|
Post by NeoEllis on Sept 30, 2004 21:48:18 GMT -5
Yeah, it was more of a Q&A session than a real debate, hence making it difficult to "win", but just work with me here....
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Sept 30, 2004 21:53:09 GMT -5
It turned out to be a basic repeat of everything going on in the media so far. It was a neigh endless Bush bashing on Kerry's part, and the same old stuff on Bush's. Nothing new at all.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 30, 2004 22:01:57 GMT -5
I think Kerry definately won, unlike Bush, Kerry responded to charges against him. He seemed to see in more than two dimensions, and he seemed more dignified in the debate. Bush had a few good lines though to rally his base. Bush may be better at rheotoric, but we clearly saw a superior orator in Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Oct 1, 2004 14:21:47 GMT -5
Me have question. Why no Nader?
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 1, 2004 14:58:01 GMT -5
Because he polls around 2%, if he had significant support like what Perot had in '91 he should have been allowed to debate. It makes responses shorter, its like during the Democrat debates when Sharpton and Kucinich were polling in that area and were just sucking up time. Or in '00 with Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes on the Republican side, though Keyes may have actually had more support then than he does in his Senate race against Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Oct 1, 2004 15:11:53 GMT -5
The only reason he doesn't have that much support is because they don't know his policies. If he got into a debate with the other two parties, he's likely to put them to shame. Hell, any publicity to show that there are more than just 2 parties in America would be stupendiferous.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 1, 2004 15:35:33 GMT -5
If Bush has been polling well recently, and Kerry is to the left of him, and Nader is to the left of Kerry, what makes you think there's a plurality there?
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 1, 2004 15:53:59 GMT -5
I'm taking a speech class, and my teacher told us to watch these debates, and notice for things that we had studied. One of these is unintentional and nonverbal communication. Body language, really.
I watched it on NBC. Most of the time they showed both candidates close-up while one was speaking. The best part about this was that you could see how the other candidate reacted. Kerry seemed more composed, he took tons of notes, and overall had a sense of calm about it. Bush, on the other hand, was kind of figidy, shifted his weight a lot, and maybe wrote one or two words in notes. It seemed like Bush was nervous (maybe he didn't use the bathroom before the debate and regretted it).
When it comes down to the answers themselves, I felt Kerry was stronger. When it came down to their answers, Kerry seemed, again, more confident, better composed, and very articulate. To me, it seemed as if he didn't try to use the most wordy sentences he possibly could, and his message was very clear. On the other side, Bush seemed a bit more nervous. His message was clear, I felt, but his articulation and composure hurt that.
Like Zorak said, it mostly sounds like the same things that have been repeated over and over. One thing, though, is Kerry did define how he felt about Iraq. We have been debating long about if he was for or against the war. Well, he told us. He told us that he believed Saddam was a threat, but we should've built stronger alliances with other nations, exhaust every last resource before going to War, the last resort, and should have had a plan for Iraq after the war.
Bush used the same phrase throughout the entire speech, basically accusing Kerry of sending the wrong message to the troops. Without actually using the words, he accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper. That kind of annoyed me. Kerry used the same attacks on Bush several times, but at least he sometimes used different wordings. It was as if you could predict exactly what Bush would say next because he had said it before and goddamn if he won't say it again.
I believe Kerry "won" this time. His composure, his articulation, his ability to send messages across better than his opponent won him this match. Unless Bush becomes the next great orator of our generation, Kerry will probably win the next two debates.
|
|
|
Post by Craze on Oct 1, 2004 22:10:39 GMT -5
*As this thought triggered as he saw Bush's and Kerry's notes flop for a second into the veiw before the bent the edge back suddenly to the podium, Craze wondered what if during these debates that Bush or Kerry were drawing cartoons of the others while they were debating.*
I usually like to keep myself out of politics because my mind doesn't like comprehending it (more twists that the most convoluted plot (like MGS2)). However, I saw that it was on and my mom was watching it so I decided to watch for a 15 minutes. Well, I ended up watching it for 45. While I won't say the reason why I kept watching (I told Goji, but knowing myself, couldn't back my statement with proof from from my short-term memory and didn't want to piss him off (*hates to loose a friend over opinions*)) I thought Bush was more convincing. While I admire both men's plans (which I did before the debate) I admired Bush's vision more. Though, I have to agree, he overused his statements a bit. With Kerry, he seemed to say two different opinions while holding a third (not literally, metephorically) (don't ask, I made up a metephor). Basically, what I mean is is that I can't tell what the heck Kerry wants to do. He says plans for some things, then gives different plans for the same "some things." But, I wasn't there for the whole thing so I can't give a total opinion on the whole shebang of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 2, 2004 9:50:43 GMT -5
Maybe you weren't paying enough attention, C8. Both sides repeated the same basic answers fifty times. No actual flip-flopping that I noticed (within the debate).
Although I thought the funniest part was when Bush was rebuting a comment made about Osama Bin Laden and how we failed in Afghanistan. "Sadda-err-Iraq-err-Bin Laden."
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 2, 2004 11:32:10 GMT -5
Kerry's positions were clear if you were willing to listen to them. The problem with many americans are they want yes or no answers on matters that are just to damn complex to be summed up in a sentence or to.
|
|
|
Post by Craze on Oct 2, 2004 15:51:08 GMT -5
Kerry's positions were clear if you were willing to listen to them. The problem with many americans are they want yes or no answers on matters that are just to damn complex to be summed up in a sentence or to. It's not that, it's just it seemed that he gave two different answers, two different plans for the same shibang. But it's not just the flipping that I don't admire, it's also the views on different topics.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 2, 2004 16:24:58 GMT -5
It's not that, it's just it seemed that he gave two different answers, two different plans for the same shibang. But it's not just the flipping that I don't admire, it's also the views on different topics. Just because unlike Bush he didn't use the exact same phrase, doesn't mean he didn't use the same answer.
|
|
|
Post by Craze on Oct 2, 2004 16:52:04 GMT -5
Just because unlike Bush he didn't use the exact same phrase, doesn't mean he didn't use the same answer. But if that different answer gives a plan that gives another no point, then I don't know where to Kerry is driving (Istanbul, Wichita, maybe somewhere else.)
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 2, 2004 16:58:59 GMT -5
But if that different answer gives a plan that gives another no point, then I don't know where to Kerry is driving (Istanbul, Wichita, maybe somewhere else.) Please rephrase. That makes absolutely no sense.
|
|