*explosion*
Okay, so I watched this debate thing. First of all, not a single network listened to those requirements. Stupid "reaction shots" abounded. What is this, a reality show? ... *cough*
Anyway, I'm left feeling... disappointed... There were a FEW actual bits of real information about what they wanted to do, but most of it was just "but that person said something that can be incorrectly interpretted this way!". It was less of a scientific debate and more of a high school debate... I mean, did you listen to the talks beforehand? People barely even mentioned actual facts, so much as "they have to sound concise and such and such", which has no relevence on who is actually right.
Not enough logic in the end, I'm as confused as I've ever been about this thing.
I think I'll accidently vote for Oscar the automaton...
There wasn't a whole lot of new information brought up, but I think Kerry was a lot more clear on his policies. In the past he could really get into the long-winded Senate-speak which would confuse a lot of people on his actual stance, but he didn't do that at all last night.
Bush sounded very defensive at the beginning, and he fumbled at times, but otherwise he was clear for much of the debate. I don't think he really did anything to really put Kerry away, though.
Overall, I think Kerry had the better debate as most people seemed to think Bush would put him away during this debate. No one really did anything spectacular, though.
I only watched the last half hour or so but it seemed like Bush's speaking at least was worse... lots of pauses, 'um's etc... but I'm predisposed to like him a lot less, obviously. :)
But that's totally irrelevent to whether he's right or not. If it's an issue of how well he is going to speak with the rest of the world, that would matter (but it's a bit late for that, we've heard him speak for 4 years so it's not like this debate would have revealed anything about his pretty aweful speaking method). I wanted logic to reign, but instead looking good was the main point of this thing. I suppose I should have expected as much... Still, isn't it just a little bit sickening that looking right is more important than being right?
They both know that pure logic will not convince the majority of the American people to vote for them. Never has.
I know, but that's a BAD thing! The idea that neither candidate is willing to tackle things in a logical debate is sickening to me. I know their goals are to get the votes no matter what, but where's the integrity and honor in it? Aren't you sickened that logic isn't the issue to too many people?
The issue isn't with them, they want to win and will use the strategies that will bring them to that goal. Is the issue with the people? To some extent. However, some of it is just human nature, I think... you do base a lot on what people look like, how they speak, etc, and not just their views on issues. It is a fact. And it's also a fact that trying to make your opponents look bad (even if you know that that isn't quite what they meant) works too. Yes, it's too bad that it happens, but as long as it works it will be used and it can work well. And sometimes it's needed (to start debate), as people don't always tell exactly what they mean when they give their positions on issues... :)
It's not a "fact" as you put it, because in scientific debates and presentations, it's all about the logic. Someone can sound and look GREAT on stage but people with their wits about them watching or asking them questions during their presentation will tear into the logic over all else. In a good scientific debate, "ums" are ignored, and so are nice sounding analogies (they are for explaining purposes only, an analogy is never proof of something), and if the person presenting their theory is full of it, and it's all just the pomp, it will be exposed as such. If the person is correct, even if they look aweful and don't seem to carry themselves with confidence, if the logic is sound and the facts are straight, then they walk away with a victory.
A political debate just isn't done with logic in mind, and that IS a bad thing. I can accept that they want to win, but I think there are certain boundries you just can't cross if you want to hold onto your dignity, and I believe making logic a secondary priority, with pomp the top, is one of them. Honestly, "it works" is the argument of someone with no scruples at all. Now gimme back that gold needle!
I watched the first 30 minutes of it and then I got bored because they were going over things I'd already heard about for months and it wasn't really that exciting. Hopefully the two debates will have less rules.
Yeah, maybe for the next one they'll let them throw gummi bears at each other!
They should make it where the only rules are no physical contact and no swearing. That could make for an interesting debate.
Yeah but... what about the gummi bears...?
Bush is just not a good orator, and that was horribly telling last night. The presidency shouldn't be based on oratory skills, but thats how it might be.
I didn't watch it, but from what I'm hearing, I don't think I wanna catch it from anyone who bothered to record it.
Still, Bush never was a "Great Communicator" like the late Ronald Reagan. Though Kerry is no JFK himself, despite what Ted Kennedy says.
Actually, Kerry does share the initials "JFK" with John F. Kennedy, but that's beside the point.
I found it boring,
don't get me wrong, I like politics, but after watching the Canadian leadership debates the US one just doesn't seem as exciting. The Canadian one was more interesting, each of the leaders took a turn debating with eachother on different issues 2 at a time then their was a debate between all 4 at once.
If anything it needs more rules, like I dunno, use LOGIC for example :D.
They should have added cheerleaders , Maybe then it would be less draining to watch.
<a href="http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv">Movie</a> of Kerry's flip flops in the first debate. :wha:
<a href="http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4775">Article</a> of Kerry's flip flops in the first debate. :wha:
-TheBiggah-
Yes, of course the Republican official website would have an accurate depiction of Kerry in the debate...
I already watched that movie, and it's more of the same "flip-flopping" in which Republicans take Kerry's words out of context.
That really isn't something that could be "won". And yes, I will say that Bush either didn't GET Kerry's viewpoint (unlikely) or was way too determined to keep up the image of a flip-flop attitude. Honestly, I think Kerry's whole viewpoint was pretty clear. Now, is that viewpoint self-defeating? Well that's one way to attack it, and Bush kinda did, but honestly to hold onto the flip flop argument when I think Kerry made his viewpoint very clear is illogical. Attacking the actual view itself would be more logical, so long as it was an actual logical attack.
Seriously, people are all "Bush kept pounding the desk, was he angry?". I mean, it's frickin' squabbling of hens! Try thinking of something IMPORTANT you stupid masses of humanity! MIB said one of the wisest things when it said "A person is smart, people are idiots." I'm sure these people were thinking of actual substance until they started talking in groups the next day...
I don't understand why they weren't supposed to respond to each others coments or ask eachother questions.
The leadership debates for every other country that I've watched allowed this
"um"s have nothing to do with anything. we're sorry Bush is like a normal person and sometimes has to think of the best word to use. I do it all the time, and I'm probably one of the smartest guys here.
They both didn't say much. I would've called it a tie, until Kerry talked his ideas on Iraq which are like the fricken same and different at the same time. It's like "Shit, nigger, pick ONE thing."
he votewd for action, the money, calls it the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, expects he can motitvate Europeans to help when HE CALLS IT the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. His whole 90% casuality point was supposed to deceive what all democrats think are "the dumb public." then he brought up how bin laden was most important, and that more troops from iraq should go to afghanistan, yet he thinks he arent equipped enough for iraq? why take them away them dumbass. and wait, isnt bin laden's location unknown? why go to afghanistan, that place is uinder control. and wasn't his FORMER hiding place in Pakistan anyway?
oh and the whole thign he said back then like "someone who thinks saddam hussein isn't threat doesn't have the judgement to be president?"
then why doesn't he believe Bush went to war to go get him?
nvm, just realized what i was about to type were the flip flops from the RNC website. so jsut read that
I completely believe that Kerry won it...Bush's form was dismal. He nervously chuckled, paused...repeated himself, whereas Kerry was charismatic and commanding. Poor Bush. :crap:
DLN, it was just the format. You see, they set the format so that logic would rule. No wait, that's not it. So that the PRETENCE of logic would be put in the people's collective mind. It seems to me it was an agreed upon stage to allow the APPEARENCE of rationality, even if it wasn't actually seen in the debate for the most part.
They had a lot of rules that seemed to indicate they wanted the actual arguments to be what the people considered rather than appearence (like telling networks NOT to do "reaction shots", which they ignored). Too bad they totally destroyed the spirit of that by acting in very showmanship ways.
nickdaddyg Wrote:"um"s have nothing to do with anything. we're sorry Bush is like a normal person and sometimes has to think of the best word to use. I do it all the time, and I'm probably one of the smartest guys here.
They both didn't say much. I would've called it a tie, until Kerry talked his ideas on Iraq which are like the fricken same and different at the same time. It's like "Shit, nigger, pick ONE thing."
he votewd for action, the money, calls it the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, expects he can motitvate Europeans to help when HE CALLS IT the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. His whole 90% casuality point was supposed to deceive what all democrats think are "the dumb public." then he brought up how bin laden was most important, and that more troops from iraq should go to afghanistan, yet he thinks he arent equipped enough for iraq? why take them away them dumbass. and wait, isnt bin laden's location unknown? why go to afghanistan, that place is uinder control. and wasn't his FORMER hiding place in Pakistan anyway?
The one who would get more international help into iraq would be the iraqi leaders of the interim goverment, The U.S President would not have as much support if he tried.
Afghanistan is not 100% secure , Right now it just has a bandaid on it , We got 20 years of work to do , The warlords and Opium drug trade are a really bad problem since they likely give money and funding to terrorism. The Afghan goverment doesnt have the capacity to control the hole country infact its been 3 years after 9/11 and Karzai only controls whats going in kabul and its neighboring outskirts.The Taliban and Alqeada remnants are still active and doing attacks as well, We have to make sure that Al Qeada and the taliban are not crossing back into afghanistan from Pakistan .
Quote:That really isn't something that could be "won". And yes, I will say that Bush either didn't GET Kerry's viewpoint (unlikely) or was way too determined to keep up the image of a flip-flop attitude. Honestly, I think Kerry's whole viewpoint was pretty clear. Now, is that viewpoint self-defeating? Well that's one way to attack it, and Bush kinda did, but honestly to hold onto the flip flop argument when I think Kerry made his viewpoint very clear is illogical. Attacking the actual view itself would be more logical, so long as it was an actual logical attack.
Seriously, people are all "Bush kept pounding the desk, was he angry?". I mean, it's frickin' squabbling of hens! Try thinking of something IMPORTANT you stupid masses of humanity! MIB said one of the wisest things when it said "A person is smart, people are idiots." I'm sure these people were thinking of actual substance until they started talking in groups the next day...
He definitely needs to keep up the 'flip-flop' thing. It's been a successful move on Bush's part... most people do not appreciate the complexitites of politics so Bush's extreme simplification of Kerry's actions works... so then even when, like now, Kerry is being very consistent in his positions the Bush people have to act like he isn't; to do otherwise would be to, in effect, admit that they were wrong... which of course they won't do.
Oh yeah, and absolutely you can win a debate! The whole POINT of debate is to have a winner! I have no idea why you think you can't "win" debates, but winning is the whole reason that they exist really. If debates didn't change people's minds they would not be held.
And in this case, after debate #1 Kerry has erased Bush's lead, according to the latest polls, so he definitely won.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/0...index.html
And yes, in the ending half hour at least it was painfully obvious that Bush had run out of things to say... he had long pauses in his comments to come up with those weird "idea" things, lots of 'um's, he repeated himself a lot... he clearly had run out of prepared statements and it got him in trouble. :D
But ABF isn't cnn biased towards liberals?
I hate it when people say that, I am yet to see a US network that truly has a liberal bias. They are very pro white house, regardless of who the President is. I think it's just that they don't have a conservative bias, unlike the other networks, so they appear to be liberal.
I was talking about THIS "debate" ABF, THIS one isn't something someone can "win".
Yeah, I'd definitely say that CNN is in the middle. It only looks left wing if you compare it to an expressly right-wing one like Fox...
Quote:"um"s have nothing to do with anything. we're sorry Bush is like a normal person and sometimes has to think of the best word to use. I do it all the time, and I'm probably one of the smartest guys here.
Hahaha, you made my day, nick.
... you're probably right, OB1. :)
OB1 Wrote:Hahaha, you made my day, nick.
That made my day, too.
Has anyone heard the "controversy" that Republicans brought up after the debate that he took something out of his pocket? They had accussed him of cheating by taking out some pre-written notes, but it turned out he took out a lethal thinking-weapon that allowed him to defeat Bush...a pen.
Haha, yeah I heard about that.