-
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 thread for the 2nd US Presidential Debate
- Thread starter capslock
- Start date
- Status
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Missora was my favor homespun word.
I tend not to think about it in terms of winning/losing, but I believe Kerry did about as good as he could have. He clearly and cogently addressed the flip-flopping issue. He told us what his plans were, very specifically (maybe now the "He doesn't have a plan!" idiots will shut up). He critiqued Bush's administration without really going overboard. He got his message out, and very clearly had Bush rattled at points.
Bush....I dunno....he did okay. He doesn't really have much to gain in these debates because everybody already seems to know what he's about. The prescription drug excuses were pretty flimsy. We all know about those dangerous Canadian drugs =\ I love how he says "In December [after you've already elected me] I may decide that it's not a good idea" it seems almost tantamount to saying "Don't get your hopes up." He got in some decent jabs on Kerry though, and I think that's really the only purpose he has in these debates. The Republicans have made a mistake in not coming up with any new big issues to help get people excited (like with the tax cut in 2000).....so in effect, all they can do is have Bush sit around and promise more of the same.
I don't think anybody really buys that Kerry is against abortion, but not willing to vote against it because of some bizarre separation of church and state issue. But who cares? The nutballs that vote purely on the abortion stance made their decision for Bush ages ago. Similarly, nobody believes that Bush is the great conservationist he makes himself out to be, but he wasn't going to be getting votes from environmental whackos anyway. In terms of gaining support, both those topics were useless.
Bush played well to his base, but I think Kerry reached out more to the undecided voters, who are getting a better idea of who he is and getting to see some of the attack ads being refuted. If you wanna chalk it up as a win, then chalk it up as a win.
IRRELEVANT SIDENOTE: Bush actually used the word "facile". While it's not exactly that high up on the ladder of obscure terms, it's probably the biggest "vocabulary word" I've heard out of him in a long time.
Bush....I dunno....he did okay. He doesn't really have much to gain in these debates because everybody already seems to know what he's about. The prescription drug excuses were pretty flimsy. We all know about those dangerous Canadian drugs =\ I love how he says "In December [after you've already elected me] I may decide that it's not a good idea" it seems almost tantamount to saying "Don't get your hopes up." He got in some decent jabs on Kerry though, and I think that's really the only purpose he has in these debates. The Republicans have made a mistake in not coming up with any new big issues to help get people excited (like with the tax cut in 2000).....so in effect, all they can do is have Bush sit around and promise more of the same.
I don't think anybody really buys that Kerry is against abortion, but not willing to vote against it because of some bizarre separation of church and state issue. But who cares? The nutballs that vote purely on the abortion stance made their decision for Bush ages ago. Similarly, nobody believes that Bush is the great conservationist he makes himself out to be, but he wasn't going to be getting votes from environmental whackos anyway. In terms of gaining support, both those topics were useless.
Bush played well to his base, but I think Kerry reached out more to the undecided voters, who are getting a better idea of who he is and getting to see some of the attack ads being refuted. If you wanna chalk it up as a win, then chalk it up as a win.
IRRELEVANT SIDENOTE: Bush actually used the word "facile". While it's not exactly that high up on the ladder of obscure terms, it's probably the biggest "vocabulary word" I've heard out of him in a long time.
Important things that happened:
1) Bush came off as less of a hot head, but did explode a few times. I think it will stop the bleading, but I dont think it was good enough to fix the problems created.
2) Bush restated some of his idiotic sound bites.. workin hard, poland.
3) Bush added some new ones (want some wood, internets)
4) Kerry looked very good most of the time, and came off as a man who was confident in himself.
5) Kerry came off as a populist, something he did very well in his convention speech, and something he should go back to. Populist stuff goes over well.
6) Kerry name dropping military leaders backing him and republicans bashing Bush = good idea.
In the end I think the debate was a wash, however I think more good was done for Kerry here than was for Bush.
The next debate is key. If Bush drops the ball in the more formal environment again, it could unravel completely. He is on ground that he is not very likely to win with the American people ideologically at this point in time. He can talk about job growth and decreasing medicare cost, but at the end of the day he isnt going to convince an unemployed person that he has a job. He had better come off cool calm and collected or he is in a world of hurt.
1) Bush came off as less of a hot head, but did explode a few times. I think it will stop the bleading, but I dont think it was good enough to fix the problems created.
2) Bush restated some of his idiotic sound bites.. workin hard, poland.
3) Bush added some new ones (want some wood, internets)
4) Kerry looked very good most of the time, and came off as a man who was confident in himself.
5) Kerry came off as a populist, something he did very well in his convention speech, and something he should go back to. Populist stuff goes over well.
6) Kerry name dropping military leaders backing him and republicans bashing Bush = good idea.
In the end I think the debate was a wash, however I think more good was done for Kerry here than was for Bush.
The next debate is key. If Bush drops the ball in the more formal environment again, it could unravel completely. He is on ground that he is not very likely to win with the American people ideologically at this point in time. He can talk about job growth and decreasing medicare cost, but at the end of the day he isnt going to convince an unemployed person that he has a job. He had better come off cool calm and collected or he is in a world of hurt.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
He used an even better one in the first debate, but it's going to take me a minute to skim the old thread for it...border said:
Ahh, here it is: vociferously.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I hate to kill everybody's fun (especially since I am voting Kerry)-- but technially, there are internets, plural.
The "Capital I" Internet is a network of interconnected "little i" internets. Any network using TCP/IP is an internet.
Of course, that's not the popular usage, and the more general LAN or Intranet are usually used to represent the smaller networks the Internet is made up of-- but technically speaking....
And as far as Bush goes, I'm sure he knows none of this, and couldn't tell you the difference between the World-Wide Web, the Internet, and email.
The "Capital I" Internet is a network of interconnected "little i" internets. Any network using TCP/IP is an internet.
Of course, that's not the popular usage, and the more general LAN or Intranet are usually used to represent the smaller networks the Internet is made up of-- but technically speaking....
And as far as Bush goes, I'm sure he knows none of this, and couldn't tell you the difference between the World-Wide Web, the Internet, and email.
SalientOne
Internet Batman
I thought Kerry owned Bush thoroughly through the first third of the debate. Partially due to the fact that Bush was yelling his responses and snapping at the moderator. The next third was pretty even, but Kerry started to slip back into his tendency to talk around his points, meandering rather than making clear, bold statements (something he did so well in the first debate). The last third I thought went mostly to Bush. He seemed more sure of himself, while Kerry appeared to be carefully choosing his words to tailor his message to the audience. Obviously you need to do this to be an effective politician, but you shouldn't be so *transparent* about it.
Maybe I am nit-picking Kerry... but he seemed to be falling back into that wordy European-loving snob persona the Bushies love to mock.
Overall I give the debate to Kerry on substance (by a narrow margin), and call it a tie on style (based on Bush's frightening Angry Man performance early). If someone tuned in halfway through, they would likely think Bush came out ahead. Anyone who turned it off early would see Kerry as the stronger performer of the two.
Maybe I am nit-picking Kerry... but he seemed to be falling back into that wordy European-loving snob persona the Bushies love to mock.
Overall I give the debate to Kerry on substance (by a narrow margin), and call it a tie on style (based on Bush's frightening Angry Man performance early). If someone tuned in halfway through, they would likely think Bush came out ahead. Anyone who turned it off early would see Kerry as the stronger performer of the two.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
mr. President please take some grammar courses, you don't have to be perfect at it, just get this right:
"I thought there was weapons there, the whole world thought there was weapons there"
The word is WERE
"I thought there was weapons there, the whole world thought there was weapons there"
The word is WERE
I disagree wholeheartedly. Anytime the debate shifted to foreign policy, it looked like Bush was sweating bricks. He kept on trumpeting the iron will BS, and steadfastness will smooth out everything. Kerry basically sank him when he mentioned that Missouri would be considered the third largest country if it joined the coalition.Solomon said:
Bush is an idiot.
Wow.
It's disgusting and frightening to think that the race is this close.
Kerry did well tonight. I agreed with him on most things and I thought he appeared very sincere at times. Bush, on the other hand, seemed pretty arrogant. It almost looked like he acknowledged his mistakes....but maybe not. He's really all over the place.
Wow.
It's disgusting and frightening to think that the race is this close.
Kerry did well tonight. I agreed with him on most things and I thought he appeared very sincere at times. Bush, on the other hand, seemed pretty arrogant. It almost looked like he acknowledged his mistakes....but maybe not. He's really all over the place.
Ignatz Mouse said:
This is not *quite* right. Nitpicky I may be, but a TCP/IP network that occupies only one segment is not an internetwork (from which internet is shortened), it's just a network. It becomes an internetwork when you have a bridge between two different segments.
Likewise, a network that was capable of bridging of that sort is subject to the same rules. It's not IP (TCP is not really relevant here) that makes it an 'internetwork,' it's the bridging. IP was one of the first such protocols, though.
Yes, basically, it's once you have a network of networks that it becomes an internet. Just like with highways indeed.
The Internet is still a different thing though. A corporate office with many networks all linked together would be said to have an internet whether or not it's connected to the Internet.
Intranet is something else altogether though. I believe the normal meaning is that it's a network that is private within an [Ii]nternet. That is, through VPN you may access an office intranet through the Internet.
The Internet is still a different thing though. A corporate office with many networks all linked together would be said to have an internet whether or not it's connected to the Internet.
Intranet is something else altogether though. I believe the normal meaning is that it's a network that is private within an [Ii]nternet. That is, through VPN you may access an office intranet through the Internet.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Why hasn't Kerry said something similar to being able to hold more than two thoughts in his head about a complicated issue instead of dumbing everything down into fear mongering sound bytes?
Anyway, I think Bush would have done alot better if he didn't do as many jokes. Need some wood? Kerry has actually impressed me a bit with these debates. Before I wasn't impressed with either of these gems, now he seems fairly competent and dignified if nothing special.
Anyway, I think Bush would have done alot better if he didn't do as many jokes. Need some wood? Kerry has actually impressed me a bit with these debates. Before I wasn't impressed with either of these gems, now he seems fairly competent and dignified if nothing special.
What I don't get is the idea portrayed by the pundits that Bush is a "nice, affable guy" who can "connect with the voters" and I want to slap all the voters out there who do see him that way. I just seem to be able to pick up TONS of little mannerisms and tics that Bush has that make him looks like an arrogant little prick. Like the way he bows his neck out and grins with a slight, condescending chuckle. Or the way he looks when he's just sitting there listening to people speak. And his beady little eyes. And when people call him on things he either stumbles or huffs as if he were completely appalled by the comment. Kerry may not be an average guy, either, but Bush certainly is NOT.
But wait, he's got a Texan accent! That means he MUST be a generous, southern gentleman! You know, Souther Hospitality and all that jazz.
But wait, he's got a Texan accent! That means he MUST be a generous, southern gentleman! You know, Souther Hospitality and all that jazz.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Watched the first half before I went to the casino(won $62). And will watch the 2nd half when the debate gets online somewhere(link?).
Kerry totally owned Bush the first half. Bush was actually able to make a coherrent sentence this time around but the outcome was still the same...no substance. Kerry was really really good...if not better than the first debate, and that's saying something.
Bush losing it was hilarious. He just totally went off...saying "i wanna talk, i'm talking, i'm talking...let me get to this" when the moderator was just about to let him talk if he would have shut up for just one second. This just proves my theory from the last debate that Bush has the mentality of a 2nd grader.
How can anyone vote for this guy?
I thought the audience took a liking to Kerry...mostly because he actually answered the questions...and on a couple of occasions he really hit Bush hard with his 2000 promises in the same venue...and how he hasn't kept any of them. That was great.
I don't even think I need to see the last half of the debate to know Kerry blew out Bush. It was just great. I would still like a link though.
Kerry totally owned Bush the first half. Bush was actually able to make a coherrent sentence this time around but the outcome was still the same...no substance. Kerry was really really good...if not better than the first debate, and that's saying something.
Bush losing it was hilarious. He just totally went off...saying "i wanna talk, i'm talking, i'm talking...let me get to this" when the moderator was just about to let him talk if he would have shut up for just one second. This just proves my theory from the last debate that Bush has the mentality of a 2nd grader.
How can anyone vote for this guy?
I thought the audience took a liking to Kerry...mostly because he actually answered the questions...and on a couple of occasions he really hit Bush hard with his 2000 promises in the same venue...and how he hasn't kept any of them. That was great.
I don't even think I need to see the last half of the debate to know Kerry blew out Bush. It was just great. I would still like a link though.
Alcibiades
Member
ErasureAcer said:Watched the first half before I went to the casino(won $62). And will watch the 2nd half when the debate gets online somewhere(link?).
Kerry totally owned Bush the first half. Bush was actually able to make a coherrent sentence this time around but the outcome was still the same...no substance. Kerry was really really good...if not better than the first debate, and that's saying something.
Bush losing it was hilarious. He just totally went off...saying "i wanna talk, i'm talking, i'm talking...let me get to this" when the moderator was just about to let him talk if he would have shut up for just one second. This just proves my theory from the last debate that Bush has the mentality of a 2nd grader.
How can anyone vote for this guy?
I thought the audience took a liking to Kerry...mostly because he actually answered the questions...and on a couple of occasions he really hit Bush hard with his 2000 promises in the same venue...and how he hasn't kept any of them. That was great.
I don't even think I need to see the last half of the debate to know Kerry blew out Bush. It was just great. I would still like a link though.
How many 2nd grader's can make it through Harvard and Yale?
That'd be a first...
It doesn't matter, everyone that uses slang in their every day language was like "dude he just said DON'T BE HATIN' YO!!!" :lolHitokage said:
The only thing about Kerry I didn't like is that he really didn't answer the question about the draft. He quickly stated that he didn't support it and didn't put much emphasis, and most importantly, reassurance on this point. He needs to be more clear.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Damn it, I fell asleep and I missed the entire debate!
Anyone know where theres a video?
And whats with this "wood" stuff? What happened?
Anyone know where theres a video?
And whats with this "wood" stuff? What happened?
I thought this debate was a draw.
Bush's performance was much better than in the first debate. He came off to me as shrill and possibly crazy, but when he was on, he had that Southern preacher vibe that will ring up votes everywhere but the Northeast and California. He also borrowed some plays from the Cheney playbook (bringing up Howard Dean, e.g.), and that helped him out.
Kerry once again was able to give the impression at times that he actually seemed presidential, partly because he's so tall and had room to stalk around the stage, looking paternal.
With respect to issues--though this debate was more exciting, I thought the first debate was more substantive. There was lots of ground covered in this one, but little of the depth that came from the back-and-forth discussion about North Korea in the first debate, for example. For the most part, both Bush and Kerry twisted the questions of the speakers so that they could recite their campaign platforms--there was little that either candidate said that wasn't predictable, or that they hadn't said before. Every once in a while the moderator would try to pin them down on something, but it usually didn't do much good.
Charles Gibson is my favorite moderator so far--I got the feeling that he thought he was moderating a debate between Kang and Kodos, though.
Bush's performance was much better than in the first debate. He came off to me as shrill and possibly crazy, but when he was on, he had that Southern preacher vibe that will ring up votes everywhere but the Northeast and California. He also borrowed some plays from the Cheney playbook (bringing up Howard Dean, e.g.), and that helped him out.
Kerry once again was able to give the impression at times that he actually seemed presidential, partly because he's so tall and had room to stalk around the stage, looking paternal.
With respect to issues--though this debate was more exciting, I thought the first debate was more substantive. There was lots of ground covered in this one, but little of the depth that came from the back-and-forth discussion about North Korea in the first debate, for example. For the most part, both Bush and Kerry twisted the questions of the speakers so that they could recite their campaign platforms--there was little that either candidate said that wasn't predictable, or that they hadn't said before. Every once in a while the moderator would try to pin them down on something, but it usually didn't do much good.
Charles Gibson is my favorite moderator so far--I got the feeling that he thought he was moderating a debate between Kang and Kodos, though.
Alcibiades
Member
ok, maybe a 2nd-grade mentality can get through Harvard and Yale, but I doubt it seriously...nathkenn said:
I mean, if someone made it through Berkly school of arts in something like music or dance and "had absolutely no ability whatsoever", I could see the parallel, but just because a school is expensive doesn't make it immensely challenging to get through (In fact, some vocational schools are pretty crappy from what I hear yet overcharge)...
At some point, if Bush did have the mentality of a 2nd grader or dimwit, I'm sure he'd have botched free-reponse or essay questions and gotten failing grades and not made it through...
I mean, did the parents pay of Yale/Harvard profs, I mean, I can see a one-or-two prof-pay off conspiracy, but did they actually convince 30 or so profs (maybe more) Bush had in college to give passing grades to someone who didn't earn them?
Texas A&M isn't the most prestigious school around, but right now I'm aiming for an Engineering degree from here, and I'm more-or-less struggling through. I doubt that things would dramatically change if all of a sudden my parents were paying for it all.
Whether someone is doing great or doing crappy, source of funding for an eductation IMO doesn't affect how one would do. If anything, the fact that I'm using some loans I know I eventually have to pay off would probably make me do better. If my parents were paying (as were Bush's like you say), I'd probably be more prone to not appreciate the cost and takes things easier...
Looking at the online polls, all the repubs must be on another internet.
2 things:
1. Bush hurt himself with the smug sob routine with regards to the "wood'' remark since what Kerry said was true.
2. Kerry's pledge will come back to haunt him; maybe not before election but at some point.
I am nervous about a man who uses his political power to push a religous agenda. What we are doing to other countries right now is no different than the British or Roman Empires. We are franchising in the name of free"christianity"dom.
2 things:
1. Bush hurt himself with the smug sob routine with regards to the "wood'' remark since what Kerry said was true.
2. Kerry's pledge will come back to haunt him; maybe not before election but at some point.
I am nervous about a man who uses his political power to push a religous agenda. What we are doing to other countries right now is no different than the British or Roman Empires. We are franchising in the name of free"christianity"dom.
I only watched the debate through the first question posed about the environment; from what little I saw, though:
First off, Bush's outburst-- WHOA! I was utterly shocked, and couldn't believe what I was seeing. Very unseemly; I'm sure he turned off quite a few voters with that little tirade. Personally, I was pleased when the moderator at least attempted to shut him up (for a moment, at least), but was eventually overpowered by Bush's brusque, restive, domineering style. I was really appalled at this occurrence, honestly. In contrast, Kerry appeared poised and in control of himself the entire time I was watching. So from that standpoint, at least, Kerry won a few points with me (not that I'm voting, just providing an analysis of the debate).
As for the issues, well, I felt that both candidates made some absolutely LUDICROUS claims-- Bush about the "evil, third world" Canadian drugs and his continued insistence that the coalition is "30 nations strong" (which I thought Kerry did a masterful job in countering with the quip about Missouri hypothetically being the third largest member of the coalition), and Kerry about being a proponent of tort reform despite having voted (along with his running mate) against every attempt at it made in the last 15 years. Laughable. Kerry also shifted his stance on taxes very subtly, and it's somthing that I haven't seen many people pick up on:
First, he states that he will only raise taxes on those individuals earning over $200K per year; later, he states that he'll raise taxes on families (read: two incomes) making over $200K-- big difference. If you have two professional parents-- say a CPA and an ad exec, each making $100K, then the family income will be over $200K. Now, personally, I don't think that that's so much money for a family, particularly if they live in a metropolitan area. Let's say you have 4 kids-- is that $200K still considered "rich", with costs (schooling, health, housing, property taxes etc.) being what they are, particularly in the cities? I wouldn't consider it "rich" by any stretch, though it is definitely comfortable. And, as anyone who's seen me attack corporations and the TRULY rich can attest to, I am far from some defender of the "landed classes".
Kerry kept touting that the "top 1% received $89B in tax breaks last year", which is likely true. But what he doesn't address is why he then goes from punishing that "top 1%", to punishing the top 5% (it's really the top 20% if you add up two-income families as noted above). The top 1% of earners' average income is a little over $1.1M per year. The next 4% after that is $214K, and the next 15% after that is roughly $98K. That means that 20% of people earn nearly $100K or more. So if two professionals get married, they should be penalized because their income falls above that $200K cutoff line? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Now, if Kerry would have said $500K, or $1M per year, then I would have no problem, because that certainly is way more than comfortable, costs being what they are.
My point is this: if he constantly repeats the fact that the top 1% of earners got $89B in tax cuts last year, then why not target <shock!> the top 1% of earners (whose average income is well over $1M/year)? Someone may say, "that's an arbitrary distinction you're making" (between $200K and $500K-1M), but I honestly feel that it isn't, relative to the cost of living and raising a family (remember, Kerry said "families" earning over $200K, which would be MANY more people than if he had consistently said individuals making over $200K-- which I would have fewer problems with). I just think that if a family consists of two professionals and they make, say, $220K per year combined, they don't deserve to be penalized. They are (quite) comfortable-- not rich. I know how families whose combined income is around $240K operate because my former employer made about that much between him and his wife. Yes, they drove a Benz; yes, they had a nice house (but not a mansion by any stretch); yes, they had some stocks and went out to eat at fancy restaurants once a week; yes, their kids went to private school. But is that really "rich"? Or is that just their due for their toil? Obviously, all notions of what is "fair" are inherently subjective, and while I may feel that anything over $350K or so (family income, that is, not individual) should be taxed "extra", another person's opinion might be that Kerry is right on with his $200K family income cutoff. I disagree; I just wish he'd be consistent with his terms is all, so we could get a better read on his position. In my opinion, for a single person, fine, $200K or more should be taxed more heavily; if that person gets married, however, and has a family, then the cutoff should be raised to, say, $350K (certainly a family making a combined income of $350K can afford a little extra tax burden, regardless of how many kids they have or where they live).
Because, really, all he's doing is shifting the focus away from the ridiculously wealthy folks in this society (like his wife, his opponent, and his running mate) and targeting folks who, while comfortable, are entitled to the fruits of their labor, particularly as they raise a family. Why not go after all the billionaires and multi-millionaires? Why not just tax THEM at 50% and close all loopholes (endownments, offshore tax shelters, accounting loopholes etc.)? Why not go after corporations (which, to Kerry's credit, he says he'll do, though I doubt it'll be substantial)? Why not go after that top 1% you keep mentioning? Why don't you see how much that'll raise first before you go after families earning $200K or more, which consist of a LOT of families in metropolitan areas (like I said, if both parents are professionals earning $100K, or one $120K and the other $80, guess what, you're screwed). I just don't think that's right necessarily, though as I admitted earlier, I'll likely take a lot of heat for this, as $200K seems like a shitload of money to most people (even to myself, though I can recognize the distinctions here).
As I said before, I am no friend of the rich. I just don't happen to think that families thus constituted can be considered "rich" in the same way that a family earning over $500K can. Maybe that's just me...
Don't get me wrong-- none of this affects my personal stance on either of the candidates, because I'm not voting; I just found his seeming equivocation on this matter interesting. How I see these elections are like so: do I vote for a shill for the corporations and the religious right, or do I vote for someone beholden to the trial lawyers and the big unions? On top of that, the Republicans are a bit too "capitalist" for my tastes, and the Democrats often a bit too "socialist". In light of all this, I honestly don't know which one is worse (all those factions are opposed to true progress in many spheres); I've never been a big fan of choosing between the lesser of two evils, so I abstain entirely. Just my take on things.
Oh yeah, someone mentioned that they were impressed that Bush used the word "facile"-- but it would have been nice if he used it in its proper context, which he didn't. I could be wrong on this, because I was sort of glancing back and forth from the TV to my books, so I guess I'll wait to see the transcipts.
EDIT: It was also annoying how Bush constantly dragged the conversation back to Iraq (which is amusing considering the dire state of affairs there at the moment), no matter the issue being discussed or the question posed; he always managed to sneak Iraq in somehow. I guess when you can't speak convincingly on any other topic, that's what you have to resort to. I also half expected Bush to flat-out DECK Kerry after a couple of heated exchanges, after witnessing Bush's previous outburst-- particularly when Kerry directly criticized him. Bush: the child who would be king.
EDIT#2: With that stretched, sagging visage of his, though, John Kerry bears a striking resemblance to Mary Joe Buttafucco...after she got shot by Amy Fisher. This is especially noticeable when they cut to show Kerry's reaction to Bush as Bush is speaking, and Kerry is sporting that odd-looking half-grin (or maybe that's his full grin; perhaps his face doesn't stretch that far anymore). So I guess that balances things out.
First off, Bush's outburst-- WHOA! I was utterly shocked, and couldn't believe what I was seeing. Very unseemly; I'm sure he turned off quite a few voters with that little tirade. Personally, I was pleased when the moderator at least attempted to shut him up (for a moment, at least), but was eventually overpowered by Bush's brusque, restive, domineering style. I was really appalled at this occurrence, honestly. In contrast, Kerry appeared poised and in control of himself the entire time I was watching. So from that standpoint, at least, Kerry won a few points with me (not that I'm voting, just providing an analysis of the debate
).As for the issues, well, I felt that both candidates made some absolutely LUDICROUS claims-- Bush about the "evil, third world" Canadian drugs and his continued insistence that the coalition is "30 nations strong" (which I thought Kerry did a masterful job in countering with the quip about Missouri hypothetically being the third largest member of the coalition
), and Kerry about being a proponent of tort reform despite having voted (along with his running mate) against every attempt at it made in the last 15 years. Laughable. Kerry also shifted his stance on taxes very subtly, and it's somthing that I haven't seen many people pick up on:First, he states that he will only raise taxes on those individuals earning over $200K per year; later, he states that he'll raise taxes on families (read: two incomes) making over $200K-- big difference. If you have two professional parents-- say a CPA and an ad exec, each making $100K, then the family income will be over $200K. Now, personally, I don't think that that's so much money for a family, particularly if they live in a metropolitan area. Let's say you have 4 kids-- is that $200K still considered "rich", with costs (schooling, health, housing, property taxes etc.) being what they are, particularly in the cities? I wouldn't consider it "rich" by any stretch, though it is definitely comfortable. And, as anyone who's seen me attack corporations and the TRULY rich can attest to, I am far from some defender of the "landed classes".
Kerry kept touting that the "top 1% received $89B in tax breaks last year", which is likely true. But what he doesn't address is why he then goes from punishing that "top 1%", to punishing the top 5% (it's really the top 20% if you add up two-income families as noted above). The top 1% of earners' average income is a little over $1.1M per year. The next 4% after that is $214K, and the next 15% after that is roughly $98K. That means that 20% of people earn nearly $100K or more. So if two professionals get married, they should be penalized because their income falls above that $200K cutoff line? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Now, if Kerry would have said $500K, or $1M per year, then I would have no problem, because that certainly is way more than comfortable, costs being what they are.
My point is this: if he constantly repeats the fact that the top 1% of earners got $89B in tax cuts last year, then why not target <shock!> the top 1% of earners (whose average income is well over $1M/year)? Someone may say, "that's an arbitrary distinction you're making" (between $200K and $500K-1M), but I honestly feel that it isn't, relative to the cost of living and raising a family (remember, Kerry said "families" earning over $200K, which would be MANY more people than if he had consistently said individuals making over $200K-- which I would have fewer problems with). I just think that if a family consists of two professionals and they make, say, $220K per year combined, they don't deserve to be penalized. They are (quite) comfortable-- not rich. I know how families whose combined income is around $240K operate because my former employer made about that much between him and his wife. Yes, they drove a Benz; yes, they had a nice house (but not a mansion by any stretch); yes, they had some stocks and went out to eat at fancy restaurants once a week; yes, their kids went to private school. But is that really "rich"? Or is that just their due for their toil? Obviously, all notions of what is "fair" are inherently subjective, and while I may feel that anything over $350K or so (family income, that is, not individual) should be taxed "extra", another person's opinion might be that Kerry is right on with his $200K family income cutoff. I disagree; I just wish he'd be consistent with his terms is all, so we could get a better read on his position. In my opinion, for a single person, fine, $200K or more should be taxed more heavily; if that person gets married, however, and has a family, then the cutoff should be raised to, say, $350K (certainly a family making a combined income of $350K can afford a little extra tax burden, regardless of how many kids they have or where they live).
Because, really, all he's doing is shifting the focus away from the ridiculously wealthy folks in this society (like his wife, his opponent, and his running mate) and targeting folks who, while comfortable, are entitled to the fruits of their labor, particularly as they raise a family. Why not go after all the billionaires and multi-millionaires? Why not just tax THEM at 50% and close all loopholes (endownments, offshore tax shelters, accounting loopholes etc.)? Why not go after corporations (which, to Kerry's credit, he says he'll do, though I doubt it'll be substantial)? Why not go after that top 1% you keep mentioning? Why don't you see how much that'll raise first before you go after families earning $200K or more, which consist of a LOT of families in metropolitan areas (like I said, if both parents are professionals earning $100K, or one $120K and the other $80, guess what, you're screwed). I just don't think that's right necessarily, though as I admitted earlier, I'll likely take a lot of heat for this, as $200K seems like a shitload of money to most people (even to myself, though I can recognize the distinctions here).
As I said before, I am no friend of the rich. I just don't happen to think that families thus constituted can be considered "rich" in the same way that a family earning over $500K can. Maybe that's just me...
Don't get me wrong-- none of this affects my personal stance on either of the candidates, because I'm not voting; I just found his seeming equivocation on this matter interesting. How I see these elections are like so: do I vote for a shill for the corporations and the religious right, or do I vote for someone beholden to the trial lawyers and the big unions? On top of that, the Republicans are a bit too "capitalist" for my tastes, and the Democrats often a bit too "socialist". In light of all this, I honestly don't know which one is worse (all those factions are opposed to true progress in many spheres); I've never been a big fan of choosing between the lesser of two evils, so I abstain entirely. Just my take on things.
Oh yeah, someone mentioned that they were impressed that Bush used the word "facile"-- but it would have been nice if he used it in its proper context, which he didn't. I could be wrong on this, because I was sort of glancing back and forth from the TV to my books, so I guess I'll wait to see the transcipts.
EDIT: It was also annoying how Bush constantly dragged the conversation back to Iraq (which is amusing considering the dire state of affairs there at the moment), no matter the issue being discussed or the question posed; he always managed to sneak Iraq in somehow. I guess when you can't speak convincingly on any other topic, that's what you have to resort to. I also half expected Bush to flat-out DECK Kerry after a couple of heated exchanges, after witnessing Bush's previous outburst-- particularly when Kerry directly criticized him. Bush: the child who would be king.
EDIT#2: With that stretched, sagging visage of his, though, John Kerry bears a striking resemblance to Mary Joe Buttafucco...after she got shot by Amy Fisher. This is especially noticeable when they cut to show Kerry's reaction to Bush as Bush is speaking, and Kerry is sporting that odd-looking half-grin (or maybe that's his full grin; perhaps his face doesn't stretch that far anymore
). So I guess that balances things out. CrimsonSkies
Member
Fairly even debate. Both guys said some stupid stuff. I'm sure if you're leaning Republican like me you think Bush did well, and vice versa.
Hopefully the 3rd debate will be an all out war!
"Looking at the online polls"
You look at online polls ahah.
Hopefully the 3rd debate will be an all out war!
"Looking at the online polls"
You look at online polls ahah.
shoplifter
Member
Badnarik/Cobb arrested protesting the tyranny of the CPD:
http://69.50.134.50/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
Scans of the suit:
http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html
http://69.50.134.50/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
Scans of the suit:
http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html
Banjo Tango
Member
In regards to the whole General Shinseki comment, where Kerry says:
And I like how Bush is still name-dropping Poland, even after they've announced their plans to withdraw.
Factcheck.org states:
Gotcha. But then they go on to say...
So what I'm wondering is... how does leaking the story of who will replace him undercut his authority? If it's well known that he's retiring, what difference does it make if they know who's going to replace him?
And I like how Bush is still name-dropping Poland, even after they've announced their plans to withdraw.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
Loki said:
Why are you not voting??
Oh yeah, someone mentioned that they were impressed that Bush used the word "facile"-- but it would have been nice if he used it in its proper context, which he didn't. I could be wrong on this, because I was sort of glancing back and forth from the TV to my books, so I guess I'll wait to see the transcipts.
Yes, Bush did use the word facile wrong, if it's the same from word from French and Portuguese, and I'm sure it is. In those languages it means something like "easy" or "soft" which was not at all the meaning he was trying for.
Overall, it was a good debate. Compared to the first one, Bush was better prepared, Kerry did well, and the questions were more interesting.
Mudwhistle
Member
I came across a blog that had a pretty-damn-funny (yet true) analysis of the debate...
http://www.larkinsway.info/
http://www.larkinsway.info/
Mr. E. Yis said:
I don't know what context he used it in, I didn't notice him say it at all, but it has different meanings in English than it does in French. There are a lot of words like this in English, where the meaning has morphed considerably from its root:
Dictionary.com said:
heavy liquid
Member
Mudwhistle said:
Thanks for that. I especially liked the highlights:
shoplifter
Member
GG-Duo said:
Explain.
Is it the part about how the CPD only allows "major party" candidates to participate, and how it is really no more than a shill for the two major parties while passing itself off as something else to the American public?
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Because that won't pay for the tax plans that he has in store for the middle class.
mashoutposse said:
It would if he taxed them enough.
If he closed corporate loopholes in addition to that, I think he'd be on solid footing, funds-wise. I'm aware of the fact that taxing the top 1% alone wouldn't pay for his planned cuts for the middle-class; I just don't agree with how he's going about it, is all.Let's say the tax rate for the highest two brackets is currently 35% (which I believe it is, loopholes aside). I would be more amenable to taxing the top 1% of earners (the top bracket, whose average income is $1.1M) 45-50% (50% when you start talking about people in the $10M+/year range) than I would be to taxing the top two brackets (those from $200K and up) 40% each, for the reasons I've stated. If that makes any sense-- too many parentheses, I know.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked