So who won the debate?

Tools    





Registered User
I don't take these televised debates seriously. I'm not a political buff, or a master debater (lol, good times...), but my impressions was that neither "won". But they did make their stances fairly clear. A good candidate doesn’t badger his opponent but faces the task at hand, focusing on what he (...and maybe some day she) will do that will be better or how they may excel the current state of affairs. But what do I know… lol… master debater…
__________________
We are the future, the 21st. century dyslexic, glue sniffing, cybersluts with homicidal minds and handguns... we are the same.



2wrongs's Avatar
Official Sacrifice to Holden Pike
Originally Posted by casa
well done champ lets all vote for whos better looking

Yeah. That's all I've ever been about too. Don't bother to read through a whole thread or anything...
MovingOn.org...
I think the last debate went very well for Bush. I like that he was firm in his convictions on what's right and wrong and I think he did a good job bringing to light the fact that Kerry is very, very preoccupied with being popular.
I like that Bush is not the most 'schooled' debater. He certainly isn't good with putting on a poker-face and restraining himself to the format of the debate.
I think he was passionate, strong-willed and determined. That's what I want in a leader. Someone who isn't going to cave under the pressure of popularity.
Bush has come a bit in his percentages since this last debate.
People recognize this president's concern for the people.
__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'



I would love to say bush but that would not be fair.After all the first debate goes to Kerry however in the second debate I think bush did a better job and last time I checked he is on the top of the polls.
Anyone beside me think this is going to be a close elecation?I don't care if it is but I would not the same Fla thing again it was so annoying.
See you around!JM
__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Yoda
This strikes me as pretty meaningless. Both candidates can say "gee, if everything goes well, American troops can come home." That's not new information, nor is it exclusive to either candidate.
Sure. The desire to reduce troop numbers has been expressed by both. (the difference is that Kerry has proposed a strategy whereby they could actually do so without making the country even less stable . Bush has only cited moving troops from european countries etc as a way of taking up the slack - which i understand is considered insufficient to resolve the problems with troop numbers/quality etc)

Originally Posted by Yoda
I also find it interesting that Kerry knows more than enough to criticize the decisions being made, and more than enough to know he'd do things differently, but not enough to judge exactly what he ought to do differently when asked directly. Which is it? Are there crucial things he doesn't know and therefore can't commit to, or does he know enough to declare the administration incompetent?
I think he's stated his case clearly enough conceerning what he'd do differently from Bush (i.e.the contract sharing and return to multilateral 'realpolitik', as mentioned in the post above ).

I'm sure there are things he doesn't know - such as exactly what the Bush admin offered potential allies (and/or opponents ) in terms of power-and-responsability sharing in Iraq (he obviously suspects, as i do, that the Bushies wanted a US-controlled affair, and so wouldn't have offered much). He also can't know with any certainty how the stand-offish countries like Russia etc will react to any future offer of significant power-and-responsability share.

Kerry mentioned a defence department memo to the NATO meeting in the 2nd debate (the one outlining a policy of refusing aid from any country not from the original coalition) which was interesting. It seemed to back up the idea that the Bush-admin has certainly closed the door on getting meaningful international support in, if it hadn't already at the outset

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm reserving judgement, personally. There was much talk about Afghanistan devolving into chaos as well, and 2 and a half years later, as Cheney mentioned (finally!), it's shown tremendous progress.
Hmm, yes, a country with a fully involved NATO contingent.

Notice the difference with Iraq?

(i don't think you'd argue with the assertion that the current forces in Iraq are failing to deal with both reconstruction and security issues simultaneously, and that this is jeapordising Iraq's potential to become a safe place for its residents, and its neighbours)
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



Anyone can say they are going to do this or do that. Getting it done is a lot harder than talking about it. Kerry has a lot of good ideas, I have to say, but they are unrealistic and he knows it. He is out to win votes and say whatever it takes to do so. I believe he wants to do what he is promising, but it will not happen. Sorry thats just how I see it at this point. Unless something drastic happens I will probably vote for Bush. The debates swayed me in no way.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by 7thson
I believe he wants to do what he is promising, but it will not happen.
Are you talking about the multilateral approach to Iraq?

I agree that it would be very tough to achieve, but i don't see on what grounds you can say it categorically wouldn't happen if attempted.

If nothing else, making renewed attempts to get some other 'big guns' (if you'll excuse the expression) on side seems like the only way to bring military forces in iraq up to effective levels.

The Bushies seems to be actively against the idea (if we can trust Kerry's claim about a point-blank refusal from the White House, via the Defence Department, to offers of help with troop-training from non-coalition countries).

But whether or not they're actively opposing broader engagement these days, the Bushies don't have a feasible solution to the poor troop numbers problem.

[i'm assuming you won't disagree that there is a problem with the quantity and quality of the troops, which is affecting both security and reconstruction issues]



Originally Posted by Golgot
Are you talking about the multilateral approach to Iraq?

I agree that it would be very tough to achieve, but i don't see on what grounds you can say it categorically wouldn't happen if attempted.

If nothing else, making renewed attempts to get some other 'big guns' (if you'll excuse the expression) on side seems like the only way to bring military forces in iraq up to effective levels.

The Bushies seems to be actively against the idea (if we can trust Kerry's claim about a point-blank refusal from the White House, via the Defence Department, to offers of help with troop-training from non-coalition countries).

But whether or not they're actively opposing broader engagement these days, the Bushies don't have a feasible solution to the poor troop numbers problem.

[i'm assuming you won't disagree that there is a problem with the quantity and quality of the troops, which is affecting both security and reconstruction issues]
Sorry I should have been more clear, I have been posting in a hurry lately due to work work work. I was speaking domestically. I actually do not agree with most of his foreign policy ideas. I think you know from the past why I feel this way, but if you would like me to be more specifc I would be happy too.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by 7thson
Sorry I should have been more clear, I have been posting in a hurry lately due to work work work.
Tell me about it

Originally Posted by 7thson
I was speaking domestically.
Mmm. Not hugely impressed with some of his domestic and international-trade stuff, from what i know of them. But, i'm not blown away by most of the Bushies' stances either.

I'm guessing you're thinking his promises won't come to fruition coz: some of them are just pre-election posturing, while others will be prevented by a Republican-dominated Senate and spending concerns.

Originally Posted by 7thson
I actually do not agree with most of his foreign policy ideas. I think you know from the past why I feel this way, but if you would like me to be more specifc I would be happy too.
I'd be interested to hear, coz I'm not clear about why you think Bush's approach is preferable.