U.S. Presidential Debate Thread

[Tigerman]

@seeker4

How in the world did we elect that blatantly incompetent, muttering boob as our president in 2000?

Bush isn’t a great public speaker. So what?

Here is what Kerry elequently stated:

@Kerry in 1st debate

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the [color=red]global test[/color] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

What the fuck is Kerry talking about? A “global test”? To whom do we need to prove our actions are legitimate? China? France? Myanmar?

I’d rather have a guy who isn’t so well spoken, but who knows what he’s doing and who understands clearly that the US Constitution, not some dumb-ass “global test”, provides the authority for the US to act in defense of itself.

@seeker4

Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.

So, you favor style over substance.

@seeker4

Sweet Jesus, that guy makes me cringe every time I see him, and it gets worse when he opens his mouth, or more accurately, struggles to open it.

And Kerry’s idiotic statement regarding some “global test” doesn’t cause you to cringe?

I’d rather support a guy who stumbles along going in the right direction than a guy who gracefully runs in the wrong direction.

But, if you like style over substance, then Kerry is your man.

[twocs]

@Tigerman

@seeker4

Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.

So, you favor style over substance.

It’s actually the other way round. It’s a lack of substance that makes him an embarrassment.

[cableguy]

Tigerman wrote

@Kerry in 1st debate

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the [color=red]global test[/color] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Tigerman wrote[quote]What the fuck is Kerry talking about? A “global test”? To whom do we need to prove our actions are legitimate? China? France? Myanmar?[/quote]

Tigerman, I think Kerry’s point was that Bush invaded Iraq after leading the American people to believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he cared little or not at all what our allies thought about the attack on Iraq because he was determined to do it no matter what.
Thus, he is making the point that he, Kerry, will not act in such a way when he gets elected.

Tigerman wrote

I’d rather have a guy who isn’t so well spoken, but who knows what he’s doing and who understands clearly that the US Constitution, not some dumb-ass “global test”, provides the authority for the US to act in defense of itself.

I don’t think he was talking about a specific test but he was simply saying that the American people, and indeed the world, needs to be assured that when we decide to attack another nation, we will do so with the support of our allies so that we won’t be facing a situation like that in Iraq where 90% of the cost in lives and money is coming directly from America. He has a good point. After all, if Hussein was such a major threat to the world, not just the USA, why is the cost we are paying so high? Why is there not more help from other nations?

seeker4 wrote [quote]Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.[/quote]

Tigerman wrote [quote]So, you favor style over substance.[/quote]
The problem with Bush is that he offers neither style nor substance. Can’t we expect just one of those things from him?

[Tigerman]

[quote=“twocs”][quote=“Tigerman”]

@seeker4

Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.

So, you favor style over substance.
[/quote]

It’s actually the other way round. It’s a lack of substance that makes him an embarrassment.[/quote]

Gee, you wouldn’t have an example to illustrate or support your statement, would you?

We all know Bush’s plan. What we do not know is Kerry’s plan. He just keeps saying he can do a better job. Well, maybe he can. But, I for one would like to know his plan. I mean, he keeps saying that he has a “secret” plan for dealing with Iraq. Sorry, but in my estimation, referring to your plan as “secret” and not revealing the details of the same is pretty much the definition of “no substance”.

[twocs]

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“twocs”][quote=“Tigerman”]

@seeker4

Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.

So, you favor style over substance.
[/quote]

It’s actually the other way round. It’s a lack of substance that makes him an embarrassment.[/quote]

Gee, you wouldn’t have an example to illustrate or support your statement, would you?

We all know Bush’s plan. What we do not know is Kerry’s plan. He just keeps saying he can do a better job. Well, maybe he can. But, I for one would like to know his plan. I mean, he keeps saying that he has a “secret” plan for dealing with Iraq. Sorry, but in my estimation, referring to your plan as “secret” and not revealing the details of the same is pretty much the definition of “no substance”. [/quote]

It was the plan was to provide immunity to all US forces from prosecution from war-crimes. Unfortunately for the guards at Abu-Graib, they did not actually get this immunity from justice. The US is known as a superpower. That means that Bush has super-powers. He can say what and people in America will believe him as long as he still supports persecution of gay marriage.

[Tigerman]

@Kerry in 1st debate

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the [color=red]global test[/color] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

@Tigerman

What the fuck is Kerry talking about? A “global test”? To whom do we need to prove our actions are legitimate? China? France? Myanmar?

[quote=“cableguy”]Tigerman, I think Kerry’s point was that Bush invaded Iraq after leading the American people to believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he cared little or not at all what our allies thought about the attack on Iraq because he was determined to do it no matter what.
Thus, he is making the point that he, Kerry, will not act in such a way when he gets elected. [/quote]

Kerry saw the same intel that Bush saw and Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use the US military to solve the problem. Thus, I think your assertation above is proved wrong.

@Tigerman

I’d rather have a guy who isn’t so well spoken, but who knows what he’s doing and who understands clearly that the US Constitution, not some dumb-ass “global test”, provides the authority for the US to act in defense of itself.

@cableguy

I don’t think he was talking about a specific test…

Of course he wasn’t. He’s all style with no substance. The specifics make up the substance. Kerry never provides any specifics. But, he’s got style, and a great tan, too.

@cableguy

…but he was simply saying that the American people, and indeed the world, needs to be assured that when we decide to attack another nation, we will do so with the support of our allies so that we won’t be facing a situation like that in Iraq where 90% of the cost in lives and money is coming directly from America. He has a good point.

A good stylistic point. Zero substance. Regardless of whether the world agrees with us, the support we get is limited virtually to moral support. In the first Gulf War, the US had near unanimous support from the UN and even the Gulf and Arab states. But, aside from our usual allies, who are assisting this time as well, the US then, as it is now, shouldered the bulk of the burdon. Kerry keeps saying that we’d be better off with support from the world… but, would we? How? The world is unable and or unwilling to provide anything material in support. As far as I’m concerned, the worlds criticism is as valuable as its support, when offered… i.e., it costs nothing. that’s about how useful it is, too.

Once again, Kerry makes the easy stylistic points… but on substance, he gets a big fat zero. Again.

@cableguy

After all, if Hussein was such a major threat to the world, not just the USA, why is the cost we are paying so high? Why is there not more help from other nations?

When have the other nations of the world, with a few notable and usual exceptions, contributed anything to problems that affect us all? When?

The fact is, even if all the world supported the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam (most do favor the ouster of Saddam), the US would still be shouldering most of the burden. Surely you realize that this is true?

@seeker4

Disagreements over Republican or Democratic approaches aside, that guy is a national and international embarrassment to all citizens, whether they know it or not.

@Tigerman

So, you favor style over substance.

@cableguy

The problem with Bush is that he offers neither style nor substance. Can’t we expect just one of those things from him?

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. You can certainly disagree with Bush, but we all know that his plan has substance. Ferchrissakes, he has faught two wars in his 4 years in office. We still, however, have no idea how Kerry will deal with the problems we face… oh, except that we do know that Kerry has a “secret” plan for dealing with Iraq.

[flike]

Loved the debate. :bravo:

I couldn’t believe that Bush actually let Kerry get under his skin like that.

Fan-fu*king-tastically wonderful thing, that. Bush did a bit of a meltdown, hee hee.

It was a complete reversal of fortune for Kerry, utter reversal. Going in, the big thing - and I mean enormous pressure - was the answer to this question: is Kerry up to the job personally? Is he the flip-flopping, no-character, traitorous coward the Bushies have made him out to be? Everybody who’s undecided (63+ million television viewers in total) watched to see if the Bushie pressure would cause Kerry to melt - and it did not. In fact, Kerry flat-out thrived.

Instead, Bush melted down. I love it.

What that means practically is that in the next two debates all eyes will be on Bush, and all media will be looking for any and all corroborating evidence in support of the Dem thesis of Bush as President Twitchy. What goes around does, indeed, come around.

Now it’s Bush’s turn. Let’s see how the shrub does now that the white-hot Personal Character spotlight he’s so assiduously built is turned full-bore on him and his filters aren’t available (‘loyalty oaths’, local police, etc., at his campaign events). Now we’re talkin’ character.

Pressure’s on, baby. Gotta love it.

[Tigerman]

@twocs

You’ve argued time and time again against the UN. When you can’t understand that there is anything beyond the US superpower, how can you respect other’s beliefs?

Who’s beliefs should I respect? The Taliban’s? al Qaeda’s? France’s? China’s?

I still don’t know what it is you are talking about, and you haven’t answered a very simple question regarding Kerry’s plan.

Good night.

[MaPoSquid]

[quote=“twocs”]Legally speaking, the Grateful Dead’s artwork:

How to get Bush out of power is a concern of the guys in the Grateful Dead. Never known for mixing their music with politics, the Dead – the abbreviated name for the post-Jerry Garcia incarnation of the Grateful Dead – have taken up a cause: removing George Bush from office.

rolling stone

“It occurs to me and the rest of the guys that this may be our last meaningful election,” Weir says. “If we continue to drift the way we’re drifting, the United States will become a democracy in name only. Instead of government of the people, by the people and for the people, we’ll have government of the people, by the elite and for the elite, and the people will come secondarily.”[/quote]

Yes, and those citizens who didn’t destroy their brains with pot and LSD are saying, “Shit, if these stinking hippies want Bush out, then I’m definitely voting for him!”

In case you didn’t notice, Bush was up in the polls after the debate. But perhaps your own inability to comprehend what substance is, as evidenced by your blathering nonresponsive “answers” to Tigerman’s simple question – what is Kerry’s plan? – blind you to anything beyond the simplistic “who did better?” poll.

Yes, Americans thought Kerry did better in the debates. They also thought that Bush could deal better with the problems of terrorism, could better handle the Iraq situation, and was more genuine. (Maybe Kerry should cut back on the lipstick and rouge.)

Oh well, no matter. 30 days and counting.

[politbureau]

Bush’s ‘plan’ consists of dumping the mess he’s created back in the hands of the Iraqi people in January and high tailing it for the fourteen permanent baseshe’s building out in the countryside that he hopes no one will notice-- which was his master plan all along.

Kerry’s plan consists of . . . well, I don’t have clue as to what his plan is because he probably doesn’t either but it doesn’t really matter because it’s as unrealistic as Bush’s – find a way to impose the will of the U.S. on another people and make them and the world believe it’s their own choice.

[flike]

@MaPoSquid

(Maybe Kerry should cut back on the lipstick and rouge.)

For those of you who are not playing along, Mapo refers to the GOP black ops campaign now underway vis-a-vis the debates. This particular black ops tactic is designed as backfill against any erosion in support for Bush resulting from the first Presidential debate.

Note that it’s another tactic in Bush’s ‘go negative on Kerry because I have a record to run away from rather than to run on’ reelection strategy.

I suspect that Mapo, as well as others here and in the US, somehow prefer to believe Carl Cameron’s since-retracted comments, but those whose minds remain even a little bit open may want to read here and here.

[MaPoSquid]

@flike

[quote=“MaPoSquid”](Maybe Kerry should cut back on the lipstick and rouge.)

For those of you who are not playing along, Mapo refers to the GOP black ops campaign now underway vis-a-vis the debates. This particular black ops tactic is designed as backfill against any erosion in support for Bush resulting from the first Presidential debate.

Note that it’s another tactic in Bush’s ‘go negative on Kerry because I have a record to run away from rather than to run on’ reelection strategy.
[/quote]
For those of you who have a brain and who therefore don’t have the foggiest f*cking idea of what flike is burbling about, please refer to the photographs from the debate currently on the third page of this thread, in which it is quite clear that Kerry is wearing pink lipstick and rouge. Either that or else he had the stuff tatooed on. Either way, Kerry looks like a clown. Oh, and after that post, so does flike.

[flike]

@MaPoSquid

Either way, Kerry looks like a clown. Oh, and after that post, so does flike.

Ouch!

Actually, I admit I may have been premature in judging your motivation, Mapo (although this ‘Kerry gets manicures’ spin business by the Bush campaign that I referred to is definitely in high dudgeon this weekend, believe me) in that I didn’t even see the picture you refer to.

And yeah, I know all about that ‘assume’ word, jumping in too early. Etc.

Taking your word for it, and
Signed,

:homer:

[Kea]

The following are mis-statements by GWB from debate 1. These are all very funny, but the most amusing may be:

**“Put a leash on them.” -talking about his daughters, will turn off woman voters by showing his real attitudes (women=animal to be leashed?), and also reveals no guilt over Abu Graib.
(Nonetheless, I must admit the image of Jenna on a leash is tempting.)

Here are some more:
**“Of course we’re chasing Saddam Hussein-- I mean Osama bin Laden.”
**“I’ve got a good relationship with Vladimurr.”
**“people like Al Qaida”
**“He forgot Poland.”
**“Let me finish!” (even though the green light was still on for him to speak)
**“I understand everybody in this country doesn’t agree with the decisions I’ve made.”
**

[Tigerman]

@twocs

Legally speaking, the Grateful Dead’s artwork:

What’s your point?

[quote=“twocs”]How to get Bush out of power is a concern of the guys in the Grateful Dead. Never known for mixing their music with politics, the Dead – the abbreviated name for the post-Jerry Garcia incarnation of the Grateful Dead – have taken up a cause: removing George Bush from office.

rolling stone

“It occurs to me and the rest of the guys that this may be our last meaningful election,” Weir says. “If we continue to drift the way we’re drifting, the United States will become a democracy in name only. Instead of government of the people, by the people and for the people, we’ll have government of the people, by the elite and for the elite, and the people will come secondarily.”[/quote]

How does this support any of your statements above?

So, the survivng members of the Grateful Dead support Kerry. Big deal.

I have asked you o explain where the substance lies in Kerry’s remarks made in the debate. So far, you have been all over the board with irrelevant replies… but still no substance.

Here’s another question fo you to ponder:

Kerry keeps droning on and complaining about how Bush scewed up by not getting our “allies” to go along with us and doing it unilaterally in Iraq. Yet, in regards to the situation in North Korea, where Bush has been successful in getting Russia, Japan, South Korea and most importantly China, to engage North Korea on a multilateral front, Kerry says he wants to scrap that and go it alone, i.e., unilaterally enter into bi-lateral talks between the US and N. Korea. How do you square that position with his constant criticism of US unilateralism in Iraq?

[thebiggestnose]

[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“thebiggestnose”][quote=“tilkster”][quote=“Flipper”][quote=“kentsuarez”]CNN QuickVote on Debate #1 - 78% felt Kerry won

'Nuf said.[/quote]

lol. look at democracticunderground.com. every time any website has a pool, they unleash all their rabid leftist members to skew the poll in their favor. anyone who thinks a random internet poll means anything knows very little about how the internet works. [/quote]

Jeez… Were we watching the same debate? I saw the one where Kerry clearly won.

Not sure if it’s enough to make a difference on election day though…

Martin in Luzhou.[/quote]

Unfortunately, the thrashing Kerry just gave Bush in the debate likely won’t matter on election day. Most of the U.S electorate has been as thoroughly duped by George W. and the Republican spin machine as Chewy “my verdict: even” Corns has.[/quote]

I listened to the debate – I did not watch it. From my perspective Kerry is a much better impromptu speaker than Bush, and therefore, was expected to beat Bush in the debate. The president did not make any major gaffes, and, as a result, he won. I don’t think it will make a difference. This election will come down to a few key states and the undecided voters will make their decision in the week or two before the election – not in the first presidential debate. As for my being duped – I am not part of the U.S electorate, as I am not a U.S. citizen. Good Democrats such as Zell Miller, Ed Koch - former NY mayor, the Dem mayor of St. Paul, Minnestora etc. support Bush’s foreign policy. You really think most of the people in the US have been duped? You don’t have a healthy respect for the “average person” or for "democracy’ then do you? That is quite an elitist statement! How exactly have they been duped. Could you provide me more evidence?[/quote]

The president did not make any major gaffes AND AS A RESULT HE WON??? That’s exactly the problem. Bush has set the bar so low that only the likes of he and Cheney can slither under it. So I guess if he doesn’t make up any more new words in the next debate he “wins” that one, too?

Good Democrats like Zig Zag Zell?? My God, man, did you watch his speech at the Republican Convention? Better yet, did you see him interviewed after? Absolutely classic! When informed that Cheney had opposed some defense systems that he had just raked Kerry over the coals for opposing he gave a deer in the headlights look that I haven’t seen since Bush upon being informed of the 9/11 happenings. He apparently got tired of hearing how full of shit he was because he later wanted to fight Chris Matthews after an interview.

I never said that you were a US citizen; only that you have been as duped as many. Examples? Not hard to find if you go beyond the insular world of the Calgary Sun. We could start with the BS provided as justification for invading Iraq, AGAIN. I mean do you really need me to rehash that no link has been found between Saddam and al Qaeda, or that no WMDs have been found, or that world public opinion did not favor the US invading Iraq? But when you base this, and other lies, as your reasons for invading a country, and people believe it, YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DUPED THEM.

How about the economy? Telling people that the “by far, the vast majority of MY tax cut will benefit those at the bottom end of the spectrum” is duping them. The bottom 60% net 12.6% of the tax cut package. How much do you think Bush’s buddies in the top 1% net? Can’t be that much, right? I mean W. himself said that “BY FAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY TAX CUT WILL BENEFIT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM END OF THE SPECTRUM.”
Try 42.6%!! When “liberals” (ie. anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass and accept Bush’s words at face value) pointed out the flaws in Bush’s numbers, the dupers even came up with a fictitious waitress, earning $22 000 a year, who wouldn’t have to pay any income tax at all under Bush’s tax plan. Nice try. She would already have no income tax liability with that salary. When you add the fact that Bush has cut funding for many services that she now has to pay for out of her own pocket, she’s much worse off. And duped, if she believed what Bush said.

But it’s not all bad, I mean look at Halliburton. I mean those guys seem to doing ok. Anyway, there are too many other examples to sit here and type. But don’t worry, Kerry will demonstrate that when he tears Bush apart in their debate on the economy. That one will probably be even, too

[Tigerman]

@MaPoSquid

Yes, and those citizens who didn’t destroy their brains with pot and LSD are saying, “Shit, if these stinking hippies want Bush out, then I’m definitely voting for him!”

@twocs

Is that what you’re thinking, Tigerman?

One of the things that always held great appeal to me with regard to the Grateful Dead was that they never told me what or how to think.

When asked once by Rolling Stone Magazine whether Dead Heads could be Republicans, Jerry Garcia laughed at the reporter and stated “Of course”.

The band has always been active in a million activites… and if they seek to get political now, that is their business. And their right.

I’ve been to over 100 Grateful Dead shows. I can assure you that there are quite a few Dead Heads who could stand to take a bath. And some of them are rather gone.

As to Mapo’s comments, I’m certain some folks do fel that way. So what?

[Tigerman]

@thebiggestnose

How about the economy? Telling people that the “by far, the vast majority of MY tax cut will benefit those at the bottom end of the spectrum” is duping them. The bottom 60% net 12.6% of the tax cut package. How much do you think Bush’s buddies in the top 1% net? Can’t be that much, right? I mean W. himself said that “BY FAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY TAX CUT WILL BENEFIT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM END OF THE SPECTRUM.”

The tax cuts did indeed help the economy. The best way to help everyone economically is to help the economy.

[TainanCowboy]

Newsweek Poll: Stacked?

Look at the makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats in [b]Newsweek

[Tigerman]

This is funny:

[quote][url=http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html]If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass [n]’‘the global test’’[/b] so we shouldn’t have disarmed Saddam because he wasn’t a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he’s so much better at building alliances so he’ll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush’s mistake.

Have I got that right?[/url][/quote]

I’m pleading with you Kerry supporters… somebody tell us what is Kerry’s Iraq plan…