OT: Debate
 

Ok, I guess I'm right along the line of a political thread here, but I felt the need to post something about the US Presidential Debate.

I watched it with a large group in my apartment complex, and we had a Law Professor from Univ. of Wisconsin who was visiting campus give a talk afterward, on Western political philosophies from Plato onward (interesting, but a bit irrelevant, I thought).

Anyway, before watching it, I thought both of them would do about the same in this debate, and there wouldn't be much change. Then during the debate, I was wondering if Bush even prepared for it at all. From a pure debating standpoint, disregarding the politics behind everything, I think Kerry utterly destroyed Bush. He was assertive and articulate, while Bush stumbled through what I think should have been easy targets. Both managed to sound like broken records throughout the whole thing, but Kerry seemed to hide it better. Towards the end, there was a particularly bad moment when Bush was supposed to be offering a rebuttal on a position with North Korea, where he instead switched back to a scripted "We must stay the course in Iraq," a complete non-sequitur, and it confused just about everyone in the room.

So far the "analysis" I have seen from the debate has pretty much two camps: Democrats who were iffy on voting for Kerry now having a stronger opinion in favor of Kerry, and staunch Bush supporters who seem to have turned a blind eye to all the obvious blunders he made in the debate, and are still staunch supporters. We'll see if that changes in the next few days, but I just think it's sad that it has become so polarized that people are not being swayed in either direction. It's becoming almost a dogma, you must support one candidate, and not waver in that choice, ever.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I was fully expecting kerry to get beat by bush in this debate, bush was far more articulate in his debates against Ann Richards... But You could see right on thier faces that bush was twitching and getting fustrated and not keeping himself calm. There was a few times where bush snapped his head to look at kerry too that really caught my attention.

I think bush will pull it together more in the second debate and we might see him debate seriously. but who knows. I support john kerry, but I'm not expecting a win for john kerry either.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Political debate is practically a hobby for some people here. Don't worry about starting one, go right ahead.

Re: OT: Debate
 

To be honest, I could care less about this debate or any debate.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Same here! like ALL of them they say what they need to to get the job (no new tax's) then turn around and do it anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: OT: Debate
 

*whew* Im glad to hear you say that. I was afraid it might have changed your stance. BE resolute. Be determined. In the face of anything. (just like Bush)

Re: OT: Debate
 

Over the past year I have come to beleive that, apparently, a majority of voters in the US are either

1) Intentionally ignorant - in that they consciously avoid learning the facts
2) Lacking in basic logic and reasoning skills (ie: stupid) - in that they cannot perform the most basic reasoning to understand where things have gone wrong and cannot but fall prey to the most base "big lies"

There are very few "laws" in international relations. One of them is that balances form against threats. The US is NO LONGER respected, or viewed as a "city on a hill" for other peoples and nations to aspire to, politically or otherwise.

The US is now viewed by the majority of people in the world as a greater threat to world peace than anything else.

This will inevitably lead to the abandonment/destruction of the post-WWII order which led to historically unprecedented economic and democratic growth worldwide, and the formation of international coalitions against the US.

Our children, and our childrens' children will reap the rewards of Bush's unilateralism and pre-emption. Never in the history of the US have we destroyed so much good will in so short a time for so specious a reason.

Having Saddam Hussein out of power is a good thing. The destruction of the entire post War system of alliances, friendship, and prosperity was not, and the cost of the latter far outweighs the benefit of the former.

Alarik

Ps: Because people will inevitably misquote me (for in the Orwellian environment in which we live in, where lies and stupidity are given more credence than the truth, and dissent is treason, to misquote is a weapon), let me just say that if this conversation had taken place a few years ago, I would have said nothing. I almost voted for Reagan, I would have voted for McCain or perhaps Bush senior, and I might have even given Bush junior a pass if he had changed or admitted even a few things - or got out from under the wings of the NeoCons. But the tactics, arrogance, underhandedness, and everything else that has ocurred has led me to the inevitable conclusion that we are at such a crucial crossroads in the history of the nation and the world that to not speak out now is a greater sin than to offend. So, sorry if I offend anyone. But not that sorry. Wake up and smell the danger lest we sit obligingly by while the world our parents built is lost to the worst reactionary dogma imaginable.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I too am surprised how many americans are content with "Saddam is out of power and that is good" without asking what it has costed. Everyone seems to forget that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs, and with his actions Bush has not destroyed anti-american terrorism, he has effectively supported it.

The same holds true for these numerous new american laws to increase "national security". Is it really worth to gain a tiny bit of security (which is even debatable) when having to pay with for it with a lot of personal freedom? I always have thought freedom had a higher value in the USA.

The aim might be good, but thinking - does anyone do it? - must not stop there. History is full of catastrophies caused by people with best intentions.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Well I was hoping this would stay on the topic of the debate itself... but I guess a degeneration into a discussion of politics in general is inevitable.

After letting the analysts have their time to think about the debate, I think it's a little bit funny that a lot of the more "conservative" outlets are reporting that the debate was a draw, while the "undecided" and "liberal" outlets are reporting that Kerry won. There's little said on Bush gems such as:

"I know how the world works!"

"Of course we're after Saddam. I mean bin Laden."

"We've aleady sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more."

And the previously mentioned gaffee where he responded to a comment about dealing with North Korea and nuclear proliforation by saying "we must stay the course in Iraq."

Political beliefs aside, I fail to see how anyone can believe Bush did a good job in this debate with those blatantly obvious mistakes, and the less-than-Presidential reactions to Kerry's comments. Especially when the debate was centered on the Iraq War and terrorism, which are supposed to be Bush's "strengths". If he can't debate well on his strong points, what chance does he have on domestic issues?

Re: OT: Debate
 

That is what I meant - people do not think about facts any more to arrive at a decision. So it does not make sense to make debates.
Most people have their political beliefs, like a religion, and no debate will change it, and even if one of the candidates would start growing horns and hooves and smell of sulfur the majority of his supporters would not budge. Idiots are ruling this world...