I'm wondering how many people watched the debate last night, and what they thought. Personally, I thought Kerry won the debate easily, and as much as I don't like to couch the argument in terms of winning and losing, I thought he was far more articulate and thoughtful, while Bush seemed defensive, almost pleading, "No, really, you have to believe me because I say so." And he (Bush) kept repeating the same tired old platitudes he's been saying for the past year and a half. I am not a Bush supporter, but I expected a more coherent defense from the man for whom foreign policy is supposedly a strong suit.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Presidential debate
- Thread starter frye45
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate presidential
:weird: I watched it, and I agree. However, when you've been as big a failure as Bush, how could you expect a coherent anything from him. He has been a disaster for the working families, and the war in Iraq is the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," regardless of what he says. However, I am sure the insurance companies and corporate types love him.
I am not necessarily a Kerry fan, mainly because he supports free trade agreements, but he will get my vote in November.
I am not necessarily a Kerry fan, mainly because he supports free trade agreements, but he will get my vote in November.
Kerry's got my vote as well, although I was a Dean supporter in the primaries. Having watched much of the campaign so far, Kerry did little to inspire me, although his performance last night gave me some hope. It was the most energetic and passionate as I've ever seen him. He seemed to gain confidence as the debate went on while Bush seemed to grow only more desperate. Only time will tell.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,619
- Points
- 0
I think both of them had their strong and weak moments during the debate. I am a registered democrat, though find myself alligning more with Bush simply because of the issues he stands for and against. If he seemed like he was repeating himself last night, its because those issues are still issues and he's dealing with them. Of course its in Kerry's best interests to come up with anything he can to gain the support of the masses, he's free to do so. I feel Bush and his position are solidifyed and he doesn't need to defend it as much as Kerry needs to defend his, which is all presumptual. All Kerry can do at this point is talk and promise whatever, he has no basis with which to back any of it up. Its all proposal. He has the luxury of being in the position that he's in where he can easily presume to say whatever he'd like while pointing out the shortcomings of Bush. Its always easier to attack a president who has a record than it is to attack someone who has yet to have one. They are both good men and could lead this country well. Bush has had his ups and downs as president and it would be no different for Kerry if he were president. Though Kerry's indecisiveness really bothers me. And this seems to have just as much to do with his personal stability and character as it does his political allignment and position in his bid for presidency.
Unless I see a complete turn about, I don't see myself changing my mind about who I will vote for.
Unless I see a complete turn about, I don't see myself changing my mind about who I will vote for.
Last edited:
Maybe if Bush had a better strategery.....lol sorry I don't have a whole lot to say about politics because I feel all politicians are dirty, but it seems as if the democrats are a little bit cleaner.....but I disagree with your saying Bush has had his 'ups and downs'. I've seen no 'ups'. The only people who actually benefit from that idiot being president are the top 1% insanely rich people. The sooner the rest of the population realizes this, the better off they'll be. Has anyone noticed besides me that when Clinton was in office we had actual surplus, and then when Bush came in, it disappeared? What a waste.
Last edited:
it's one millionare and another millionare telling the public that they know the plight of the middle class and i have some bad news from iraq a fellow coworker brother was killed in action last night at 10:34 pm est he left 3 children. You know i would probally state that i'm forever turned off by the way Americians arrogent behavoir our nation was once a nation of ideas and beliefs in being a good friend to the world.But over the last 10 to 20 years we became self center and not a nation that help the world anymore I strongly suggest a vote for anyone but our standard members of both the democracts and the republicans also remember change starts slow people should vote 3rd party across the broad in state local and national elections you will hear alot about wasted votes but who do you think our the biggest opponets of the 3rd party the democracts and the republicans Just A Thought and Please Say A Pray for our soldiers and citizen to come home save and stop this DAM WAR!!!!!!!
Uttahcee, you make a good point about 3rd party candidates, and I agree completely. In fact, I voted for Nader in 2000 simply because I hated the way Gore ran his campaign. By the end, he and Bush seemed identical to me. I think it's vital for a third voice to be heard in the national body politic, if not a fourth or fifth voice. Yes, Kerry and Bush are both rich and priviledged, but then Kerry acknowledged that last night when he said both he and Bush would benefit from the tax cut, but that the money would be better spent on defense. I, too, am sick of being perceived as arrogant bullies in the world. I think one of Kerry's best points was saying that it's imperative we show the world we have no long term designs on the Middle East, and that we can't show that when we are building 14 bases in Iraq and when, in the earliest stages of the war, we guarded the oil ministry first and left other important institutions vulnerable. What does that say to the rest of the world? Doesn't it only confirm their suspicions that we are there to protect corporate interests?
I am so sorry for the loss of your coworker. People will say that's the price you pay in a war, but I can't help feeling this whole thing could have been avoided. Bush would have us all tremble in fear at the mention of the word terrorist, but was Saddam really a threat? We all assume so because Bush says so, but I have my doubts. This is one big reason I supported Dean. He was one of the few who stood up and said Bin Laden is the threat, no Hussein. Unfortunately, the Republicans have so linked Iraq to 9/11, it's become a truth in the national consciousness when it's simply a big fat lie. I can only urge everyone who reads this to PLEASE PLEASE vote. It's the only leverage we have as Americans.
Enough said.
I am so sorry for the loss of your coworker. People will say that's the price you pay in a war, but I can't help feeling this whole thing could have been avoided. Bush would have us all tremble in fear at the mention of the word terrorist, but was Saddam really a threat? We all assume so because Bush says so, but I have my doubts. This is one big reason I supported Dean. He was one of the few who stood up and said Bin Laden is the threat, no Hussein. Unfortunately, the Republicans have so linked Iraq to 9/11, it's become a truth in the national consciousness when it's simply a big fat lie. I can only urge everyone who reads this to PLEASE PLEASE vote. It's the only leverage we have as Americans.
Enough said.
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
Voting for 3rd Party may be considered harmful
I too pray for the return of our soldiers from Iraq. It is a tragedy that W. sent 1000 soldiers to die in the Middle East, not to mention the 15000 Iraqi citizens that have been slain, many of which are women and children. All this because W. feels the need to make up for the fact that daddy failed to "get" Saddam Hussein during the original Desert Storm.
But voting for a third party is not the answer. Republicans and Democrats who claim that "voting for a third party is a wasted vote" are right. Why? Because we live in a republic, not a democracy. We don't vote for our leaders, we vote for people who vote for our leaders. This results in politicians catering to certain groups of voters, as opposed to Americans as a whole. This leads to desperation tactics such as those employed by Phil Parlock (of West Virginia) in areas where one's candidate is expected to lose anyway. Why not try to upset people? You might turn enough people to win the state, and even if you don't, it can't hurt your campaign because in a state you're losing anyway, individual votes aren't important. Winning a state by 10 is better than Losing by 100,000. This degrading of the individual vote is what undermines the very point of democracy.
The Electoral College is one of the stupidest, most outdated concepts used by America that our founding fathers put in place. It's just as stupid and outdated as the amendment that is used to put automatic weapons on our streets. Yet there's no way for it to be removed, the small states would never consent to that. Even though they have less people, the Constitution gives them a disporportionate amount of power when it comes to electing our President, and the small states will continue to clutch onto that power with both hands.
In a democracy, it is important for people to be able to vote for whatever leader / philosophy they want. We would encourage the Naders and the Buchannens and the Perots to let America hear their opinions, to challenge the main parties. But as America is now, a republic, it is dangerous to believe that voting for a 3rd party is a way to show your disapproval of the current political situation. If you want to show that you don't believe in the war in Iraq that Bush created, the answer is to vote for Kerry. Is it because Kerry is a spectacular candidate? Not particularly. But under our current election system, it is not possible for a third party candidate to become President of the United States. If America reelects Bush, we will show the world that we believe in his agenda.
If America reelects Bush, we'll show the world that we support the suspension of democratic values under Bush that began after 9/11 and continues to this day. And we'll be at war for many years to come.
The bottom line: America needs to start practicing democracy before spreading democracy.
___
Anybody need some soap? I've got some in this box
uttahcee said:
I too pray for the return of our soldiers from Iraq. It is a tragedy that W. sent 1000 soldiers to die in the Middle East, not to mention the 15000 Iraqi citizens that have been slain, many of which are women and children. All this because W. feels the need to make up for the fact that daddy failed to "get" Saddam Hussein during the original Desert Storm.
But voting for a third party is not the answer. Republicans and Democrats who claim that "voting for a third party is a wasted vote" are right. Why? Because we live in a republic, not a democracy. We don't vote for our leaders, we vote for people who vote for our leaders. This results in politicians catering to certain groups of voters, as opposed to Americans as a whole. This leads to desperation tactics such as those employed by Phil Parlock (of West Virginia) in areas where one's candidate is expected to lose anyway. Why not try to upset people? You might turn enough people to win the state, and even if you don't, it can't hurt your campaign because in a state you're losing anyway, individual votes aren't important. Winning a state by 10 is better than Losing by 100,000. This degrading of the individual vote is what undermines the very point of democracy.
The Electoral College is one of the stupidest, most outdated concepts used by America that our founding fathers put in place. It's just as stupid and outdated as the amendment that is used to put automatic weapons on our streets. Yet there's no way for it to be removed, the small states would never consent to that. Even though they have less people, the Constitution gives them a disporportionate amount of power when it comes to electing our President, and the small states will continue to clutch onto that power with both hands.
In a democracy, it is important for people to be able to vote for whatever leader / philosophy they want. We would encourage the Naders and the Buchannens and the Perots to let America hear their opinions, to challenge the main parties. But as America is now, a republic, it is dangerous to believe that voting for a 3rd party is a way to show your disapproval of the current political situation. If you want to show that you don't believe in the war in Iraq that Bush created, the answer is to vote for Kerry. Is it because Kerry is a spectacular candidate? Not particularly. But under our current election system, it is not possible for a third party candidate to become President of the United States. If America reelects Bush, we will show the world that we believe in his agenda.
If America reelects Bush, we'll show the world that we support the suspension of democratic values under Bush that began after 9/11 and continues to this day. And we'll be at war for many years to come.
The bottom line: America needs to start practicing democracy before spreading democracy.
___
Anybody need some soap? I've got some in this box
Presidential Debate
So basically, the debate was "more of the same" last night. But that is to be expected, since there are no new issues to discuss. I believe that the debate was close. Both Kerry and Bush had good points. Everyone already knows that Bush has trouble finding what words to say. Ignoring that, I believe that Kerry won only slightly due to the fact that Bush seemed to get more frustrated and defensive as the debate went on.
It is really hard to know who to believe, since they both throw out statistics that they don't prove...and of course Kerry always "has a plan" but what are the details of these plans?
Personally, I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. There was no justification for war. Just because you get attacked, doesn't mean you invade a random country and attack it out of vengence. Revenge isn't a viable cause for war with any country other than the country responsible for the attacks. Those attacks had little or nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Osama has always been the bigger threat, yet Bush practically ignored him.
Kerry really didn't convince anyone that he wasn't a flip-flopper though...and that was Bush's concentration during the entire debate. I'd to hear some more opinions. By the way, I am a Republican, but I favor Kerry.
So basically, the debate was "more of the same" last night. But that is to be expected, since there are no new issues to discuss. I believe that the debate was close. Both Kerry and Bush had good points. Everyone already knows that Bush has trouble finding what words to say. Ignoring that, I believe that Kerry won only slightly due to the fact that Bush seemed to get more frustrated and defensive as the debate went on.
It is really hard to know who to believe, since they both throw out statistics that they don't prove...and of course Kerry always "has a plan" but what are the details of these plans?
Personally, I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. There was no justification for war. Just because you get attacked, doesn't mean you invade a random country and attack it out of vengence. Revenge isn't a viable cause for war with any country other than the country responsible for the attacks. Those attacks had little or nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Osama has always been the bigger threat, yet Bush practically ignored him.
Kerry really didn't convince anyone that he wasn't a flip-flopper though...and that was Bush's concentration during the entire debate. I'd to hear some more opinions. By the way, I am a Republican, but I favor Kerry.
BigNorm
3rd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 7,688
- Points
- 0
yeah i watched it, i was ticked that i missed CSI, though.
one thing i don't understand is, kerry's all hitting on the fact that bush went into iraq on false info and it wasn't his fault. the NSA is supposed to give information facts to the president and he decides to react. bush's intelligence report that saddam was a big threat. so he did his job right, it was the NSA's fault. if anyway he went wrongly into iraq, i'm still happy about it, since saddam was like the boogey man, just waiting to strike, i know i sleep better at night now that he's gone.
one thing i don't understand is, kerry's all hitting on the fact that bush went into iraq on false info and it wasn't his fault. the NSA is supposed to give information facts to the president and he decides to react. bush's intelligence report that saddam was a big threat. so he did his job right, it was the NSA's fault. if anyway he went wrongly into iraq, i'm still happy about it, since saddam was like the boogey man, just waiting to strike, i know i sleep better at night now that he's gone.
I still think our society needs to have a third party and we should remove all lobbist lets look at our nation problems War,the new OT policy, social security funding cuts for education arts milatary pay record high deficits. the war cost approx150-200 billions in 15 months if we have a ten year committment it will cost 2.5 trllion dollars that 2500000 million dollars that not including the lost of real wages that our service men for a ten year committment. how many soldiers dose it take to fill that committment 1500000 2000000 3000000 over the course of a war it's take to many. These men and women will not have a 401k will not invest money and they will struggle to have their children college payment, morgage payment and such ,Do you realize how many vetrans are homeless I live in worcester mass close to a vets homless shelter its sad when I drive to work the store and see our vetrans panhandling if you dont believe me come see for your self OUR socalled leaders make false promisses to them they constantly cut funding for the elderly vets Do you think it's becuase the war ####ed them up .If we have a third party maybe they wont be gridlock maybe both the democracts and the replublican would try to think of there constiutants instead of the PAC groups.WASTED VOTES ARE THE ONE THAT ARE NOT CAST PERIOD. we need to take back our country I personnally will vote against bush, but i really don't like john kerry.he is the type of person who moves a fire hydrant to make room for his 4 cars to park in front of his town and move it 2 blocks away,he the type who wont register and inspect his car he the type to they blame on others to win these are all true i dealt with John kerry for28 years of poltical circuit. i'm a regiester Replicain I did that because I live in a party state out of 161 seats in mass. congress 147 demo In our senate out of 47 seats, 36 demo I know i'm carring on but when I wrote vote 3rd party I did mention it's a slow process and to vote in local state national in that order Please think small steps to a better TOMMROW
jrubicante
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
uttahcee said:
It is up to us, the voters of America, to ensure that there will even BE a tomorrow. There's not enough time for a slow process. We cannot afford to give Bush four more years.
But I agree with you. I think since the Electoral College, as evil as it is, is not going away, we need to take small steps to ensure that the Republicans and Democrats can be challenged by other ideologies. But now is not the time to do this. The issues at stake in this election are too important. If the Bush administration continues we are all in deep trouble.
And the only way to ensure that it does not continue, for God's sake, vote for Kerry!
It worries me to think that maybe so many people voting for Nader in 2000 gave us Bush, getting us into this situation in the first place, and supporting my argument why third parties are a distraction and why the popular vote should decide an election in a supposedly democratic Union.
I'm a fan of Nader. I've seen him speak in person; I like his ideas. I think that our economy would move in a favorable direction under Nader. But I can't justify voting for him, now or ever. It's a very sad state of affairs. But I'm afraid that's the way things are.
alchemy1
TMF Master
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 626
- Points
- 0
Gentlemen and ladies, I have the ultimate presidential ticket. A candidate so powerful, so remarkable that he would leave both Bush and Kerry in the proverbial dust. The candidate I speak of is the one...
the only...
the only one that can possibly save us...
😀 ADAM WEST 😀
From the Bat Cave to the White House.
And for his running mate...none other than
😎 MR. T 😎
Yes friends...Adam West and Mr. T...the dynamic duo.
And the slogan "Oh the fools we pity..."
_________________________________________________
Yeah, I saw a yard gnome once...it didn't scare me" - Space Ghost
the only...
the only one that can possibly save us...
😀 ADAM WEST 😀
From the Bat Cave to the White House.
And for his running mate...none other than
😎 MR. T 😎
Yes friends...Adam West and Mr. T...the dynamic duo.
And the slogan "Oh the fools we pity..."
_________________________________________________
Yeah, I saw a yard gnome once...it didn't scare me" - Space Ghost
MayDay1
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,170
- Points
- 0
If you think Bush looked frustrated after getting bombarded, just wait until Edwards lets Cheney have it. You just know that son of a bitch will blow his stack. Cheney has a history of not responding in the kindest of ways to even the smallest critisism. Does anyone else remember the "Go fuck yourself" incident? Right. Bush is a retard, but Cheney is a time bomb.
One more thing to consider. Did you ever notice that Democrats back up their arguments with evidence while Republicans back theirs up with rhetoric? Discuss.
One more thing to consider. Did you ever notice that Democrats back up their arguments with evidence while Republicans back theirs up with rhetoric? Discuss.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,619
- Points
- 0
Where is Ross Paroe(sp?) when you need him? LOL! Kidding.
The way I see it, the entire thing is dirty no matter whose who and whose leading. I've come to understand that in a two party system it all boils down to who you personally agree with more, morally, spiritually, and intellectually.
In a way, I'd rather neither man win, since theres things about both of them I simply don't like. But we have to choose someone. And logic dicates for me that I choose the lesser of two evils.
The way I see it, the entire thing is dirty no matter whose who and whose leading. I've come to understand that in a two party system it all boils down to who you personally agree with more, morally, spiritually, and intellectually.
In a way, I'd rather neither man win, since theres things about both of them I simply don't like. But we have to choose someone. And logic dicates for me that I choose the lesser of two evils.
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
I'm writing in Adam West. He did an awesome job as mayor of Quahog did he not? 😛
august spies
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 702
- Points
- 0
wow this forum is about 1000times more politically sophisticated than the one on the TMF.
Yea kerry won the debate easy for obvious reaons, but their topics were so constricted and i agree strongly that third parties need more attention.
And yes id rather see neither millionare win.
Yea kerry won the debate easy for obvious reaons, but their topics were so constricted and i agree strongly that third parties need more attention.
And yes id rather see neither millionare win.
I can see by the majority of the comments that most people don't like President Bush and what he has done in his first term. I guess most of you must make a lot more money than I do because if Senator Kerry wins the oval office in November everyones taxes will go way up to pay for all the programs he wants to have. That's nothing new though since the Democrats have always tried to solve the problems of this country by throwing tons of tax dollars into programs that waste money and don't work about 90% of the time. A third party candidate even if there was a good one won't win the election in 2004 or any other election year for that matter because right or wrong the two party political system is what we have in the United States and it works pretty damn good too. All of you Europeans that made comments are only able to do so because the United States saved your collective butts for you in both World Wars and the Cold War against the Communist's and is still being the defender of world freedom in Iran and Afganistan. President Bush may not have done everything right over the last four years but I hope he wins another term in offfice. That's because I don't want to pay higher taxes to pay for all the programs the Democrats want to put into place and because I know that no super liberal third party candidate will ever win the election in a two party polical system. By the way debates are fine as long as you judge them only for what they are worth. Senator Kerry has polished his debating skills by using them for the past twenty years but he wavers far too much in his actions. President Bush may not be the best word smith but at least he is steadfast in his actions. Lastly,I know I could never handle the pressure of the job of President of the United States and I am pretty sure that holds true for about 99.9% of the rest of the people who use this forum.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,619
- Points
- 0
Very well said. Finally, another Bush supporter.
EDIT:
Once more, I am a registered democrat. So hopefully my support will not seem bias toward my political afflilation. Alot of democrats are displeased with Kerry and support Bush, as I'm sure theres some rebublicans who have sided or even voted for democrats. I wish more of these people would speak out.
EDIT:
Once more, I am a registered democrat. So hopefully my support will not seem bias toward my political afflilation. Alot of democrats are displeased with Kerry and support Bush, as I'm sure theres some rebublicans who have sided or even voted for democrats. I wish more of these people would speak out.
Last edited:
