Friday Night's Alright for Fighting-Town Meeting Friday Night Debate Thread

[giggleygirl25]

goofy title i know but i wanted to loosen it up abit...anyway this is the Town Meeting Debate Thread...and ya'll know how it goes, post thoughts, feelings, opinions and facts (or in some cases "facts") on how good or bad the candidates did.

[venray]

:D

[Mitchell]

Thank you for starting this thread, giggley, my good friend, and you can be sure I'll be venting my views here once the debate between Mr Bush and Mr Kerry is history!

Mitch

[venray]

*bump*

Bringing this to the top as the debate is about over....

[redway10]

Well, even though Kerry played it safe, and did not go for uppercuts on jobs or Osama, it appears as if he pissed off a weaker debater enough to take another victory.

Bush would rather just say "Be a good Christian, vote for me! Satan wants Kerry to win!".

But seriously, Bush has played the religion card more than the last 42 presidents combined.

I give Bush credit for preventing a larger recession, and attempting to bring Democracy to those who live and die by tribal tradition.

But we really got a crappy return on the Billions (Trillions?) of dollars he spent - and that's the main reason why I couldn't vote for him. That $500 billion prescription drug plan is a robbery of the children of today (medicare won't be there for them).

[kurchatovium]

I really don't get this if Bush is more animated people say Kerry pissed him off and won, if he is low key then people say he is not animated enough and Kerry won. Really I wish these people would just say you like Kerry more than Bush and stop trying to pretend you are analyzing this debate fairly. :rolleyes:

[Mitchell]

I thought Kerry did fine. Unfortunately, Bush did seem more composed then the last debate, and was able to get across his misleading statements a bit more effectively. I do strongly disagree with how he said about not doing "what is popular". No president can do things to please everyone all of the time, no matter what party. He almost made it sound like Kerry is going to do things that will be detrimental to the country just to be popular. While I did hear Bush make an admission about the report of yesterday, I still strongly disagree with his insistence that it was right to go to war. Yesterday's report was a major revelation, and Bush just seems to blow it off by continually insisting he was right. His indignance bothers me, and while he may have handled this debate a bit better then last week, it is his actions as president the last 3 years and eight plus months that still make me believe Kerry is the right person for the job.
One final misleading statement: Bush keeps saying we have "created" 1.9 million jobs. This is his misleading and smokescreen rhetoric said to obscure the truth. The fact is, as Kerry stated, Bush will be the first president since Hoover to have a net jobs loss in his term. This is a serious fact that Bush misleads on. One cannot blame this all on 9-11. You can say: The job loss isnt as bad as it was at the height of the recession, but dont say "We have created 1.9 million jobs", when the statement isnt true. Kerry's statement of a net jobs loss is crucial, and a primary reason we should oust Bush in November, 9-11 or not.

Mitch

[MrMacphisto]

Kurch... If you can explain to the conservatives that they're biased and shouldn't "analyze" the debate, I'll gladly do the same for the liberals. Of course, this is assuming your explanation would actually keep them from posting.

[giggleygirl25]

well i watched the debates and i have to agree with Peter Jennings,George Will and Stephanopolous (plz forgive my spelling)...it was a draw and both men did alright...and yes i freely admit i'm voting for Kerry...stylistically, Kerry did better with the eye contact with those that asked questions and he did manage to get under Bush's skin on a few things, i did see Bush almost literally leap off his stool..

anyways, it was interesting...and now it'll be onto debate #3 in New Mexico.

[redway10]

Kurch -

After the last debate, the conservatives yelled "tie!" - until it was really clear that there was no tie.

And in my recent post - I pointed out the positives as well as the negatives of President Bush - something you will rarely see Bush followers do - because they suffer from mass "tunnel vision", the same "tunnel vision" that allowed them to believe that they won the conventions and the first debate, until the evidence was overwhelming that the debate will likely be a key factor in a Kerry win (if he wins).

I voted for Reagan and Bush I, they were far better Presidents and men than Bush II could ever hope to be.

How in the heck did Bush avoid the "draft dodger" label that the conservatives stuck so energetically to President Clinton. Of course, Rush Limbaugh has already deflected the "illegal drug addict" label that he used to throw around - quite - liberally.

"Tunnel vision" is not much better than ignorance - no matter how intelligent the people are who suffer from it.

And I won't even get started on "Hypocrisy".

[kurchatovium]

I guess that is what I am saying here it seems everyone argues the style and not the facts. Hell I would vote for anyone who reduced my taxes and will protect this country no matter if he shouted, danced a jig, spoke in a falsetto voice or did an Elvis impersanation. :p

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
I guess that is what I am saying here it seems everyone argues the style and not the facts. Hell I would vote for anyone who reduced my taxes and will protect this country no matter if he shouted, danced a jig, spoke in a falsetto voice or did an Elvis impersanation. :p

Ah... but what if he reduced your taxes so much that he could no longer fund governmental programs properly? Would you still vote for him then?

[redway10]

Bush has courted the Christian vote (this is a Christian country), to the detriment of fiscal / military / intellectual responsibility.

He started planning to avoid the "one-term Bush" label his father got as soon as he entered office.

It is sad that our Country is so religious (possibly the most religious developed country in the world), that we may get stuck with Bush II for another term.

"I knew George Bush, Sr., and GB II you are no George Bush, Sr."

[kurchatovium]

In my humble opinion goverment programs are highly over rated. The goverment can barely operate the Post Office let alone handle things as complicated as Health Care.

[Krokus]

i think it was a good, solid debate. both men made some good points. I say it was a tie. Bush did much better, and kerry maintained his excellence.

[redway10]

Christianity is such a powerful force (that Bush has used a political tool countless times) - that no one will dare discuss the truth.

George Bush has only really ever had one message - "Be a good Christian and vote for me".

I never see this appalling fact discussed anywhere - people are just too afraid to discuss this unbelievable mix of politics and religion.

[Mitchell]

Redway makes a couple of excellent points. He mentioned how 43 is so different than 41. I freely admit that I started voting in 1992, and voted for Clinton twice, Gore last time, and will be voting for Kerry this time, but that being said.
Bush 41, while I didnt agree with his policies, thought he was out of touch, and I feel he made a grave mistake when he said "Read my lips, no new taxes", and broke that campaign promise, I still felt that he was a middle of the road Republican, who was not so staunchly only for the rich and big business. He also seemed more flexible and more likable then his son. Bush 43 has an indignancy about him that can be infuriating, and is unyielding. Iam also not sure that 41 would have taken us to war the way that his son did. He probably would have gone to the allies, and resorted to war as a last resort, while letting the inspectors finish the process. The country has also gotten a lot more conservative in the last 12 and 16 years since 41 was in office. Bush 43 is staunchly loyal to the right to life, and groups like the Christian Coalition. His father was more beauacratic and governmental than religious in his policies.
I dont honestly know how many Republicans will cross over and vote for Kerry, not many I'd guess. I recall every professor I had in college saying during the 88 election how Bush 41 was a moderate Republican, more moderate than Reagan. His son is all the way to the right, and this I have a problem with. I cant bring myself to vote for someone with Bush 43's policies, and that is why I will be voting for Kerry.

Mitch

[asutickler]

Originally posted by giggleygirl25


anyways, it was interesting...and now it'll be onto debate #3 in New Mexico.


Sadly, no. Debate #3 is being held right here in Tempe, Arizona. I get to deal with traffic congestion, annoying protesters, a small army's worth of security, and assorted other hassles en route to my Wednesday night class... All so that America's #1 PARTY school can earn the "prestige" of holding a debate between two of the biggest losers in the history of American politics. Yuck. :sowrong:

[redway10]

CNN's poll called it even. Those polled were a slightly higher percentage Republican.

If it was really a tie, that should slow down Kerry's current momentum. This remains to be seen.

The US doesn't need another tie election. Nobody won in 2000.

I think the US would be better off with a President and Congress from different parties. A giant shift left or right is always risky, and usually expensive.

We need a political party that's socially liberal and financially conservative.

Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

[Mitchell]

I happen to agree with you, redway about the US needing a president of one party, and a Congress of another. This way we have the real "checks and balances" that the forefathers intended when creating the three branches of Gov't to check each other. The problem with this scenario is what happened to Clinton in 1996 with the Gov't shutdown, how when both parties cant reconcile, a scenario like that happens. I know that is to an extreme.
I also agree with you about the scenario of a fiscal conservative with a social conscience. I have said all along that while I support and plan to vote for Kerry, if in fact we had a true moderate Republican running for president on their ticket, like a Mccain or former NYC mayor Rudy Guliani, I would listen very, very carefully to what both had to say, and they might even get my vote. I appreciate that they are both moderates, and arent this hard line all the way to the right with this unyielding rhetoric. This is one reason I think the GOP made a mistake not to have Mccain as its candidate in 2000. I know Mccain supported the war, but he has also acknowledged that mistakes were made. I loved the bi partisan sponsored campaign reform finance bill he did. I just think he is a very levelheaded middle of the road type guy who can appeal to all. My whole family, who is Democrats, like him, but, alas, since it is Bush running and not him, I'm voting Kerry.
I love your posts. You make great points. Thank you!

Mitch

One final point: Due to what Mccain said, if he had been president at the time of the Iraq problem, I dont think he would have taken us to war in this way. Being a war vet and POW, I think he would have given the inspectors more time, or would have built a true coalition of the world. Bush failed to do this, and his unyielding attitude that he was right, makes me feel disdain for him. Even his light acknowledgement that intelligence was wrong the last few days isnt enough for me, because he still insists he was right to go to war in the manner that he did. I have a huge problem with that position.

[venray]

Today's poll

Who won the debate?
John Kerry 50%
George Bush 50%
Which ticket is faring better in the debates overall?
Kerry-Edwards 53%
Bush-Cheney 47%
Total Votes: 701,394

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
In my humble opinion goverment programs are highly over rated. The goverment can barely operate the Post Office let alone handle things as complicated as Health Care.

I don't suppose you're dependent on any social programs, are you Kurch? It's easy to make statements like yours if you don't require any financial or medical help in life. I just hope for your sake that you never have to depend on the government for aid, because a lot of people share your view, mostly because they also have been lucky enough not to have fallen on hard times. If your way of thinking becomes popular enough, maybe there won't be any government programs in the future, and we'll return to the good ole days of the Gilded Age. Personally, I think taking care of the needy is a good thing, but maybe that's just me....

[New2u]

Kerry came off, again, as being very presidential in his behavior and presentation. Bush, again, came off as a "rattly little kid" angry because someone took is "pail and shovel". Kerry was, once again, the winner in last night's debate. But the conservative media will "rearrange" what happened and tell people that what they saw and heard didn't happen, this is what "really" happened and present their "version" that Bush was the winner...like in the first debate. The Repubs need a reality check.

[TicklishKev]

I'll agree that Bush did a better job on this debate than the last, but again I believe Kerry overall won. They say the winner is the one who stays on the attack the most. By plain body language you can see who that was. Practically every time Kerry spoke, he turned to Bush and made his points directly to him for a few seconds before turning to the audience. His reactions when seated were solid, and practically every time Bush made a point, Kerry smiled wide and started writing. On the other side, whereas Republicans would say Bush's performance was 'passionate,' I along with many others saw it as desperate, aggressive, rather whiny and out of control at most points. I found the incident with the moderator rather ironic as the point he was defending against was the go-it-alone policy. And he did to the moderator just what he did to the UN that got him that label in the first place, which was to pretty much say "screw the rules I'm going to do what I want anyway." In this case, speak out of turn. When Kerry was speaking, Bush never smiled, and twitched a couple of times. The news called them winks...they were twitches. He wasn't looking at anyone to wink at. More than once he had no clue what to say, so resorted to the derogatory 'I don't know where to begin' to kick it off. I'm guessing after the last debate, someone like Karl Rove told him to say those words instead of stutter.

Anyway, I'll concede that it was a closer debate than last week, but it looks like a 2-0 lead for Kerry on the debate front. They say about 18% of voters are decided upon debate results. With such a supposed close race, it should be enough.

**
Kev

[New2u]

But you do have a point. At least this time, Bush didn't "stammer", trip on his words, had periods of "silence" where he did not know what to say. He did, in deed, do better. By not "screwing up" bigtime, the Repubs can say Bush competed better. So far, Kerry won the second debate and Bush only has one more this Wednesday which is the final one to get back any "traction" that he lost from the first two, staying with his "pattern" that is not likely to happen. I don't expect Bush to win on Wednesday either. Bush has been known to be a poor debater in Repub circles. I guess that maybe is the reason he perfers only "yes" persons in his cabinet so no one will debate the point with him in fear of losing their job. The results, the Iraq war kaos.

[redway10]

The 2-day CNN/Gallup results gave Kerry a 45-30 lead in the town hall debate, which is pretty overwhelming with such a heavily biased populace.

However, it only helped Kerry a very small amount in the election race, where he now has a negligible lead (about 1 point). Kerry may get an additional boost before the next debate, but if he doesn't deliver in the next debate, the overall poll will probably go back to a tie or Bush lead.

Bush's favorable rating is now at exactly 50%, which is generally what an incumbent receives as a popular vote total.

It's gonna be another close one...

I just can't vote for Bush. I don't think I can bear even just one more Scalia or Thomas.

But I'm still glad that Bush crushed Saddam when he had the chance, even though the postwar has been so badly handled. There may be more terrorists now, but there are fewer places for them to operate freely. If we had some help from the "pacifists" in France / Germany, etc., we probably could have forced Iran and Syria to end all of their terrorist / WMD ambitions while we were on a roll.

For example, notice that Israel attacks terrorists in Syria (a "sovereign nation", like Nazi Germany and North Korea), and the "outrage" is pretty minimal.

If only other developed nations considered terrorism to be their problem.

Continental Europe has mishandled the Iran situation about as bad as the U. S. has mishandled North Korea. They should be far more concerned, this mess will eventually reach their house.

[kurchatovium]

I was unemployed for one and half years Mr Mcphisto so spare me I don't know what it is like crap. I take the bus every day to work and probably see more poor and homeless people in a week then you have in your entire life. Now that I do earn a bit of money I actually do help where I can by buying those food when they need it or giving them money and direction when I can. That is the difference goverment programs are impersonal. The real way to help people is to get to know them and help and get involved. Perhaps we should all do more of this instead of just throwing money at problems and hope they go away. Again I tire of the lefts way of debating of attacking me personally like I am some sort of felon or evil monster. It just tells me your views have no validity cause you must resort to these tactics.

[MrMacphisto]

Well, Kurch... I have to pose another question... Do government programs have to be impersonal? Maybe, they could become more of a personal system if people allowed them to be. Usually, programs become impersonal due to the fact that the government usually appeals to the lowest bidder when it comes to funding and running social programs. Not many people go into social work, because frankly, there's not much money to be made in it. Still, I must pose another question: if we can fund our intelligence agencies and our military so well, then why do we fund our social programs and healthcare so badly? Are we societally more predisposed to prefer putting more effort into our weapons and spies than our infrastructure? I don't mean to imply that you are a monster, Kurch, but I do have a number of questions for you and society in general. I'll tell you what... I'll retract my aggressive tone, if you can elaborate on how best to deal with poverty, if government shouldn't be involved... You say it should be more personal, but what specifically do you mean by that?
Surely, you aren't implying that charities can bear the full burden of our poor....

[kurchatovium]

Well it would take a long time for me to elaborate completely but I will try to keep it short.

1st)Spend money wisely. Help encourage minorties to goto college so they can get better paying jobs. Fund welfare for only five years for those unemployed but require programs to help then learn how to get and find jobs (this is available now in some states and 60 minutes did a piece on it, works great by the way)

2nd)Make more Money Available By Cutting Waste: I think lots of money can be saved by cutting out things that don't work like spending money for cops to go after prostitiutes and small time drug users. These "sin crimes" usually already have the punishment built in without the goverment adding to it. The are other programs that can be elimanted or cut out. I would even consider privatising the Post Office if it can make enough money to keep afloat.

3rd) Tax Cuts Galore: Give companies tons of breaks if they hire homeless or help teach them new skills or fund minority work or schol programs, etc.

4th)Actually Help Someone Yourself: If everyone gives a little it helps many a lot. I truly feel you have to really know a person to truly help them. Throwing money at a problem without knowing the situation does little to help. Its like giving money to a homeless person that is just going to buy booze with it and not going with him to make sure he buys food. Not that I live up as much as I should to this standard but I feel I should do more.

5) Please forgive my earlier rant :D :D :p

[MrMacphisto]

1)... I'm a little confused by this one; are you saying that we should only fund individuals for 5 years of welfare, or are you saying that we should only keep welfare around for another 5 years? I'm assuming you mean the former and not the latter, but oddly enough, I believe the current limit on welfare services for individuals is about 2 years -- and that's for the entirety of one's life. If you spend 2 years on it during one period of unemployment and later need it, you're SOL. Granted, I realize that a limit had to be defined somewhere. As for employment retraining, I totally agree. Although, I'd say that college is overrated. Our collegiate and school systems should focus less on liberal arts and other academic topics and more on trades. Most people (regardless of race) aren't really cut out for the academic mindset, and besides, we need far more tradesmen and tradeswomen than we need intellectuals.

I'll get back to you on the other things you mentioned, but I like it. BTW, I'm sorry too that I was being a dick earlier... lol.

[kurchatovium]

Nono I think each person should only be allowed five years of welfare not that all of welfare should be around for five years. This is a program actually is operating in some states I believe. Clinton endorsed some welfare reform to his credit as well but I am not certain exactly what it was he enacted.

[MrMacphisto]

2)... I don't know about privatizing the Post Office, but I agree that the War on Drugs is futile, and prostitution should be legal. Sin is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to consensual acts....

3)... This idea could work, but you'd have to phrase the legislation very carefully to prevent the use of loopholes.

4)... I agree with this one as well... How often it happens is debatable, however....