Devout Supporters Acknowledge Other Candidate's Superiority?
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
Devout Supporters Acknowledge Other Candidate's Superiority?
If you were either a devout Bush supporter or a devout Kerry supporter before the debate yet believed the "other side" did better in this initial debate please let your ideas be known. It is my and Jackbag's belief that devout supporters of either side are too stubborn to acknowledge a better performance from an opposing candidate. Can anyone disprove this throry?
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I have twice already in 2 other posts. I am a devote supporter of president Bush and have stated that he lost the debate and I even argue with other Bush supporters to prove me wrong.
Under the rules of the debate and how debates are judged, Kerry did a far better job, I'd say 4 to 1 over Bush. He kept his answers closer to the 2 minute mark and kept his follow-ups on target most of the time. He is a brilliant public speaker and master debater (pun intended
). He did little to get upset or out of character, which amounts to good poise under pressure. He looked like a president should look.
Bush however, looked frustrated and undermined. Almost demanding respect for the decisions he has made. He remarks were generally slow and under time. I counted at least 5-7 times when the president nodded to end his time rather than fill it with more comment, while Kerry used every second to get across his message. Bush made faces, out of character comments, and at one point broken the rules to comment on a Kerry remark. Kerry never broke the rules. Bush also avoided N. Korea which is a major issue that has been left without resolve. He made no comments at all with regards to any plans for N. Korea.
On the matter of substance in the debate. AKA the issues. Kerry seemed more pressed to condemn and frustrate Bush rather than give specifics to his plan. He made note of a plan, but did not reveal it in detail. Which would have been nice to see given that Bush has not wavered from his initial plan of action.
Bush pushed hard on the facts relating to winning a war, and the strength needed to be a leader and be taken seriously. He spent much of the debate playing defense, while protecting information vital to the security of our troops. He never gave away our position to the enemy which is a good thing.
Kerry however busted the coalitions balls for not being bigger. This is not a good idea given the morale of troops on the ground. They don't need to hear that their efforts are short sided and would be better off with Russia or France's support.
All in all, Kerry defeated Bush hands down, with Bush being the winner on substance. It would have been nice to hear more of Kerry's plans, we already know Bush's and he has no intention of wavering from them.
Under the rules of the debate and how debates are judged, Kerry did a far better job, I'd say 4 to 1 over Bush. He kept his answers closer to the 2 minute mark and kept his follow-ups on target most of the time. He is a brilliant public speaker and master debater (pun intended
). He did little to get upset or out of character, which amounts to good poise under pressure. He looked like a president should look.Bush however, looked frustrated and undermined. Almost demanding respect for the decisions he has made. He remarks were generally slow and under time. I counted at least 5-7 times when the president nodded to end his time rather than fill it with more comment, while Kerry used every second to get across his message. Bush made faces, out of character comments, and at one point broken the rules to comment on a Kerry remark. Kerry never broke the rules. Bush also avoided N. Korea which is a major issue that has been left without resolve. He made no comments at all with regards to any plans for N. Korea.
On the matter of substance in the debate. AKA the issues. Kerry seemed more pressed to condemn and frustrate Bush rather than give specifics to his plan. He made note of a plan, but did not reveal it in detail. Which would have been nice to see given that Bush has not wavered from his initial plan of action.
Bush pushed hard on the facts relating to winning a war, and the strength needed to be a leader and be taken seriously. He spent much of the debate playing defense, while protecting information vital to the security of our troops. He never gave away our position to the enemy which is a good thing.
Kerry however busted the coalitions balls for not being bigger. This is not a good idea given the morale of troops on the ground. They don't need to hear that their efforts are short sided and would be better off with Russia or France's support.
All in all, Kerry defeated Bush hands down, with Bush being the winner on substance. It would have been nice to hear more of Kerry's plans, we already know Bush's and he has no intention of wavering from them.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
millenniumtree
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 09 Aug 2004 21:24
- Location: Stoughton, WI
- Contact:
I don't think so at all... Any way you slice it, Bush still looks and sounds like a cauliflower in a suit. The man doesn't have a firm grasp of the English language.
That being said, he did do BETTER than in the first debate, but Kerry still squashed him like a bug. :P
Sorry, my whole post is off-topic.
In response to the thread title:
NEVER!!!
That being said, he did do BETTER than in the first debate, but Kerry still squashed him like a bug. :P
Sorry, my whole post is off-topic.
In response to the thread title:
NEVER!!!
you're right.
After watching the debate . . . the things I thought the undecided voter would think were "cool", like getting out of his chair in anger . . . mis-statements, and black and white answers to colorful issues actually turned them off.
Arogant. Refuses to see others point of view. Can't admit mistakes, then he can't tell the truth.
I predict they pull even in the polls . . . I"m still disappointed that given all the press that cameout since a week ago he couldn't deliver a knock out blow and make Bush retire on the spot. My expectations were a little high for Kerry I guess. [/i]
After watching the debate . . . the things I thought the undecided voter would think were "cool", like getting out of his chair in anger . . . mis-statements, and black and white answers to colorful issues actually turned them off.
Arogant. Refuses to see others point of view. Can't admit mistakes, then he can't tell the truth.
I predict they pull even in the polls . . . I"m still disappointed that given all the press that cameout since a week ago he couldn't deliver a knock out blow and make Bush retire on the spot. My expectations were a little high for Kerry I guess. [/i]
Unfortunately I had to listen to the debate on the radio and missed most of it. I did see the rediculous mis-anger directed at Kerry when he stood up and spoke like, "I'm GW and I can break the rules if I want..." type of attitude.
Poor display of leadership IMO. Not that Kerry did any better though. He still did not offer any PLAN for anything and when asked he would say, "I have a plan..., but look at Bush". I would like to know how he plans to fund his Pie in the Sky promises.
Poor display of leadership IMO. Not that Kerry did any better though. He still did not offer any PLAN for anything and when asked he would say, "I have a plan..., but look at Bush". I would like to know how he plans to fund his Pie in the Sky promises.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Kerry explicitly stated he was going to roll back the tax cuts to the 2000 tax rate for families making income in excess of 200000USD, while increasing the child credits amount to 1200 or something like that. . . I tuned out once I heard a figure more than I will make in the next five years. . .
Bush has gone from a 2 TRILLION USD suplus to a multi TRILLION dollar deficit . . . HOW HAS HE PAID FOR HIS PROGRAMS ?
Kettle, pot, black. ok then.
Bush has gone from a 2 TRILLION USD suplus to a multi TRILLION dollar deficit . . . HOW HAS HE PAID FOR HIS PROGRAMS ?
Kettle, pot, black. ok then.
We need a "Whatever" emoticon 
. They all make promises they can't keep or throw around statistics without a real clue as to how it really adds up. If they actually knew, they'd be tax accountants instead of professional Bullshitters.
I tuned in for Kerry's rant and laughed at it, cause you can't give and give and spend and spend, increase everything and expect the top 4% to pay for it. It will never happen that way. At least Bush, as low as some of his figures were, was honest. Kerry cannot be trusted [he says looking over his shoulder for John Edwards in a speedo ](That was a jib-jab joke people)
So I say again, how is he really going to pay for it?
. They all make promises they can't keep or throw around statistics without a real clue as to how it really adds up. If they actually knew, they'd be tax accountants instead of professional Bullshitters.I tuned in for Kerry's rant and laughed at it, cause you can't give and give and spend and spend, increase everything and expect the top 4% to pay for it. It will never happen that way. At least Bush, as low as some of his figures were, was honest. Kerry cannot be trusted [he says looking over his shoulder for John Edwards in a speedo
](That was a jib-jab joke people)So I say again, how is he really going to pay for it?
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Interesting. I agree with Flex: politicians aren`t economists, so rather than listen to politicians lie about their economic plans, we should listen to qualified economists analyze their plans.FlexThis wrote: They all make promises they can't keep or throw around statistics without a real clue as to how it really adds up. If they actually knew, they'd be tax accountants instead of professional Bullshitters.
*shuffles off to check with qualified economists, then comes back.*
OK then, let`s see what The Washington Post`s economic analysts said about `pie in the sky` programs and how to fund them. Oh! This is interesting... after the Republican convention, according to numbers supplied by the Bush administration, it would cost `well in excess of 3 trillion dollars` to fund Bush`s proposed agenda.
Currently, Bush is accusing Kerry of having an agenda that could cost... 2 trillion dollars. Maybe thats why The Washington Post says that the cost of Bush`s agenda `far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.`
Hm. Maybe we should check other economists for a second opinion. Hey, how about the Congressional Budget Office? That could be a good place to start. Let`s see... hm, apparently, almost 2/3rds of the 2004 deficit were caused by Bush`s tax cuts. I bet that money have come in handy when it came time to pay for underfunded programs like, say, No Child Left Behind.
Hey, another interesting fact from the CBO: over a third of Bush`s tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1% of families, all whose average income is over $1 million. How many people do YOU know make over $1 million?
Does Kerry fully understand his economic plan? Maybe not. Does Bush fully understand his economic plan? Maybe not. But I think it`s unfair and amazingly hypocritical for Bush to accuse Kerry of having an unfinancable agenda, when Bush`s record (massive surplus------>massive deficit, expensive war in Iraq, massive job loss, underfunded domestic programs) is such an incredible failure.
Most voters don`t understand the economic plans of Presidential candidates, and this is really a shame, because it leaves them at the mercy of spin machines. Go to your local university (if its any good), and talk to the economics professor. Or pick up a reputable economic journal at a good bookstore. From an economic standpoint, Bush doesn`t have a leg to stand on. He has no right to criticize Kerry on economic policy.
I know several people that make this figure. Actually they dwarf that figure, but that is to be expected when you OWN a bank.How many people do YOU know make over $1 million?
I agree Ken that most voters Don't understand good economics. Most economists don't understand good economics. It changes daily, and most can only speculate.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews