The 2004 Presidential Debates

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
special_k
Yearbook Team
Posts: 144
Joined: Oct 7th 2002, 1:37 am
Location: Closer to here than there, in the land between dreaming and waking...
Contact:

Post by special_k » Oct 11th 2004, 10:01 pm

Remember, a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush. After seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 night before last, I'd really like to see the lot of them run out of the country. Our citizenship can be taken away under the so-called Homeland Security Act if we are considered terrorists. Um, last time I checked, these people were guilty of turning on the American people. Gods, Washington disgusts me.

Oh, and Edwards said he and Kerry are against same sex marriage, though they don't oppose rights and benefits. Okay. Did they really need to alienate the gay vote?
"Sometimes things happen between people that you don't really expect. And sometimes the things that are important are the ones that seem the weirdest or the most wrong, and those are the ones that change your life."

Jessie, "Once and Again"

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Oct 11th 2004, 11:38 pm

special_k wrote:Oh, and Edwards said he and Kerry are against same sex marriage, though they don't oppose rights and benefits. Okay. Did they really need to alienate the gay vote?
Unfortunately the reality is that they have to weigh which group of voters will bring them more votes, and one of the best ways for them to win is to chip away at Bush's base of religious voters. Sadly a lot of religious voters find the idea of gay marriage wrong. Politics is a game, the winner is the one who can appeal to the widest range of people. Majority of the gay vote I would highly doubt would go to Bush so I am sure their camps thinking is to play it "safe".

We will eventually have gay marriage in this country, I firmly believe that. Hopefully it will come sooner than later. For now though let's try to get the best option in the Whitehouse. Sadly it always comes down to the lesser of two evils scenario in elections.

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Oct 12th 2004, 4:28 am

I've caught a few more clips of the second presidential debate now, and Bush could as far as I'm concerned be talking so much blah... what is really bugging me is his smug demeanour, his smirk, his strut, the way he holds the microphone, the way he talks.

I cannot understand why someone hasn't told him 'at least try and look humble. just a bit. after all you've done and been accused of, you need to portray somebody that is just a little humbled by the situation you're in.'

He reduces everything to monosyllables, which I find deeply patronising, and seems to think that the electorate can't understand complicated issues.

I didn't get my citizenship soon enough to register to vote. I'm consoling myself that I'd have been forced to vote in Illinois anyway, and that's not a swing state. :twisted:

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Oct 12th 2004, 10:53 am

I missed the second debate, friday night is a horrible night to have a debate. I did watch the VP debate. Cheney appeared wrong, but strong in my opinion. I don't believe a word he says at this point, but he lies with poise. The statement that the US has 50% of the casualties, not 90, is ludicrus. A poorly trained unreliable Iraqi police force should not be figured into those numbers, they were certainly not a part of the "coallition of the willing". Edwards just seemed like a lawyer, I wouldn't trust either men I was working with them, just the nature of politicians.

I'm not a Kerry supporter because I agree with all his policies. I support him because I dislike him the least. I don't think this election is just about why Kerry or Bush is better, but why Bush deserves to loose his job. If you think that Bush has waranted a dismissal than you really have no choice but to vote Kerry and that's where I'm at. I do way what is best for the county for the next 4 years as well, I don't think I would be doing my job as a voter if I didn't. But if I'm on the board of trusties and Bush was my CEO, based on his performance over the past 4 years, he would be shown the door.
starbug wrote:I'm consoling myself that I'd have been forced to vote in Illinois anyway, and that's not a swing state.
I am not voting in a swing state either. My state's electoral votes, all 3 of them :roll: , will go to Bush. So essentially, under the republic (not democracy) I live in, my vote will not count. But I will vote anyway in the hopes that the popular vote will contradict the electorial college and that it will bring about change in the system. It's no mystery to me why my generation doesn't vote, it's not because we don't care or bother to understand the issues. The problem is we do understand what's going on, and we are disenchanted by it and they make no effort to change it. Government is often viewed as a necessary evil by us.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Oct 12th 2004, 12:18 pm

The three mistakes question was a dumb question. What politician seeking election or reelection has ever admitted a mistake? If you admit a mistake, you open yourself up to a charge of being stupid. And you give cannon fodder to your opponent. The only politician who admits a mistake is a lame duck. It doesn't matter if you made a mistake and are not running, you can't be held accountable. Bush could have swerved the question a little better -- it was a biased question meant to put Bush on the spot. The fact that the question wasn't rephrased for Kerry to answer by the moderator -- Senator, can you name three of your mistakes? -- was telling. He easily rattled off things that he thought Bush had done wrong. Shocking.

I thought that Bush did better in the 2nd debate than he did in the 1st. He seemed more in command of the issues. The fact is that most of Kerry's proposals on Iraq, taxes, and the economy are already stillborn. His buds, France and Germany, are not going to send troops to Iraq. The UN's oil for food program scandal shows how much we can trust the UN to take care of Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry said he would only increase taxes on the rich by rolling that group's tax rates back to pre-Bush levels to pay for his spending proposals. However, that action would only provide a small percentage of the money to pay for those proposals. The fact that Kerry repeated Bush I's mistake of pledging not to raise taxes was stupefying. Finally, what do people do when the government increases taxes? They stop spending. Thank God that Kerry will just be able to talk OPEC into lowering oil prices while our solar cars come to the assembly line.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Oct 12th 2004, 2:54 pm

Tomspeed wrote:Finally, what do people do when the government increases taxes? They stop spending.
Only if the economy is stagnant or declining. Taxes were higher under Clinton, but people were spending more because they were making more. The less money people make the greater the portion of their income that goes to taxes. More income, smaller portion is extracted, more money to spend. One of the current problems is the current price for goods and services has not declined with the lowering of average income. Meanwhile utililty, gasoline, and resultantly the price of raw materials has gone up. This has raised prices for products across the board, and has reduced the spending money people have to reinvest in the ecomony.

The idea of an ownership society has some good merrits. Investing in property and other forms of capital that can be extracted later at a gain will be good for the ecomony. Problem is this takes time and does not solve the current slump. One danger of this is what will happen to CA in the next 5 years. People buying homes at low interest rates using variable interest rate loans will no longer be able to make payments and will be loosing more money trying to pay their morgages than they would paying rent. Many will see their payments go beyond their means unless we have another dotcom kind of ecomonic boom. Concequently they will default on their loans, flooding the market and causing home values to plummet. Prices will rise again as they always do, the realestate market moves in cycles just as evey market does, but this will take time and a commitment to ownership that many will not be able to maintain.

Back to the tax issue. The current tax system is not promoting growth. The debate on lowering and raising taxes is irrelevent, it's too oversimplified. The market grows in any direction it can in order to make a profit and often at the expense of it's employees. Business doesn't care about where the market is, or who it employs as long as it makes money, it's a greedy machine. Taxes are a method by whitch to control the beast. By taxing companies that out source to India or set up offices in the Carribean we can create jobs for the people at home. When the work force is well employed they will reinvest in the economy. The trick is squeezing business in the direction you want to go without driving down profits to the point that they lay off workers. Big business will always oppose this because removing out sourcing means loosing profits. There will be an unavoidable slump in profits as the market readjusts, nothing can be done to change that no matter who's the president. The question is who has the best plan to do this. I believe Bush's past tax plan has directed the beast in the wrong direction, and I don't see a shift in his stratagey, heaven forbid he ever be seen as changing his mind.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Oct 12th 2004, 3:59 pm

Even Kerry's idea of ending off-shore tax loopholes (companies which have their headquarters overseas to avoid US taxes) is out-of-date, since, if we are to believe media reports, these loopholes were closed by Congress yesterday in the business tax bill. Kerry talks a good game, but his argument that Bush is fiddling while Rome burns is simply untrue.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
emmie
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 606
Joined: May 27th 1999, 10:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by emmie » Oct 13th 2004, 12:36 am

Nothingman wrote: I'm not a Kerry supporter because I agree with all his policies. I support him because I dislike him the least. I don't think this election is just about why Kerry or Bush is better, but why Bush deserves to loose his job.
*sigh* unfortunately, I agree. I really hate it though. this will be the first election I have voted in. I was so disgusted by Gore and Bush the last time that I refused to vote. but I don't really see that as an option any longer. I would love to vote for someone that I truly believe in. but I guess that is just too much to ask.

wow, everyone has made such good points. basically I just want to say "ditto"

like starbug mentioned, Bush's demeanor really annoyed me. he was totally relying on his confidence and smiles to win people over. content be damned!! yeah, I'm really dazzled by your overwhelming presence Bush! ha!

and tomspeed, I totally understand what you are saying about how it is stupid to expect a politician to admit their mistakes. I know that it is bad to show your weaknesses in a debate. but he could have at least acknowledged the fact that he is not perfect. instead, he basically said that he hadn't made any mistakes. I later saw Edwards this weekend answering that exact question on a political tv show. I thought that was funny.

here is my philosophy on making mistakes and telling the truth. I wait tables, and am a damn good server simply because I always put my guests first. that's my job afterall. and when I make a mistake I come out and tell people exactly what happened, and offer to do whatever will make their experience better. (or whatever fits the situation). and because I am upfront with them and sincere, I hardly ever get upset people. most servers, however, will just avoid the table and hope they don't notice their food is taking an hour. or they will lie and make up stories about what happened in the kitchen. I know it's totally not comparable to being a president, but you get the idea. the truth always comes out, and if you deny deny deny, you will just end up a fool.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 13th 2004, 11:59 pm

fnordboy wrote:
special_k wrote:Oh, and Edwards said he and Kerry are against same sex marriage, though they don't oppose rights and benefits. Okay. Did they really need to alienate the gay vote?
Unfortunately the reality is that they have to weigh which group of voters will bring them more votes, and one of the best ways for them to win is to chip away at Bush's base of religious voters. Sadly a lot of religious voters find the idea of gay marriage wrong. Politics is a game, the winner is the one who can appeal to the widest range of people. Majority of the gay vote I would highly doubt would go to Bush so I am sure their camps thinking is to play it "safe".

We will eventually have gay marriage in this country, I firmly believe that. Hopefully it will come sooner than later. For now though let's try to get the best option in the Whitehouse. Sadly it always comes down to the lesser of two evils scenario in elections.
I agree with you on both points.

The Third Debate.

I thought Kerry hit a home run, start to finish.

Bush kept talking about an America that didn't seem to exist, one in which his policies have benefited all and not just the few or well heeled.

Kerry was awesome with the minimum wage and assault weapons ban. 50% of African American men in New York city without full time jobs. Ouch. 5 million more Americans who have lost health care insurance during the Bush regime. Double ouch.

On PBS one of the historians quoted nailed the election precisely. He said what the Kerry campaign has been doing very successful has been getting the American people to be comfortable with the idea of John Kerry as President.

-LanceMan

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Oct 14th 2004, 1:36 am

lance wrote:
fnordboy wrote:
special_k wrote:Oh, and Edwards said he and Kerry are against same sex marriage, though they don't oppose rights and benefits. Okay. Did they really need to alienate the gay vote?
Unfortunately the reality is that they have to weigh which group of voters will bring them more votes, and one of the best ways for them to win is to chip away at Bush's base of religious voters. Sadly a lot of religious voters find the idea of gay marriage wrong. Politics is a game, the winner is the one who can appeal to the widest range of people. Majority of the gay vote I would highly doubt would go to Bush so I am sure their camps thinking is to play it "safe".

We will eventually have gay marriage in this country, I firmly believe that. Hopefully it will come sooner than later. For now though let's try to get the best option in the Whitehouse. Sadly it always comes down to the lesser of two evils scenario in elections.
I agree with you on both points.

The Third Debate.

I thought Kerry hit a home run, start to finish.

Bush kept talking about an America that didn't seem to exist, one in which his policies have benefited all and not just the few or well heeled.

Kerry was awesome with the minimum wage and assault weapons ban. 50% of African American men in New York city without full time jobs. Ouch. 5 million more Americans who have lost health care insurance during the Bush regime. Double ouch.

On PBS one of the historians quoted nailed the election precisely. He said what the Kerry campaign has been doing very successful has been getting the American people to be comfortable with the idea of John Kerry as President.

-LanceMan
I concur. Kerry did a great job, and Bush just seemed to go with his talking points and scream liberal. Granted, Kerry repeated himself also and I am getting sick of hearing the same crap (thankfully the debates are over) but he also brought a bunch of new stuff to the table tonight (atleast new to the debates). I didn't like the fact he "outed" Cheney's daughter during the debate though. When Edwards did it I though..ok he is trying to show the hypocrisy of the Bush/Cheney ticket, but for Kerry to pull the same thing just seemed in poor taste IMO. I loved Bush saying he never said he didn't care about ObL, perfect case of the admin just flat out lying even though the proof is easily found. I give them credit...they have balls.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 14th 2004, 10:00 pm

fnordboy wrote:
lance wrote:
fnordboy wrote: Unfortunately the reality is that they have to weigh which group of voters will bring them more votes, and one of the best ways for them to win is to chip away at Bush's base of religious voters. Sadly a lot of religious voters find the idea of gay marriage wrong. Politics is a game, the winner is the one who can appeal to the widest range of people. Majority of the gay vote I would highly doubt would go to Bush so I am sure their camps thinking is to play it "safe".

We will eventually have gay marriage in this country, I firmly believe that. Hopefully it will come sooner than later. For now though let's try to get the best option in the Whitehouse. Sadly it always comes down to the lesser of two evils scenario in elections.
I agree with you on both points.

The Third Debate.

I thought Kerry hit a home run, start to finish.

Bush kept talking about an America that didn't seem to exist, one in which his policies have benefited all and not just the few or well heeled.

Kerry was awesome with the minimum wage and assault weapons ban. 50% of African American men in New York city without full time jobs. Ouch. 5 million more Americans who have lost health care insurance during the Bush regime. Double ouch.

On PBS one of the historians quoted nailed the election precisely. He said what the Kerry campaign has been doing very successful has been getting the American people to be comfortable with the idea of John Kerry as President.

-LanceMan
I concur. Kerry did a great job, and Bush just seemed to go with his talking points and scream liberal. Granted, Kerry repeated himself also and I am getting sick of hearing the same crap (thankfully the debates are over) but he also brought a bunch of new stuff to the table tonight (atleast new to the debates). I didn't like the fact he "outed" Cheney's daughter during the debate though. When Edwards did it I though..ok he is trying to show the hypocrisy of the Bush/Cheney ticket, but for Kerry to pull the same thing just seemed in poor taste IMO. I loved Bush saying he never said he didn't care about ObL, perfect case of the admin just flat out lying even though the proof is easily found. I give them credit...they have balls.
I think Cheney's daughter's status has been public record for quite sometime. It might have been a low blow but I thought Kerry put a human face on the President's hateful policy towards GLBT people and who it exactly it effects.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest