swear to your commission or your enlistment, you swear to go when called. Many were called. It comes with the badge.
Occhi
PS: I will not further comment on the debates. I did not watch them, as I consider them
"A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Cheap entertainment at best, a complete waste of time at worst.
Presidential Debate - Munkay - 10-01-2004
Sir_Die_alot,Oct 1 2004, 01:11 AM Wrote:Where is he suppose to find these people for his new divisions if not from the "Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties"? Perhaps Kerry has secretly acquired the technology to Spaarti cloning cylinders and will grow us an army!
[right][snapback]56835[/snapback][/right]
I wanted to point out that the comment that directly followed the two new divisions comment, was the 'I plan on doubling the number of US Special Forces' comment.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I naturally assumed this is what he ment when he said two new divisions. Two divisions from the new doubled special forces. That way we would have two highly trained groups of people who can 'go in and do the job' before we need to call in the reserves or the national guard.
It makes a lot of sense to me. Take the active members of the army, take a group of them and train them to be even better in the hopes that they are more effective, and therefore reduce the possibility of reservists/national guard being used.
Granted this view relies heavily on a lot of inferences, but the comments were made back to back, which does seem to support this theory in some sense.
Off to class, I see Occhi is in the process of replying, I look forward to that post when I finish up the day.
Cheers,
Munk
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-01-2004
Munkay,Oct 1 2004, 04:06 AM Wrote:It makes a lot of sense to me. Take the active members of the army, take a group of them and train them to be even better in the hopes that they are more effective, and therefore reduce the possibility of reservists/national guard being used.Where do you think they come from now? My cloning theory starts sounding more and more like the only explanation. :P