What do you all want to see in tonight's debate, think will happen, etc...
And post debate, what are your thoughts, etc.
Printable View
What do you all want to see in tonight's debate, think will happen, etc...
And post debate, what are your thoughts, etc.
I think it was a good debate. It definately showed the differences in the candidates which is the point of doing it.
It was pretty good. IMO much more effective than the last one. From what I saw, Bush owned. He was much more aggressive and he got his point accross much more clearly than Kerry.
i agree with Cybr1d. i thought he ruled. but in hearing from kerry supporters they seem to think he ruled, so i guess they both got the points of their campaign accross ...its up to the vote now.
I thought that the debate was another good opportunity for the candidates to express their opinions and politics. On the other hand I still hear a lot of talk form the Bush camp on how Kerry flip flops on issues. I really would rather have a president who can realize that he made the wrong decision and change his mind, then a president who makes a choice and later is presented contradictory facts but is still adamant that he "made the right choice"
Also I don’t think that the democrats or republicans alone have the answers, until they can come together I think we will continue to have problems.
I personally felt the Bushman got the win tonight, but as usual tomorrow we'll hear from both of them how they won, and how the other candidate lied. Amazing thing, politics. I'm almost ashamed at the lengths to which any politican will go to gain votes.
[offtopic] It gets really amusing seeing some of the fights on the local levels - mud smears are always my favorite spectator sport. From what I've heard and seen on some of their commercials, Louisiana's famous for it... [/offtopic]
I don't know how they do it, but FactCheck.org (org! org! not com!) already released its analysis of the debate.
Again: dubious and false statements galore... on both sides.
I never watch the debates. They're a crock. If there are really any morons out there
who are still undecided, they should not be allowed to vote. The candidates'
(and their parties') philosophies and track records are well known, having been
published and discussed extensively. How a candidate looks in a debate is only
show biz.
These mythical "undecided" or "swing" voters are a menace to democracy. They are so uninterested in real issues that they wait till the debate and choose the candidate
who promises to give out most free benefits to voters. Their votes are for sale. They
have no ideology except their greed for gov't jobs, gov't contracts, social security
checks, free medical care, college loans, and all this while lowering taxes.
Bah, humbug!
:cool:
if this is all true, why do the leaders of the U.S. and other countries around the world believe it necessary to hold debates? Our forefathers, etc.. ? The debates aren't simply to "Swing voters" they are an attempt to let the people in america know what each candidate supports personally. Not every voter in the U.S. studies the candidates histories before voting, which they should, but they don't, so there has to be someway of telling the american public one last time before the election: This is what i represent, this is what i will do, and the other candidate won't do it as good as me ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by rcgreen
I never watch the debates. They're a crock. If there are really any morons out there
who are still undecided, they should not be allowed to vote. The candidates'
(and their parties') philosophies and track records are well known, having been
published and discussed extensively. How a candidate looks in a debate is only
show biz.
These mythical "undecided" or "swing" voters are a menace to democracy. They are so uninterested in real issues that they wait till the debate and choose the candidate
who promises to give out most free benefits to voters. Their votes are for sale. They
have no ideology except their greed for gov't jobs, gov't contracts, social security
checks, free medical care, college loans, and all this while lowering taxes.
Bah, humbug!
:cool:
And btw, people that you call a menace to democracy, would be there without the debates. For another, the majority of the U.S. more than likely didn't see the debate, as it was on a friday night, etc. therefore the debate to most people was nothing more than campaign news. If you are saying the idea of presidential debate is a "crock" than so is the idea of campaigning, if we "all already know the candidates histories, etc." Why have them campaign at all?
I am beginning to like that factcheck.org (not .com) site. Finally someone put in a decent article what I have been saying about tax increases really hurting a lot of small business.
I wonder if Bush knew he owned a company that "deals in selling trees"? It's in a trust according to the tax report.
Since there are some counter points in favor of both candidates, one would have to determine what is best suited to them. I was at a party this weekend, everyone hated Bush. I asked them what Kerry accomplished in the senate. There was a bunch or rhetoric in answer that had nothing to do with the senate, Kerry or Bush. I downed a Heiny and asked them what Kerry's position on the war is. They all had a different answer so I shut up. I know when to drink and not talk anymore. :D Sigh, but there are over 30 ballot issues here and some are just as important to me as the presidential race and just as factually ugly. No one in my imediate sphere of influence knows anything about them, yet they will vote on them anyway. :rolleyes:
Because the ba5tard5 will do ANYTHING to get on the telly.Quote:
why do the leaders of the U.S. and other countries around the world believe it necessary to hold debates? Our forefathers, etc.. ? The debates aren't simply to "Swing voters" they are an attempt to let the people in america know what each candidate supports personally.
These debates you are talking of, are the recent invention of ?
Who was the first President / opponent to go tete a tete ?
When was it ?
At a guess, I'd go for Tricky Dicky, makes it early 70's.
And I'd pitch the responsibility at ABC / NBC / CBS et al. Just to drum up audiences.........
That is true. Usually the candidate that need the most attention calls for debates. :)