Hot Rod Forum banner

Who Won The Debate?

  • Kerry Won

    Votes: 19 51.4%
  • Bush Won

    Votes: 18 48.6%

Who Won The Debate?

6K views 98 replies 32 participants last post by  NAIRB 
#1 ·
Hopefully most of you watched it. I think overall Kerry did a better job.
 
#7 ·
I would actually call it a draw. The format of the debate was lame, and the time limits were too constraining.

I didn't care for the debate. It was alot of vague rhetoric and idealism instead of tough questions and hard answers.

I flunked them both.
 
#8 ·
As far as debating goes, I think Bush was a little better at presenting himself and using facts to back up his statements. They were both good at answering the questions asked, but Kerry used up time to readdress previous questions and he also threw in campaign slogans. Bush tended to also readdress previous questions but in a different manner of addressing what Kerry said and leading that statement into his delivery.

It was a very good debate compared to previous elections, and both candidates made it clear what their intentions are for international policy.

Anyone notice that Bush said he would not change the Armed Forces from an all volunteer force (No Draft) and Kerry didn't? I can't remember if Kerry had the opportunity.
 
#11 ·
The great debate: Bush v. Kerry
by 68.
(this is a condensed version from a paper I wrote tonight for my PolySci class - if you want the full copy, PM me)

Televised debates were once used as an open forum for the public to ask the candidates where they stood on important issues. Today, they are used as a campaign tactic, and rarely focus on the important issues facing Americans.

Tonights debate was no exception.

The format was pretty linear, like the candidates themselves - it was a 2 minute response to the question, followed by a 90 second retort. Often, 30 seconds was given the responder to retort to the retort. Okay then.

What made this debate lame was simple: it was a debate over who would protect the country better with less money in less time. A strong issue in the media, but we won't go into Iraq...
What it DIDNT cover were the issues most important to the people voting... Jobs, the Economy, Funding for public utilities (schools, police & fire, medical, taxes, etc.)

Not only was it a once topic debate - but both opponents attacked the stability, intelligence, and decisions of the other, while admiring their wives, children, bravery, education and social status.

This was not about who WON the debate - Bush and Kerry both made good points and bad points. Kerry was well formed and cool-headed, but his arguments never pointed to anything other than bad leadership in the presidency (not in congress, UN or foreign allies).

Bush, always with a stumbling problem did trip up a few times, but I felt he avoided attacking Kerry in such a way as to call him an idiot. Where Bush dominated was in Patriot-speak (meaning: touch the souls of Americans with things like "freedom", "homeland", "liberation")

In conclusion, this debate cannot be any more helpful in determining who to vote for because it did not really isolate the man who would lead a better America. The only way to really understand these ideas is to consider that U.S. campaigns are possible only through large sums of money - and everyone knows that those who cough up the big bucks get a seat right next to whoever wins in November

Thank you
68
 
#13 ·
I did my best to listen to it at work.AM radio doesnt pick up well in the shop.From what I heard Bush was a little nice to Kerry,he could have slammed him a little more but just like the Gore debate,1st one is free,after that dog eat dog.I do not believe Bush will be as nice next time and will eat Kerry's lunch.All told results are saying that Kerry may have indeed won the debate but in still trailing in the projected outcome of the election.Kerry did not say anything to strengthen himself.Think about this,most all concern is over Iraq.Ok,do you want someone so indecisive in what he thinks to try and finish this task at hand?Kerry cant just bring the guys home in 4 years as he says.Honestley,get everyone out as quick as possible,civil unrest will really come into play in the mid-east then.That would just be one more reason for all to hate the US more than they already do.I can here it now"The big bad Americans left us out to dry again,poor ,poor us"Kerry would be a bigger mistake than Clinton and her sissy husband was.
 
#14 ·
I was not too impressed with either. I'm still trying to find Triblinka Square on a map? Maybe it's in Cambodia. Kerry choked big time with his statement about the "global test" he would require before going to war to protect the U.S.A.. He has shown his true colors, and would defer to the u.n. on our national security.
As for the poll, I didn't vote, and I think the dnc operative joe lockhart summed it up when he was caught on tape whispering that he thought it was a draw.
 
#16 ·
debate

I can say i think old W did a little better. Not much but some. My problem is that i just can't stand to look at kerry knowing where he stands on some of the issues i feel are important, plus his wife just freaks me out......

This just my opinion..

Keith
 
#18 ·
Overall , a draw.


Kerry was more polished, no doubt. But he had no content and any pointed questions, he deferred. Anyone watching would say Kerry won, but it was all polish. You can polish rust off, but the rust is still there, and it will come to the surface!

Bush was a little too "back woods" in his debate style. He let Kerry "off" on several occasions when he could have speared him. He also seemed very careful of what he said, like the way he would stop and almost rethink his response, so he didn't spill any international beans.
He also overused "Work". That must have been the theme he was trying to convey.

Did anyone notice how Kerry insulted Poland? Bush mentioned the fact that England ,Poland and others were Allies. Yet Kerry only acknowledged England and one other. Didn't acknowledge Poland. They were our second biggest Allie behind England! NOT GOOD if your looking for their help! ALso, I'm surprised Bush didn't take issue with France and Germany blocking the UN resolutions when Kerry wanted our "Allies" to unilaterally santion Iraq. Either Kerry was absent (again) during those meetings, or his selective memory was working. France and Germany were trading chemicals for oil. The very same chemicals used in WMD. Hmmm? And why were they (France and Germany) never the target of terrorists? US, Russia, Saudi Arabia....

Now here's the kicker! He wants to have BiLateral talks with N.Korea. (One on One) He wants to forsake a 5 party negotiation. THAT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE WANTS WITH IRAQ!!!!!! He wants a "gang" there!! SO this will knock China away from us! Great!!! This is from the guy that is considered a N.Korean War hero. His picture is in their museums of War history FOR THEM !!!!

(I will post any links requested for backup for those who think I am misquoting)
 
#21 ·
As they mention in the daily show, a coalition where #1 ally is England and #2 is Poland is pretty weak.

Kerry won, he is about 500% better at speaking in public.

The format of this debate resulted in there being 2 simultaneous campaign speeches being given.

Kerry: I can do better

Bush: No you can't, besides, Jesus told me I am going to win
 
#23 ·
Paper-
I would tend to agree on the size of the coalition, but who else has an Army?

Canada was sidelined with France. Not sure why. France and Germany were trading with Iraq. That only leaves the Soviet block, who are so poor right now, they can't feed themselves, let alone help elsewhere in the world. Its not like Rwanda has an Army. The Middle Eastern Countries Armies (like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) have to stay neutral or there would be a massive Muslim War that would reignite the Israelis/Palestinians. Not something the WORLD can afford to do right now.

WE are the sole Superpower. WE were attached by terrorists, and unfortuneatly Iraq is the battleground. I would much rather have them fight THERE than HERE. You think insurance is high now, wait'll they start 9-11ing all over California!

I have to back George on this. I truly believe that Iraq had WMD. France and Germany's stalling of the UN was enough time to clear out the WMDs that we DIDN't find. (Saddam, Uday and Qusay)

You know, I wouldn't doubt that they HAVE BinLaden. Think about it. If BinLaden was killed, then the Al-Quaeda will be invigorated with hate,and insert a new "leader". This would lead to massive attacks. If he is still being "searched" for, the Al-Quaeda think he's in hidding, and will slowly lose forward motion, as they have a "reason" not to hear from them. Possibly lose motivation and let things slide? I really don't know. Unlike the President, I don't have the intellegence reports.

Here's what suprised me about the debates:
When Kerry spoke of the exit strategy, Bush could only say that they (military) expected to have the battle last longer, and kill more of the insurgents. Instead, Tommy Frank, BLEW through them. The Iraqi's dropped their weapons, ran and hid, rather than fight. Sorry, I wouldn't have thought that possible. I would have thought they'd stand and fight too.

Here's what killed me: Kerry would not give any "How I would do it is ..." Only "My way will work", like we are supposed to believe him on his word. HE has YET to give any credible plan to fix anything. How will he get the Allies to come to our side? He only has ties with N.Korea, China and Iran. Those are almost our enemies, aren't they? How will that win over our true Allies? I'm confused.
 
#24 ·
I really didnt know what I was going to see. I thought that Kerry would be weak. But I was really impressed. Kerry was very cool and composed about the whole thing.

Kerry reacted well to what Bush threw at him and stood his ground as someone with his own point of view.

Bush also has a point of view, a very strong one. But I don't believe that, as Kerry pointed out, a strong point of view is always the right point of view....

When I try to solve a problem on my truck, I usually start with a theory in my mind of what's wrong. When I'm being smart, I routinely throw that theory against what i see and hear is actually going on. When I'm being stupid, I kind of blindly go at what I THINK is the problem without thinking about new information. I usually waste more time (and money) when i'm not weighing my theroy against reality. I also usually end up with more skinned knuckles.

I just don't think Bush is very good at this process of weighing new facts, either in foreign policy or debate.

I wonder what his knuckles look like?
 
#25 ·
NAIRB said:
I would actually call it a draw. The format of the debate was lame, and the time limits were too constraining.

I didn't care for the debate. It was alot of vague rhetoric and idealism instead of tough questions and hard answers.

I flunked them both.
I agree, and I predict that the rest of the debates will be just as informative. If you are looking for where the candidates actually stand on the issues, turn off the TV and do some research into what they have done in the past.
 
#26 ·
well the responses were very obviously pre-planned, but I felt like bush basically said the same things over and over again, talking about "hard work" and "changing plans" in the middle of the war.

In any event, the vice presidential debates are going to be killer! I think there is a lot more passion in those two guys, if you watch only one of the four, that would be the one to watch!

K
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top