Debate #1

Welcome! Forums Non-Running Forum Debate #1

This topic contains 25 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Ed 1 14 years, 11 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #1888

    Any estimates on how this one’s going to go & what will be the impact? Unless Bush seriously puts his foot in his mouth, I don’t see the poll numbers or the media characterization of the campain changing.

  • #16218

    I think that the President will try to force the Senator to state his exact opinions on issues with no room to waver. Plus I think that the Senator will really push the serious issue of the growing numbers of uninsured Americans. I know that the President will miss pronounce a word or two and the Anti-Bush people will go with that versus the important points brought up by BOTH sides.

    I think that if the Senator is smart he’ll ask the same question that President Reagen asked the people about President Carter. “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” That sealed President Carter’s fate even though he was leading in the polls – President Reagen won in a landslide.

  • #16219

    One thing that interests me about this debate is that I’ve heard that when his back’s against the wall, Kerry will come out swinging. I’m curious to see if he really goes after Bush tonight.

  • #16220

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I hope both sides get to explain the half truths that the commercials from the other side have been using.

    For example, I hope Kerry gets to explain that he did not vote against the $87 billion “for our troops” that the Bush commercials talk about because he didn’t want to fund the troops, that he actually did it because he didn’t want to write Bush a multi-billion-dollar blank check since Bush conveniently didn’t account for how part of that $87 billion would be spent. Instead, he supported a bill that was identical to the $87 billion bill in every way except that the only money Bush would get was money that he accounted for – no blank check.

    For example, I hope Bush gets to explain that he recognizes the problems in Iraq and understands that things aren’t in the clear (I assume he does, some of his statements do make it sound otherwise). I hope he gets a chance to explain that he does know that there are problems and that he is working to find a solution, contrary to Kerry campaign commercials saying Bush can’t fix the problems because he won’t admit that they exist.

    I hope both stay on topic and save the domestic issues for the debates that are meant to cover the domestic issues. The topic of this debate is foreign policy. Save the discussion of uninsured Americans and the economy for the debate that is meant to cover those topics.

  • #16221

    I hope Kerry gets to explain that he did not vote against the $87 billion “for our troops” that the Bush commercials talk about because he didn’t want to fund the troops, that he actually did it because he didn’t want to write Bush a multi-billion-dollar blank check since Bush conveniently didn’t account for how part of that $87 billion would be spent.

    Also, the version advanced by the administration raised part of the $87 billion by borrowing (issuing Treasury bills) whereas in the version that Kerry supported that portion would have come from taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers.

  • #16222

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    That was a debate? Sorry but, to me, that seemed more like a never ending series of campaign commercials. What I took out of it:

    Bush never covered any ground that hasn’t been covered in the commercials. “Kerry is a flip-flopper!” (Which didn’t have as much bite after Kerry explained himself, although Kerry didn’t do a great job of explaining himself.) “Iraq is better off and we are safer without Saddam in power.” (OK, Iraq is better off. How are we safer? Not explained.)

    Kerry said some new things but nothing groundbreaking. OK, we know you think Bush took his eye off the goal by going to Iraq. From all information available, we can see you’re right on that. OK, we know he’s spreading the troops thin and we know your take on the “back-door draft”. It’s nice that he got to address the “flip-flop” issue but he didn’t address it well enough, probably at least in part because he was working with very limited time.

    A couple of non-speaking points I took from this. The Bush campaign pushed hard to have those lights indicating time left visible hoping to embarrass the long winded Kerry. I would say that idea backfired, considering Kerry always seemed to finish in time and Bush was the one who went over time at least in a few occasions. I also found it interesting that Bush broke the rules and responded to Kerry without permission of the moderator at least once and at least a few times asked the moderator for a rebuttal (the rebuttal was supposed to be strictly at the moderator’s discretion, candidates were not supposed to be allowed to request them). I didn’t see Kerry break these rules on any occasion, although I must admit I wasn’t exactly a captive audience throughout. Also, I noticed Bush’s mannerisms while Kerry was speaking were less than professional. Some amounted to non-audible equivalents of Gore’s famous sighs.

    Overall, on the material covered alone, I think Kerry edged out Bush simply because Bush did nothing but echo his campaign commercials. Brilliant if you blindly accept everything stated in the commercials, horrible if you realize all campaign commercials are about half-truths and political spin. At least Kerry said a few new things and not everything he said sounded like soundbytes pulled from his commercials. As for the intangibles, Kerry handled himself very professionally while Bush shot himself in the foot.

    In the end, though, it did little to affect my opinion of either one of them. It wasn’t a real debate, it wasn’t a whole lot more than a series of commercials offering nice soundbytes but not much substance.

  • #16223

    I agree that was no debate at all – Ryan you were right on that the same ground was seen again. I think that Senator Kerry sounded the most well spoken – but a good speaker does not neccesarily make a great leader. Having served in the Army and almost going to the first Gulf war and then being on alert for going to Bosnia – I can tell you that the people I wanted with me (better leaders) were confident and clear in their message. Hesitation = Death in combat and yes it does start at the top.

    I did take one thing from the debate concerning the Senator that I did not think before, it was that the Senator does indeed love this great country. But just as the President has made mistakes (oh my God he’s human) the Senator has made mistakes in the way he has done things (he’s human as well). So I give them even ground on that.

    Why can they not seem to say I will do X by doing A, B and C? All we hear is I’ll do X better than my opponent.

  • #16224

    That was a debate?

    I see what you’re saying and I think the blame for that rests more with the debate commission or whatever is the name of the organization that configures them. I do think that it was quite valuable to see and hear both candidates side-by-side even if much of what they said echoed the campaign rhetoric. Looking at it further, I don’t think Bush was as well-prepared by his staff as he could have been.

  • #16225

    Ryan
    Keymaster
    Ed 1 wrote:
    I can tell you that the people I wanted with me (better leaders) were confident and clear in their message. Hesitation = Death in combat and yes it does start at the top.

    Honestly, yesterday, I got the impression Kerry was more confident and clear in his message. He seemed well prepared, well spoken, and consistently answered immediately with well thought out responses. On the other hand, Bush hesitated and stumbled frequently when giving his responses. If we were to score this simply on who had the most clear message, delivered it with the most confidence, and hesitated the least, I would score yesterday’s “debate” as a landslide in Kerry’s favor.

  • #16226

    While the Senaotr sounded my confident and consistent – his revent history keeps me worried. Had he been that confident, clear etc… from the outset I would have a much different opinion on his ability to lead.

    Even though the President did not do well last night – I know where he stands and what he wants done. As a past military person – the Senator’s comments (if I were in) would be demoralizing and give me reason to doubt my risking my life – that is not good (from a military standpoint).

    But that raises the question of how to handle differences in opinion about the war – it is such a difficult and sensative issue (if viewed correctly). Soldiers need to know that they are loved and respected – especially in this era of all voluntary service members. It is not easy to join knowing full well that war is your job. Because my grandfather fought WWII, my dad served during Viet Nam I felt an obligation to volunteer as the first Gulf war looked likely.

  • #16227
    Ed 1 wrote:
    As a past military person – the Senator’s comments (if I were in) would be demoralizing and give me reason to doubt my risking my life – that is not good (from a military standpoint).

    So what’s the logic? Whenever the President sends U.S. Troops into combat we all have to agree with it or we’re traitors? If the cause isn’t just, I say cut our loses and bring the troops home.

    As far as Iraq goes, President Bush told us that the reason we were invading Iraq was due to WMD. I’m confident that we’ve found all the WMDs we’re going to find. President Bush can talk all he wants about how Iraq and the World are better off with Saddam, but that wasn’t the reason we went to Iraq. The time has come where we need to do what we can to get American troops out of harms way as soon as possible.

    I am an active duty military person, and I can tell you that I believe we never should have invaded Iraq. I can promise you there are many soldiers in Iraq who don’t believe they should be there. They don’t need the President or presidential candidates to tell them that. We obviously can’t leave Iraq in its current state, but we need to develop and execute our exit strategy now.

    Is anybody else concerned to hear that the U.S. is building 16 military bases in Iraq? It sounds like the current plan is to be there for a while.

  • #16228

    As a past military person – the Senator’s comments (if I were in) would be demoralizing

    why do you keep making ridiculous statements like this? All they do is reduce your credibility. Since you WERE in the military, you should realize that US troops are among the most well-trained and highly motivated soldiers in the world and it takes infinitely more than what John Kerry has said about our involvement in Iraq to demoralize them.

    Is anybody else concerned to hear that the U.S. is building 16 military bases in Iraq?

    I was surprised when Kerry mentioned this in last night’s “joint appearance.” Shouldn’t the Bush administration have made this public? You don’t build military bases of this type unless you plan on being there for a while.

  • #16229

    Runnerdude wrote –

    why do you keep making ridiculous statements like this? All they do is reduce your credibility. Since you WERE in the military, you should realize that US troops are among the most well-trained and highly motivated soldiers in the world and it takes infinitely more than what John Kerry has said about our involvement in Iraq to demoralize them.

    Becuase I have the experience – that is why I made the statement. How do you know what it takes? It does not take more than a Presidential canidate making comments to demoralize. Instead of the comments he made, forcing the idea of a quicker and stronger exit strategy would be uplifting and energizing – while still pointing out the President’s mistake. Do not defend the Senator at all costs – there are better ways to address the issues.

    Bart wrote –

    So what’s the logic? Whenever the President sends U.S. Troops into combat we all have to agree with it or we’re traitors? If the cause isn’t just, I say cut our loses and bring the troops home.

    Of course not – but it needs to be handled with great care and great tact – there is too much bullshit going on on both sides. If we walk away from Iraq the terrorists will take over and then take Saudia Aribia from there. You cannot just cut losses and leave a Nation hanging in its current situation.

  • #16230

    Becuase I have the experience

    No, you have your opinion based on your experience. Honestly, your contention that the troops would be demoralized is more demoralizing because you don’t give them any credit. You make them sound like a bunch of whining babies who need their generals and the commander in chief to keep patting them on the back when the opposite is what is true – they can put things out of their mind and continue the mission. Oh wait, maybe things are different for you because you were not in infantry and I was. Yeah, I guess you remfs need a little more encouragement.

  • #16231

    Runnerdude are you guessing at my MOS?

    You are right that it is my opinion based on my experience – I guess grunts like being told they suck and that they are doing everything wrong. Just kidding. When and where did you serve?

  • #16232

    you mentioned something about being a tanker many posts ago.

    I was an 11B1P in the late 1980s in Savannah.

  • #16233

    Good memory – I served in Germany and many of the winter field exercises the infantry loved the back of our tanks – much heat 😀 I really felt bad for them it got very cold outside of the tank.

  • #16234
    Ed 1 wrote:
    Bart wrote –

    So what’s the logic? Whenever the President sends U.S. Troops into combat we all have to agree with it or we’re traitors? If the cause isn’t just, I say cut our loses and bring the troops home.

    Of course not – but it needs to be handled with great care and great tact – there is too much bullshit going on on both sides. If we walk away from Iraq the terrorists will take over and then take Saudia Aribia from there. You cannot just cut losses and leave a Nation hanging in its current situation.

    Do you think the Bush administration has ever shown the ability to proceed with great care or great tact?

    This administration has alienated virtually all of our allies (except England). I suspect their plan for Iraq is to proceed as we have been and hope everything works out in the end.

  • #16235

    I might be missing your point but it sounds like you are saying that the Senator can act without care or tact because the current administration is doing so. Is that your point or am I off the mark? I do not want to assume what you are meaning to say.

  • #16236

    it sounds like you are saying that the Senator can act without care or tact because the current administration is doing so. Is that your point or am I off the mark?

    the way I saw it, the point is that it doesn’t make sense for you to claim that things need to be handled with tact when the Bush administration doesn’t have or use any.

  • #16237
    Ed 1 wrote:
    I might be missing your point but it sounds like you are saying that the Senator can act without care or tact because the current administration is doing so. Is that your point or am I off the mark? I do not want to assume what you are meaning to say.

    No, that’s not my point. You said the situation needs to be handled with care and tact. My point is that the Bush administration has never shown that they can proceed with either care or tact. Instead they use bullying tactics to get what they want, and now they’ve damaged our relationships with other nations.

    If care and tact are needed, Senator Kerry will come in with a clean slate and at least has the opportunity to proceed with care and tact.

  • #16238

    Runnerdude said –

    it doesn’t make sense for you to claim that things need to be handled with tact when the Bush administration doesn’t have or use any.

    Why? Am I part of the President’s administration? It makes perfect sense that I say things need to be handled with care and tact – it goes for any one that is in (or will be in) the Office.

    Bart – Most of our “relationships” with other nations have all been one sided. We are the buddy with lots of money and people power that is allowed to hang out with them only becuase of our money and power. Have we ever received any aid or support from any other nation? We got nothing more than words of sympathy for 9/11 (which is appreciated). Have we seen anything from the other nations for Florida? For example, children here in the US raised money and collected teddy bears to send to Russian children that were a part of that terrorist situation. Has anything like that been done for children that survived four hurricanes – losing all they had including their homes?

  • #16239

    Ryan
    Keymaster
    Ed 1 wrote:
    Runnerdude said –

    it doesn’t make sense for you to claim that things need to be handled with tact when the Bush administration doesn’t have or use any.

    Why? Am I part of the President’s administration? It makes perfect sense that I say things need to be handled with care and tact – it goes for any one that is in (or will be in) the Office.

    I think the point is that you should hold both equally accountable for not handling the situation with care and tact. If you are going to criticize Kerry for doing something Bush is also doing, then criticize both of them.

  • #16240
    Ed 1 wrote:
    Have we ever received any aid or support from any other nation?

    Not that I’m aware of, nor should we. From what I hear, we are the richest nation in the world. When the Salvation Army collects money during the holidays, they don’t distribute it to the richest families in town. Why should nations that don’t have our financial resources give us aid?

    Ed 1 wrote:
    Have we seen anything from the other nations for Florida?

    I have no idea. If children from the UK sent teddy bears to families in Florida, I don’t know if I would have heard about it. If a world leader called President Bush (or Governor Bush) and offered condolences about our losses during the recent hurricanes, I don’t know if I would have heard about that either. However, I don’t think that type of support is necessary. Florida had a horrible hurricane season (which isn’t over yet). As Americans we should come together to give them all the support that we can.

    However, Florida’s damage was nothing compared to the death and property damage that occurred in Haiti. Haiti’s a poor island nation that is in need of massive assistance. From what I understand, Haiti is receiving assistance from many nations, but not the U.S.

  • #16241

    Most of our “relationships” with other nations have all been one sided.

    This is absolutely true – the world has been fored to give us a free lunch because we have imposed the $ as the world’s vehicle and reserve currency. This means that all 191 of the world’s other countries have to adjust their monetary policies in response to our’s even when doing so can have an adverse effect on their economies. For example, when we issued lots of debt & ran up huge deficits in the 1980s, Brazil had to raise its interests in order to maintain investor interest in their national bonds – this exacerbated their own debt and the burden of servicing it.

  • #16242

    Has anything ever been given to the children in Florida that lost everything in the hurricanes?

    Could you please explain to me how we imposed our $ on the world? They could use the new Euro if they felt the $ was so terrible and forced upon them.

    Your example is merely the markerplace at work. I am willing to bet that you have savings in an account that provides the highest interest rate ro get credit cards with the lowest interest rate. You are forcing some financial organizations into hardship by giving your business to those that can offer better rates.

    Also, every one here has missed the area about care and tact where I stated that there is too much bull-shit on both sides. Please refer to page 1 third thread from the bottom the last paragraph first sentance.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.