Kerry seems very, very smooth to me. Niether are making huge points.
Kerry's focus on reducing nukes faster is bunk.
Kerry's focus on reducing nukes faster is bunk.
Kerry intends to not allow us to update our nukes? Technology gets old it needs to be replaced. 50 year old nukes may still work but there is more chance for others to build defenses against them the more time goes by. We can't keep them forever.
Yeah, Kerry knows all the questions in advance. Bush has no one to write him anything.... Yeah, that's must be it. :roll:
Not sure about that.....he had good delivery but content was poor. Not that bush had good content....
bush looked very shady in that debate. agitated, constantly drinking glass after glass of water...
kerry was clear, addressed the issues for the most part....
I can't see anyone calling that one for bush
kerry was clear, addressed the issues for the most part....
I can't see anyone calling that one for bush
For the record, I'm an independant, and you're right, Kerry won that debate hands down. I am no debating master, but there is no question who actually answered the questions and who avoided them and fell back to the party line "we need to be patriots" propoganda. Aside from that Bush seemed oddly flustered and petulant while Kerry came off as a little too bookish, but much more firm and with better substance. I still don't know who I will vote for, but the only folks that will give that one to Bush are either too firmly entrenched in their camp or just weren't watching ther same debate.
I've read a few of these debate threads, but comment has not been made about something rather obvious. Bush's tone of voice was much more defensive than usual. I could tell as soon as I turned on the TV that he wasn't himself, he was using a much higher pitch in his voice that we are not used to hearing when he gives press conferences or speeches. In short, Bush seemed too anxious to defend himself, while Kerry used his usual tone of voice and his usual style.
hence why I said "both seem heavily scripted and rather fake" or did you miss that part.....
its called a clue, you might want to consider getting one.
I'd hate to see how Bush would do in a debate that wasn't so heavily scripted. I mean his performance was just awful tonight. John Kerry definitely accomplished what he set out to do tonight. You better believe we have a presidential race on our hands. This should be an interesting few weeks.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Aww man, I typed out a reply but it didn't post! Ah well, lemme see what I can remember:
I would say this debate really came out in Kerry's favor: Bush appeared frustrated and out of his element. Kerry appeared very 'Presidential' and put Bush on the defensive. The most significant part IMO is when Kerry called out Bush on his remark of "Saddam attacked us".
Often times while Kerry was making a point which Bush deemed necessary to respond to he would jump and gesture to get a chance to speak then as the focus was put on Bush to hear his rebuttal: dead silence.... It was unbearable sometimes and I felt embarassed for him!
I would say this debate really came out in Kerry's favor: Bush appeared frustrated and out of his element. Kerry appeared very 'Presidential' and put Bush on the defensive. The most significant part IMO is when Kerry called out Bush on his remark of "Saddam attacked us".
Often times while Kerry was making a point which Bush deemed necessary to respond to he would jump and gesture to get a chance to speak then as the focus was put on Bush to hear his rebuttal: dead silence.... It was unbearable sometimes and I felt embarassed for him!
No, Bush said, "The enemy attacked us," so he was obviously making the point that Saddam had an alliance with the enemy. He has yet to say that Saddam participated in the 9/11 attacks.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Show me proof that Saddam had an alliance with Bin Laden. Not some one once spent some time in a hospital, but names, places and agendas. There is as much evidence to link Bush with the defrauding of Enron with Ken Lay (more, if you consider the known relationship between GWB and Lay).
He just couldn't stop saying "Wrong war at the wrong time." He said it about 8 times in like 5 minutes.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I went into the debate with an open mind, I think, and frankly afraid that Bush would win by backing Kerry into a corner and making him look awkward and halting. I definitely have a bias in terms of my vote, but I was prepared to acknowledge Bush as a winner if he won.
I'd have to say Kerry won by a country mile. He came off as smart, very knowledgeable, and appropriately aggressive. Bush seemed petulant and angry to me.
One thing competent trial attorneys learn very quickly is never to let your opponent (or worse yet, the jury) see you sweat. When you're not speaking, you don't want to look angry, frustrated, surprised, disappointed, jubilant, or anything else that makes you look less than composed.
One of the most obvious aspects of the debate to me was the fact that, when President Bush was speaking, Sen Kerry stood calmly, listened carefully, and showed no emotion. When Kerry was speaking, President Bush looked openly flustered and angry, and frantically took notes (you could hear his pen frantically scratching away, whereas Kerry did no such thing when Bush was speaking). He repeatedly demanded more debate time, and several times he was obviously too flustered to immediately start talking when it was his turn.
I was also generally impressed with Sen Kerry's ability to articulate substantive positions and plans, whereas President Bush, when he was uncomfortable, kept returning to catch phrases and cliches.
I don't know whether this debate will change minds and gain votes, but it definitely gives Sen Kerry some much-needed momentum. I still think President Bush is the front runner, but this debate set the stage for an interesting October.
I'd have to say Kerry won by a country mile. He came off as smart, very knowledgeable, and appropriately aggressive. Bush seemed petulant and angry to me.
One thing competent trial attorneys learn very quickly is never to let your opponent (or worse yet, the jury) see you sweat. When you're not speaking, you don't want to look angry, frustrated, surprised, disappointed, jubilant, or anything else that makes you look less than composed.
One of the most obvious aspects of the debate to me was the fact that, when President Bush was speaking, Sen Kerry stood calmly, listened carefully, and showed no emotion. When Kerry was speaking, President Bush looked openly flustered and angry, and frantically took notes (you could hear his pen frantically scratching away, whereas Kerry did no such thing when Bush was speaking). He repeatedly demanded more debate time, and several times he was obviously too flustered to immediately start talking when it was his turn.
I was also generally impressed with Sen Kerry's ability to articulate substantive positions and plans, whereas President Bush, when he was uncomfortable, kept returning to catch phrases and cliches.
I don't know whether this debate will change minds and gain votes, but it definitely gives Sen Kerry some much-needed momentum. I still think President Bush is the front runner, but this debate set the stage for an interesting October.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter