A serious and more in-depth analysis of the First Presidental Debate

Note on Thread: This is not a thread for community like posts. If you have a joke or silly comment please post it in the thread posted by Farraday. I ask that you respect those who wish to have a serious discussion on this debate. So I ask that you only post in this thread if you have something to add to the serious discussion. Post your thoughts on the matter.

This is a place where we can have a good discussion on this first presidental debate.

I will express my personal opinions a little later and will leave it out of this first post which is only to introduce the topic.

I do have one comment for now, It is interesting to see how two men see truth as two very different things. Their personal point of views differ so greatly that they look at the same issues as dramatically different. I find this very interesting.

Discuss

-Seldon

 

I find it more concerning than interesting.

As far as the debate goes, I consider it a draw for the most part. I was impressed by some of the things Bush said, and the way Kerry presented himself. However, being the staunch biased Republican I am, it's hard for me to agree with a lot of the stuff Kerry had to say.

 

I agree. Kerry in an excellent speaker, too bad none of the things he speaks about are true.

 

Seriously Seldon, get over yourself.

This is you. *
This is where you need to be. X

* /Yourself\ X

You can do it!

 

I didn't get to see the first round of debates because I was helping someone move. Once I see them in repeat hopefully on CSPAN sometime soon. Or get a more indepth look from the news channels and all I've asked about it so far. I will have a personal opinion on them. But even if I'm told that Bush sucked I will still vote for him because as I've said before I know where he stands and not where Kerry stands.

~PK~

 

I still wonder how someone who insists on only ever being serious has lasted even this long in the house.

Hail Satan!

Hail Satan!

(And farraday.)

 

I'll humor you, Seldon, and try to have a serious discussion about the debate and the candidates' positions, but on one condition. You have to explain to me a Kerry position in a foreign policy matter, how he will implement that policy, how that policy differs from Bush's policy, and the likely consequences of that policy.

That honest appraisal will help someone understand why he is voting for a candidate. Any answer such as "he was vague in the debate, they're always vague" will be dismissed as ignorance. Kerry has had a couple of years to articulate his positions on Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, terrorism, alliances, etc., but I still have no idea where he stands on these issues. And I follow these things very closely. I'm a junkie.

Now when you answer, I will post a rebuttal that may press you to clarify, or it may question your assertions, or it may show a flaw in that policy. I will expect an answer. Once a single Kerry position is clarified, you may ask me any question on a Bush policy, or you may ask my interpretation of a particular Kerry policy. But I will ask that you choose the subject that you want to discuss and clarify.

Of course, anyone else who wants to contribute is welcome. I call Seldon out simply because I know he is a professed liberal who at least marginally supports Kerry.



And a quick note on the debates themselves, Kerry did better than expected and Bush did worse than expected, and that resulted in more or less a net draw. Also, I hate single issue debates. They are repetitious and boring by their very nature. I hope next term the PTB have sense enough to skip this goofy format.

AYBABTU

 

Since Seldon has a deep seated desire to appear to be knowledgeable, perhaps he can answer this.

What would bilateral talks with North Korea wouk better then multilateral. I mean, isn't 'multilateral' a liberal buzzword? I would really enjoy hearing about the Dangers of Multilateralism vis a vis North Korea's nuclear armament program.

 

While you certainly have a valid point there, farrie, I would advise against trying to make it just yet. Considering that I have yet to find a single person on the internet able to define any Kerry position on anything and then be able to support it with fact, I don't want you scaring off the one chance we have in this BB house to possibly finally get an answer from someone. Anytime I have ever tried to define a specific issue to discuss, the easy lib answer is always "Well that isn't really a subject I support Kerry on" or "I don't really know very much about that specific topic." Because Kerry supporters are already very clearly oblivious to fact, we have to be very careful in introducing facts to them. We have to let them identify "facts" first, and then we can show them how facts compare to those "facts."

Just back off and let Seldon choose the topic that he is most comfortable with. He has a huge opportunity here. He can be the first person on the planet to articulate a Kerry position. Let's don't scare him off before he gives it a shot.

AYBABTU

 

I'm going to reply to Rhett.
First I have some general comments.

Both of them were very vague. They also repeated the same "fact" several times. I also don't think either were all that accurate about some of the issues they talked about.

My unbiased comments is that Kerry spoke very well and was very good while Bush was talking. At times Bush did well and other times he fell into a babbling fit.

I would have liked it if Kerry was more clear on his policies.

I think both canditates secured their bases but the real question is whether they appealed to anyone else.

I personally think that Kerry did a better job, but that is because he was able to play offensive while Bush had to defend every action and mistake he has ever taken. Bush had the more difficult side of the debate.

The major result of the debate was the conclusion that

1. Kerry feels a stronger International alliance will be more productive and that Bush did not work had enough for one.
2. Kerry feels that you can't "go to war without a plan to win the peace." Now that we are in Iraq Kerry promised to get us out. He failed to explain the HOW.
3. Kerry announced that Iraq diverted forces from other terrorist areas. That the major struggle should have been with Bin Laden seeing that he caused 911.
4. Kerry has lots of ideas but not a lot of money to do them with. The reality is that few ideas will come true.

So when do I agree with Kerry.
I agree that North Korea is a threat and should have been dealt with before Iraq. I don't mean we should have invaded that nation. I'm just saying more should have been done. Perhaps troops in the area but I do not know. It seems to me that Bush ignored this issue for the most part.

I agree that a new President with new ideas can connect us better with our allies. I'm not saying Jacques and Kerry will take a cruise down the Seine holding hands. I'm not saying France and Germany will support us. I am saying that we should be able to get more support in the world.
Limited help from places like Poland and GB are not enough in my opinion.

Some of the World hates Americans. This has been like that since the time we became a superpower and sometimes much earlier. No one can help that. But today the world hates the American government more than ever. I blame that on the Bush Administration. While the world won't suddenly love America with Kerry, it will help. Not that this is a major issue. I just think it is a positive one.

Personally I agree with Kerry's economic policies.

I don't know how clear I can make Kerry's vague policies. I hope I explained why I support him. It is not because I like him. It is because I can't stand Bush.

-Seldon

 

Actually, you still didn't answer me. Can you clarify a single kerry policy, explain how he will implement that policy, and what effect it will have on the issue? You failed to do any of those things, just as every other Kerry supporter I have ever seen has failed to do any of those things.

You say that you agree with Kerry's economic policices. What are they? How will he implement any one of them? What effect with those policies have on the economy, based on historical evidence?

Please, for the love of God, can someone do this?

AYBABTU