Poll for Tonight's Debate

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 30 Sep 2004 15:02

Cast your vote for who "won" the first debate of this election year. Dont just vote for the candidate you like, vote for the candidate that you believed had a better debate/strategy/whatever.

Please just drop a name, for example, "Kerry" or "Bush." No explanations are necessary.

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 30 Sep 2004 18:29

thats easy. GEORGE W. BUSH.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 Sep 2004 18:30

kerry

strumpfm · Post by **strumpfm** » 30 Sep 2004 18:34

kerry

Flipsider · Post by **Flipsider** » 30 Sep 2004 18:40

Kerry, no contest.

Bush: uhhh, ummm, ah... uhhhh.... nucyaler

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 30 Sep 2004 18:41

Kerry!

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 30 Sep 2004 18:48

Kerry!!

"Hard work..."

Anyone keep a running count of how many times Bush repeated himself for various things? I paid attention for "hard work" and caught about 4 over the course of 15 minutes, iirc.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 30 Sep 2004 19:14

It's a damned shame I missed it.. stupid work...

millenniumtree · Post by **millenniumtree** » 30 Sep 2004 23:04

Kerry kicked Bush's arse.

Kerry is a much better speaker, and he didn't evade the questions as much.

Bush kept saying Nu-cu-lar, and it really bugged me. :P
He also exposed some of his ignorance about how international talks are supposed to work.

Bush repeated his few meaningless campaign phrases more often than Kerry did (yes, kerry had a few meaningless campaign phrases too) and Bush tried to sling mud at Kerry more often than the reverse.

Kerry had a few really good comebacks from some things Bush had said as well. It was quite entertaining actually.

I found this particularly interesting. Here's a direct quote from Bush:

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

Why is it that Bush doesn't want to join the ICC? Maybe he is afraid that that CRIMINALS in our own military might be brought to justice! Why is this a bad thing? It seems Bush wants everyone to be punished for war crimes but our own people. Hey, if people commit war crimes, they deserve to be punished, wherever they are from. Bush seems to want every country to be held accountable for their actions except the U.S.

By the way, a transcript of the entire debate is available here:
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71504

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Oct 2004 07:18

Kerry won the debate based on the rules for debating. He kept his answers within the time frame going over only slightly on occasion. His answers were well spoken and he stood with good poise in presenting his arguments. He is a better debater than Bush, and a better public speaker.

The problem I had with Kerry is that although he answered all questions within the time frame, he really never gave any specifics. Instead he chose to go on the offensive and point out mistakes that Bush made. This bothers me, because it doesn't show a position, it only shows criticism. Any media reporter could have given the same answers as Kerry gave with regards to Bush criticism. He also gave great ideas about expanding our arms so to speak, but because of the theme of the debate could not comment on how he was going to acheive such lofty goals. A summit would be nice, but eventually the problem will be money and whether or not the American people are willing to fund such ambitions.

Bush on the other hand had a difficult task of presenting his arguments without giving away our position in the middle east. He looked forced to give the same message over and over again as not to compromise our troops. I admire that. He also drove the message home that it is important and vital that a president not waver or waffle on a position based on the way the winds are blowing at that particular time. I also admire him for standing firm.

After last night's debate I am still a Bush supporter, and look forward to the other debates.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Oct 2004 07:20

Why is it that Bush doesn't want to join the ICC? Maybe he is afraid that that CRIMINALS in our own military might be brought to justice! Why is this a bad thing? It seems Bush wants everyone to be punished for war crimes but our own people. Hey, if people commit war crimes, they deserve to be punished, wherever they are from. Bush seems to want every country to be held accountable for their actions except the U.S.

It is important as the #1 super power that we remain #1. Joining a criminal court takes that power away and places it up for grabs.

Not a good move.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 01 Oct 2004 17:05

FlexThis wrote: Joining a criminal court takes that power away and places it up for grabs.
.

I disagree with this statement.

And I think its very important we look at how the United States became `#1.` Naive as it sounds, I like to think that part of why America was `#1` was because EVEN THOUGH it had the strongest military in the world, it still respected other countries and helped them out. After World War II there was no question that the US was the strongest country in the world, but through the Marshall Plan, we helped Europe get back on its feet with dignity. During the Cold War we helped a lot of countries out of self-interest, but we still helped them. And when the Cold War ended, with no Russian counterpart, we became the only Superpower in the world. When this happened, if countries had problems with each other, they would just as often come to the US for help as the UN. When Turkey and Greece fought over a tiny, uninhabitable island, they called on the US to resolve the problem, not the UN. We were `#1` not just because we had the strongest military, but because we were perceived as fair and just.

Since Bush came into power, he has pissed off a lot of other countries by flaunting Americas power and telling other countries that their opinions dont matter. When September 11th happened, he got a second chance, as the nations of the world sympathized with the US. What did he do with that second chance? He told our allies (and by allies I mean REAL allies, like the French, Germans, and Russians, not tiny countries with no military like EVERY country in the `coalition of the willing` with the exception of England) to go fuck themselves. And Abu Ghraib didn`t help our image at all either.

If you asked people all around the world 5 years ago if they thought the US was a fair country, I think you would get a lot of positive responses. Now, I think the entire Arab world, a good chunk of Europe, and a good chunk of Asia all think of the US as a selfish bully.

Rejecting the ICC just shows the world that the US thinks the rules apply to everybody but them. Does the US have the power and money to tell the rest of the world to fuck off? Yes. Should they? I don`t think they should.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 01 Oct 2004 17:07

Edit: After World War II, America and Russia were the strongest countries in the world, but America gained the respect of the world (instead of Russia) because we helped other countries, and were perceived to treat people more fairly than the russians. After the Cold War, we were unquestionably the strongest country in the world, but didnt abuse that power, and still dealt well with other countries.

Wish I could edit, but I understand the reason why we can`t.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 01 Oct 2004 21:10

you cant even call what they have debates. in the old days they had actual debates, each candidate had to answer eachothers questions and any other questions people had. now its just a televised meeting.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 02 Oct 2004 03:01

I didn't see the debates, but i was wondering if US citizens think the inclusion of one or more minor candidates might spark things up a bit?

millenniumtree · Post by **millenniumtree** » 02 Oct 2004 16:58

Yeah, I wish there could have been 3 or 4 candidates in the debate, but the 2 party majority would never have it. :P

I sure wish a 3rd party candidate could be president, it would really put some action back into the system. Right now though, I think I'd take a sliced cantaloupe over shrub boy. It would certainly have more flavor...
(probably better in international talks as well)
And my belief right now is that without the 3rd party coverage, Kerry has a better chance of getting in. I like Kerry, and I want to see him as president. If the 3rd party gets screwed in the process, that's too bad, but we need to trim the shrubs back a bit. :P

wicked · Post by **wicked** » 05 Oct 2004 11:32

Kerry won the debate. Repulican campain people are scrambling trying to figure out how to recuperate.

Go to http://www.democrats.org and watch "FACES OF FRUSTRATION". Its pretty hilarious.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » 05 Oct 2004 11:36

^^^ oops sorry, the correct link is http://www.democrats.org/news/200410010006.html

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 05 Oct 2004 11:37

Opposing the I.C.C. should be as noble as opposing the Patriot Act.

Why does having your "rights" taken away by an un-elected, un-accountable world-body merit less concern than having them taken away by the U.S. government?

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 05 Oct 2004 12:14

C-fan made a good edit, although the original looked good also.

I just have to argue or agree about this statement, ---------------------------------------------------------------
When September 11th happened, he got a second chance, as the nations of the world sympathized with the US. What did he do with that second chance? (........)
-----------------------------

He blew his chance to use the emotion to invade or lay waste to 4 or 5 countries. American and world sentiment would have easily allowed Bush to engage in military actions VASTLY exceeding what has occured. (I'm not saying that would have been the correct action.)

He wasted the emotion of the world. He would have been viewed like Roosevelt gearing up America for War after Pearl Harbor.

America would have appeared strong and justified no matter what miltary events occured, right or wrong.

American high emotions were expected to last forever. Over time , with the Medias help, half of us forgot that 9-11 ever happened.

If you didn't lose someone in the 2 towers, then you went back to watching baseball on T.V.

-n