Presidential Debate II Comment Thread

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-08 11:29pm

Durandal wrote:Kerry knew exactly how to fluster Bush and throw him off balance. Notice how Kerry addressed Bush to his face. Bush is a guy who surrounds himself with "Yes" men, and when someone has the temerity to question him to his face, he gets pissed and loses his composure. Kerry's debate strategy paid off big time.

Bush appeared to be appealing to the audience more for support by the looks of things.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-08 11:31pm

Axis Kast wrote:I concur with Jegs.

I agree that Kerry won a strong victory in this debate, but I disagree that his pro-choice and judicial arguments were very important elements. I do, however, admit to thinking of SD.net when Kerry made the, "I will not subject others to my own religious points of view," spiel.

You know what's funny here? Everyone is more or less in agreement about this, we are just debating the small stuff. When was the last time everyond on SDN agreed on something that didn't have to do with the murder of minority children by rednecks?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-08 11:40pm

Or that she's becoming more centrist to secure her position.

She's senator of fucking NEW YORK, one of the most liberal states in the Union, and she got elected on a fairly liberal platform. Her opponent in 2000 was a centrist Republican. Plus New York is notorious for Democratic senatorial incumbency; no incumbent Democratic Senator has ever been defeated since they've been elected popularly. So why the fuck does she need to move to the center to secure her position the senator from New York?

But no, she has to be out for the Presidency despite no actual evidence anywhere. Gotcha.

I provided evidence (speculation, to be fair, but evidence) and you ignored it. This is an incredibly ambitious women; I may not like her, but she's worked her ass of all her life, she worked her ass off to get into the Senate when no one thought she could a year before, and I don't see how she can possibly be satisfied with being a mere senator when she could be President.

Well holy shit. The entire WV Democratic party must be running soon, because they're so centrist they're fucking Republicrats. This sort of bullshit justification for these theories is exactly why I mocked you, Joe.

Why is it bullshit justification? When anyone on either the left or right side of the political spectrum wants to run for President, do you know what they tend to do? They try to position themselves as the most acceptable, electable Presidential candidate by moving to the center. Kerry's doing it now, Gore did it in 2000, Dole tried to do it in 1996, Bush the Elder tried to do it in 1992, and Clinton himself did it masterfully in 1992. So why is it a "bullshit justification" to point out that there has been a pattern of future Presidential candidates trying to increase their centrist appeal, and speculate that this is exactly what Senator Clinton is trying to do as well?

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-08 11:41pm

So Axis, you think it would have been better for Kerry to say, "I think the right choice is to be Pro Choice and that's how I'm going to govern" or anything of the sort?

The man is a LEADER. That was a VERY uncomfortable question and he handled it flawlessly.

BTW, Kerry did totally blow it on his stem cell research response. What the hell was he going on about? Just nail Bush to the wall with this. He STARTED to say this a few times (pointing out Bush's wanting it both ways) but failed. He should have come right out and said, "Mr. President, if you're so passionate about saving these lives why have you done NOTHING about In Vitro Fertilization? It uses the same process. Clearly this shows that you're not a man of your convictions but a man who panders to those who will help him most."

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-08 11:45pm

Oh, Kerry ALSO blew it on the response to Bush's question regarding "Name 3 things you've done wrong and what you've done to fix them". He gave a fake answer. Total crap and Kerry didn't call him on it. Worse, he could have said, again, "This is what everyone has been talking about. It's not possible to fix a problem when you can't even admit that there is a problem. Everyone knows the President has made key mistakes in his biggest decisions..... Everyone that is, but the President and the Vice President."

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-08 11:47pm

BTW, one move I thought was a complete winner for Kerry was when he made it at least appear as if he remember that woman's name in the back (Nikki?) and returned to her several questions later, by name to point out a failure on Bush's response.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-08 11:48pm

Joe wrote:
Or that she's becoming more centrist to secure her position.
She's senator of fucking NEW YORK, one of the most liberal states in the Union, and she got elected on a fairly liberal platform. Her opponent in 2000 was a centrist Republican. Plus New York is notorious for Democratic senatorial incumbency; no incumbent Democratic Senator has ever been defeated since they've been elected popularly. So why the fuck does she need to move to the center to secure her position the senator from New York?

Buggered if I know. But then again, it doesn't show any signs of wanting to be President either.

But no, she has to be out for the Presidency despite no actual evidence anywhere. Gotcha.

I provided evidence (speculation, to be fair, but evidence) and you ignored it. This is an incredibly ambitious women; I may not like her, but she's worked her ass of all her life, she worked her ass off to get into the Senate when no one thought she could a year before, and I don't see how she can possibly be satisfied with being a mere senator when she could be President.

What speculation? 'So and so said so'? If you provided a link to where he said so, or quoted why he said so, you might have something here. But you said 'She's becoming centrist!' and 'So and so said so!' which is about as thin an argument that can exist.

As for 'She can't possibly be satisfied, I can't comprehend it!', are you actually capable of comprehending that not everyone is like you, and may actually become satisfied with less than total power, despite ambition?

Well holy shit. The entire WV Democratic party must be running soon, because they're so centrist they're fucking Republicrats. This sort of bullshit justification for these theories is exactly why I mocked you, Joe.
Why is it bullshit justification? When anyone on either the left or right side of the political spectrum wants to run for President, do you know what they tend to do? They try to position themselves as the most acceptable, electable Presidential candidate by moving to the center. Kerry's doing it now, Gore did it in 2000, Dole tried to do it in 1996, Bush the Elder tried to do it in 1992, and Clinton himself did it masterfully in 1992. So why is it a "bullshit justification" to point out that there has been a pattern of future Presidential candidates trying to increase their centrist appeal, and speculate that this is exactly what Senator Clinton is trying to do as well?

Because, retard boy, you aren't speculating, you're tossing it out as fact until challenged, and then start advancing steadily to the rear when you are forced to spit up that there is zero actual evidence in your favor. You state it's obvious she wants to be President. Based on what? You feel she's ambitious, and she's becoming centrist. Wow, because it's impossible for people to be satisfied or to hedge their bets. You have no case, Joe. Again, if going centrist is evidence of running for President soon, the entire DSC of WV is running in 08. Gonna be a crowded ticket.

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-10-08 11:53pm

Did anyone miss this:

"internets"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-09 12:00am

Whatever. I'm not going to convince you and this is a waste of time. Conceded, but assuming Bush wins this election you'll be eating crow in 2008.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 12:01am

Joe wrote:Whatever. I'm not going to convince you and this is a waste of time. Conceded, but assuming Bush wins this election you'll be eating crow in 2008.

And when she doesn't run, Joe? You'll push it back another four years? And another? And another?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-09 12:24am

SirNitram wrote:
Joe wrote:Whatever. I'm not going to convince you and this is a waste of time. Conceded, but assuming Bush wins this election you'll be eating crow in 2008.
And when she doesn't run, Joe? You'll push it back another four years? And another? And another?

It's worthless. She could be dead and some Republicans would say it's just a ploy to build sympathy for her presidential bid.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-10-09 12:29am

Durandal wrote:
jegs2 wrote:Holy smoke, Hillary on Fox News!
But she's on CNN right now. One must be an android.

He has asked the question forbidden by The Computer. The computer requests you join me, Citizen. Everyone else, move about your lives.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-09 12:31am

Chardok wrote:
Durandal wrote:
jegs2 wrote:Holy smoke, Hillary on Fox News!
But she's on CNN right now. One must be an android.
He has asked the question forbidden by The Computer. The computer requests you join me, Citizen. Everyone else, move about your lives.

He didn't ask a question.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-09 12:37am

Last debate I agreed with all of you that Kerry won the debate. I disagree with most of you here. I believe the President did a MUCH more effective job tonight. In fact, I believe he won this debate because he was able to defend himself much more effectively. He was also able to call Kerry on a late point that Kerry tried to make about parents buying body armor on the internet for their children, and Bush effectively made him seem hypocritcal by his voting against the funding for armor in the first place. IMHO, Bush seemed much more relaxed, and he was forceful in his opinions and looked very comfortable tonight. I believe this won was won by Bush.

Kerry-1
Bush-1

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-09 12:57am

I want to know what the deal is that the pundits are so against believing any of their own poll numbers. CBS had Kerry up around 80%. CNN had him at 75%, MSNBC 71% and even Fox News has Kerry at 65%.

Their answer to this is that democrats flood the polling. WHAT?!?! Are they actually suggesting that Republicans don't know how to use computers? Granted, Bush saying "Internets" doesn't help that view but he's not exactly in touch.

I believe, while the polls probably have a larger margin for error, what we're seeing here is that the informed voters see through Bush's tactics.

I cannot believe Bush hasn't figured out yet that every time he utters the phrase "WMD's" people immediately turn on him. Did anyone see the coverage of the "undecided's" who use the live response systems? He said it and the numbers just went through the floor. Again, people HAVE a RECENT and PERSONAL view of Bush's track record and it's easier to hold him accountable on it than it is to hold Kerry accountable for what we all know are highly complicated, highly spinnable votes in Congress.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-10-09 01:02am

Christ, people, do we really need all the childish "He said Missoruh!" comments? Bush did very well tonight. He didn't stumble, and he was direct in all his rebuttal comments. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance in November.

Personally, I think Kerry did a terrific job. I especially loved his comments about not letting his personal religious convictions dictate what is best for all America. And he kept pointing out that he'd listen to science first.

I like Kerry's measured directness, and ease he shows with the facts. I hate that smarmy smile Bush has when speaking. It reminds me of a Fundie smiling at you while telling you you're going to hell.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-09 01:07am

Talon Karrde wrote:Last debate I agreed with all of you that Kerry won the debate. I disagree with most of you here. I believe the President did a MUCH more effective job tonight. In fact, I believe he won this debate because he was able to defend himself much more effectively. He was also able to call Kerry on a late point that Kerry tried to make about parents buying body armor on the internet for their children, and Bush effectively made him seem hypocritcal by his voting against the funding for armor in the first place. IMHO, Bush seemed much more relaxed, and he was forceful in his opinions and looked very comfortable tonight. I believe this won was won by Bush.

Hmm...

BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-09 01:13am

Lord Poe wrote:Christ, people, do we really need all the childish "He said Missoruh!" comments? Bush did very well tonight.

If you know the situation there, this makes total sense. HIS base there is the older crowd that says Mizz or Ruh.... The younger crowd says Mizz Or ree. Clearly he was appealing to his base on this. Nothing more.

I hate that smarmy smile Bush has when speaking. It reminds me of a Fundie smiling at you while telling you you're going to hell.

I always picture him thinking, "heheh f'ing idiots. I own your ass." Every time I see it I think, "Who sees that shit-eating grin and thinks it's a positive attribute???" Can you imagine that smirk when he's dealing with foreign leaders? They'd think he was off his rocker.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-09 01:16am

jegs2 wrote:Most here already possess a seething hatred for Bush

Must have something to do with his record in office, perhaps...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-09 01:18am

Joe wrote:
Sir Nitram wrote:But no, she has to be out for the Presidency despite no actual evidence anywhere. Gotcha.

I provided evidence (speculation, to be fair, but evidence) and you ignored it.

Speculation is not evidence.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-09 01:31am

Lord Poe wrote:Christ, people, do we really need all the childish "He said Missoruh!" comments? Bush did very well tonight. He didn't stumble, and he was direct in all his rebuttal comments. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance in November.

Personally, I think Kerry did a terrific job. I especially loved his comments about not letting his personal religious convictions dictate what is best for all America. And he kept pointing out that he'd listen to science first.

I like Kerry's measured directness, and ease he shows with the facts. I hate that smarmy smile Bush has when speaking. It reminds me of a Fundie smiling at you while telling you you're going to hell.

In retrospect I think you're right. Bush didn't do nearly as bad as I thought, he just didn't look good at all next to Kerry. If it had been Al Gore in Kerry's place, I think the debate would have been a LOT more in Bush's favor, but the way Kerry handled himself...hell, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that was some of the finest public speaking I've seen EVER.

Kerry's line about not legislating his beliefs was perfect and he delivered it with a sense of genuine emotion behind it. He stumbled in a few places but when you consider the format he was masterful almost the entire time. He may be the first person I've seen who took the most devisive issue in the country (abortion) and made a stand on it that is only likely to upset religious fundies who actually WANT more religion in government (not that these people would be likely to vote for Kerry anyways). Bravo Kerry, I truly never thought you had it in you. Three weeks ago I would have called him a Dukakis clone, but I doubt anyone is going to make that comparison again, regardless of the outcome of the election.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-09 01:37am

The one guy on the end of the panel on MSNBC (Howard Fienman?) said that response was his worst moment. I could not disagree more. It was clearly difficult, clearly a loaded question and he dissected it and turned it into a positive. All Bush could do was appeal to his base on it.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-09 02:01am

Oh, and it appears that, indeed, as pointed out by someone else here earlier, Bush DOES have part ownership in a timber growing company where he claimed $84 in income, thus qualifying him as a small business owner. So, seems like another chance for the Dems to embarrass him on this point and point out that he doesn't even know the facts about his own books so how can we expect him to get the governments books in order. <grin>

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-10-09 02:07am

Elfdart wrote:If this had been a boxing match, it would have been stopped in the first round.

Bush would have done himself better if he had walked out on stage with Jheri-culred tresses and answered every question put to him by shouting:

"Cuz I'm Rick James, BITCH!"

"Mr President, simple question, why did you invade Iraq?"
"Cocaine is a hell of a drug...."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-09 06:05am

This debate should have been titled "Dumb and Dumber". Kerry was doing better than Bush, but make no mistake: he let huge opportunities go by. Primarily, he suffered from a failure to directly address Bush's comments in many of his rebuttals. Most of the times a question was directed at Bush and he answered, Kerry could have begun his rebuttal by addressing the person who asked the question and saying "Did you notice that Mr. President did not actually answer your question?"

For example, when a woman asked how he planned to repair relations with American allies, Bush never answered that question. Instead, he went off on a rant about how popular = wrong, and unpopular = right (a rather obvious logical fallacy which Kerry also failed to call him on, and in fact, when you think about it, it was basically a long-winded way of saying "I do not intend to repair relations with our allies"). That was a fairly consistent pattern; Bush would often give an answer that was not really a direct answer to a question, and Kerry would let this go by.