-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Presidential Debate 2004 Thread
- Thread starter Outdoor Miner
- Start date
- Status
MrPing1000
Member
Watched most of it today in politics class. Kerry knew what he was doing. Bush said hard work about 9283927847247 times and seemed to think that Kerry was saying that the iraqi war is a no hoper when he was saying well its been fucked up so far but I'll sort that shit out
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
goodcow said:
To me this is the quote of the night.
HalfPastNoon said:
I agree. I try to keep an open mind even though I am more of a Kerry supporter. I went into watching the debate as neutral as I could be and Kerry was totally verbally P1MP5L4PP1NG Bush. Bush studdered and had to stop and think a lot and kept rehashing the same thoughts. It is no doubt that Kerry won this debate. End of story.
Furthermore, the facial expression factor. Kerry kept a smile most of the time and there were many times when Bush appeared confused and even at times a bit upset. Kerry, for the most part, appeared to be very calm.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Slo said:
I disagree. I think it's obvious where my vote is going but, I did look at the debate for the style and substance of the canidates. From a DEBATE standpoint I think that Kerry clearly was the better performer. I don't know if it that reflect in the electorate. If Bush was able to handle the questions clearly then I would give him a plus. Bush's strongest point was that he stayed on message his message and for those that favor him he looked like he was just a "regular" guy trying to express himself to "regular" people.
When Kerry made the point (I think probably the first time Bush has heard it to his face) that Iraq didn't attack us AQ did Bush damn near became unhinged.
Cool said:
exactly. i even re-watched the debate to make sure my bias wasn't clouding my judgement. the first 30 minutes or so for kerry were tough, no doubt. he seemed to be on the defensive at this time, but he wasn't angry or demanding responses. the last hour was all john kerry, and you could just see bush coming apart.
my parents(both pro-pro bush supporters) were wondering what rock bush just crawled out of under as they couldn't believe what they were watching.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Overseer said:
On the issues Gore won the debates but many people saw Bush as the winner because he had more style points than Gore. Gore hurt himself by sighing (at least 18 times in the first debate), getting angry, and acting like a fool.... which is almost precisely what Bush did last night (Bush grimaced, got angry, and acted like a bumbling idiot).
Kerry was calm, cool, and collected the entire time AND he owned Bush on the issues...the very issues that Bush made the center of his entire campaign for re-election. I think it bodes well for Kerry. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch but if Kerry can manage to really stick it to Bush during the next two debates I think Kerry might be able to get a slight lead. Kerry can't take it easy on Bush. He needs to be just as prepared for the next two debates as he was for the first one.
As for the VP debate, right now I think that a lot of people are expecting Cheney to win. I know I am. Cheney will pound home the msg of "inexperience, inexperience, inexperience" when it comes to John Edwards. Hopefully John Edwards will rebutt with something along the lines of Bush not having that much experience either when he ran for president but it will be really difficult for him. Anyone know what the topic of the VP debate will be? Its it kind of a hodge-podge of issues or does it focus on a particular one?
Ok, well I'll just have to be content disagreeing with you guys. I thought Kerry made Bush look like a arrogant half-wit in denial, but then again I thought that about Bush going in. Most of the Bush supporters in my workplace are satisfied that they heard what they needed to hear from their President.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Edwards is freagin trial lawyer...Cheney better be ready.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
JC10001 said:
Eh, I'm not really interested in the Penguin vs Robin debate. All Cheney will do is use it as a platform to continue telling the nation how unsafe the country will be if Kerry is elected.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Slo said:
I don't disagree with you but aside from Bush sacrificing a baby for his U'lticrikan overlords there wasn't much that would sway supporters from their man (in either case).
The victory scenario for Kerry is that people stop saying I'm voting against Bush and start saying I'm voting for Kerry.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
SteveMeister said:
:lol :lol
I have never heard Cheney & Edwards referred to in that way but now that I think about it....its so true.
That's the same as giving your vote to Bush in this most crucial of elections. From all I've seen kerry is america's last hope, by not voting for him you're doing a disservice to your country and helping to hand the election to Bush... besides Nader Knows what he's doing, and if you've read up on him, you'd realize he's just more of the same a puppet, just a sugar coated poisonous apple(for the snow whites out there). HIS sole true purpose is to make the election closer, by taking votes from kerry, so that diebold can be used and the election stolen again.
Know this if, Bush wins, the supreme court will most likely take a turn for the worst(up to four may retire, and bush's said he likes scalia and the like, judges who're quoted as saying "my constitution is a very flexible constitution"), environmental policy will be tossed out the window, the deficit will grow even more, public services all across the board will suffer, more wars are likely, therapeutic cloning bans are likely, the globe will become even more unstable... I mean my God, the supreme court is all we've left, if it goes...
Just imagine now, just imagine...the next time congress could very well be filled with reps. to the brim by a more blatant abuse of diebold... things like the "constitution restoration act of 2004", and "the federal marriage amendment" , abortion bans, patriot act expansions, and the like, will most likely pass, and with the supreme court on their side, they'll let it go through, they'll actually make it through.
Yeah, but Gore came off with an air of intelligentsia superiority, and as being condescending prick and a show-off as JC10001 said and from what I've heard... and even so he won the election(diebold took votes from him all over, and in florida they fuxxored things), This has not happened with kerry so just imagine... Even the intentional pro-Bush moves taken by Nader might not be enough to enable the election to remain extremely close, that is to enable a diebold victory this time, if this keeps up in the following debates.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Slo said:
It takes like 2 seconds and you can put in fake info.
I thought it was a good article. It most talks about Bush and Kerry's body language and how that is more telling than the rehearsed lines and so forth.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Prospero said:
True, but the world was different then. 9/11 had not happened, the country had just got through going threw the motions with Lewinski scandle. We had 8 years without a war, I think the next two debates are going to go to the comeback kid. The Bush administration can't protect Bush any more, Cheney isn't going to be there to hold his hand and answer the tough questions for him. In debates there is no script, Bush by making the decisions he made, he will be judge by them. This is the first time he has been really hammered and had to defend his decisions in the public eye. There's still alot explaining Bush need to do.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Overseer said:
No, as a liberal, Nader is more likely to draw votes away from Kerry than from Bush. It's not an equal division.
MrPing1000
Member
Slo said:
bugmenot
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Banjo Tango
Member
"French mime"? WTF?NYTimes said:
Outdoor Miner
Member
Ugh, the Chicago Sun-Times coverage is atrocious as expected.
Let's give Novak an entire page with no opinion from the center/left to counter his editorial.
Let's give Novak an entire page with no opinion from the center/left to counter his editorial.
Sal Paradise Jr said:Ugh, the Chicago Sun-Times coverage is atrocious as expected.
Let's give Novak an entire page with no opinion from the center/left to counter his editorial.
Which debate was Novak watching? Maybe we should send him the faces of frustration media clip.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
The only mention of the word draft in the transcript.Outlaw Pro Mod said:
Kerry: "We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military"
JoshuaJSlone said:
I would guess that in the first part he's referring to the IRR callups. The IRR is generally where you go when you're about to end your time of service and are no longer assigned to a unit nor do you drill regularly.
Why? That is child's play considering the gaffes Kerry made including his global test nonsense. Kerry won on style, not substance. but he showed the same behavior he is trying to hide being an internationalist who believed the CIA should be under UN control, against the cold war, nuke freezes, blame America first, disdain for the US military, calling a "summit" which is hysterical in itself...etc..etc.
The Global test gaffe is already getting play and RNC is making yet another video showing kerry's changing Iraq stances which carries a lot more weight that facial expressions.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Ripclawe said:
What the hell did Bush say that had any substance whatsoever? Iraq is hard work? No shit buttercup. Osama attacked us not Iraq? Good one, here's a cookie.
Why don't you hold your own candidate up to the standards you're wanting Kerry to meet?
Didn't the global test refer to his stance concerning getting foreign support prior to waging any sort of war based off of erroneous information? I don't see how a one second pause and slight stutter before he muttered the phrase can suddenly be categorized as a major contradiction with his position. Seemed to go hand in hand with his ideas that the War on Terror was fought utilizing the wrong methods as well as the wrong leadership.
I know where President Bush stands on issues, Kerry is hiding and lying his positions on issues, such as Darfur. All the things he claims he would do Bush has done to great effectiveness if you keep up with the news.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200410010130.html
Ripclawe said:
That's funny because I can't see why talking about a "global" test when invading Iraq is something wrong... was Iraq a direct threat to the US or the world? Are one country on this planet or many? Are our economies all intermingled or are we all isolationists...
I happy to think that many of the things we do outside of our own country SHOULD be put to a global litmus test to see who benefits... because I still haven't seen how the Iraqi war has benefited us... and I like Kerry initially supported and here in this very forum staunchly defend the war... until I was shown by the actions of our own president that the FACTS he gave us as to why we should go to war... were as flimsy as craft paper.
So yes I DO think certain actions that affect other countries SHOULD be discussed in a global format... I DO think we should not have gone back in to Iraq until we had more support hell ANY support from the UN.
Ripclawe said:uh no. This pretty much sums up his "global test"
And exactly how does this have anything to do with our attacking Iraq? How were we defending ourselves from Iraq?
We attacked Iraq for legit reasons? What are those reasons? I still don't know. Each time I ask this question in this thread no one has had an answer... why is that? Iraq was a threat? How we've had no fly zones there forever... we've carried out missile attacks on Iraq positions whenever we saw what we thought was any type of force build up... so how were they a threat.
There lies the problem, what benefits us is a liability to others like France and the UN who had oil deals with Iraq were not happy to see Saddam fall. Just like Darfur where France says before America put pressure on them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
The point is if you put everything to a "global Test" nothing will ever get done and everything will be done to block America from protecting its interests and benefits which to me is a helluva lot more important than the interests of France or the UN or any other country. But Kerry being the internationalist and Euro thinker that he is believes this is a-okay which is absurd.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked