Here's what I got out of it:
I thought Bush really stumbled, fumbled, and bumbled at the start, but did better as the debate went on.
I thought Gore seemed much more knowledgeable and Presidential, but maybe a little too prepared; as in trying to repeat the same key phrases over and over.
I thought Bush sounded more convincing on the education issue and though I'm not for privatization of Social Security, I believe he made points with those leaning that way.
I thought Gore won on the question of foreign policy. He just listed all his experience in the House and Senate and on the National Security Council, nothing for Bush there. I actually felt embarrassed for Bush when Gore "educated" him on the Russian position in Yugoslavia.
I also thought Gore sounded more credible on the Medicare and Social Security (like I said, I'm against privatization) issues.
I don't think either one of them has a real plan to deal with the energy problem. Gore's talk about new technology and energy sources sounds good, but I notice he didn't give any details. When Bush talks about more domestic exploration, all I hear him saying is, "Yes, here's a great chance to give all kinds of tax breaks and free land and reign to my big oil cronies". Also, what he said about an abundance of coal is absolutely ridiculous. He said he was just in West Virginia, well that state is expected to be completely out of mineable coal in 15 years.
Both of them got on my nerves at times. If Bush said "fuzzy math" one more time I was going to throw the remote at the screen. Gore asked twice for him to come right out and say that he was lying about figures and all Bush would say is, "there's that fuzzy math again".
Gore got on my nerves with his beating the "tax cut for the wealthiest 1%" to death. ALRIGHT ALREADY! I heard you the first 10 times!
Bush lost points with me when he attacked Gore personally at the end, but it also did remind me of a time that Gore acted quite Clintonish. I thought Gore did a good job of coming right back with saying he would sign the McCain bill and challenging Bush to say the same and Bush wouldn't, but overall that part just left me not liking either one of them for it.
I think that the people who were all for Bush before the debate will still be all for him, but they'll hope that he'll be a lot more prepared for the next one.
I think the people who were all for Gore before the debate will still be all for him and rightly think he looked better in this one, but they'll know that the next debate is in an entirely different format, informal discussion, and it may not suit Gore's style as well.
I'm still not sure who I'm voting for. I'm not particularly excited about either one. I plan to watch all the debates.
I thought Bush really stumbled, fumbled, and bumbled at the start, but did better as the debate went on.
I thought Gore seemed much more knowledgeable and Presidential, but maybe a little too prepared; as in trying to repeat the same key phrases over and over.
I thought Bush sounded more convincing on the education issue and though I'm not for privatization of Social Security, I believe he made points with those leaning that way.
I thought Gore won on the question of foreign policy. He just listed all his experience in the House and Senate and on the National Security Council, nothing for Bush there. I actually felt embarrassed for Bush when Gore "educated" him on the Russian position in Yugoslavia.
I also thought Gore sounded more credible on the Medicare and Social Security (like I said, I'm against privatization) issues.
I don't think either one of them has a real plan to deal with the energy problem. Gore's talk about new technology and energy sources sounds good, but I notice he didn't give any details. When Bush talks about more domestic exploration, all I hear him saying is, "Yes, here's a great chance to give all kinds of tax breaks and free land and reign to my big oil cronies". Also, what he said about an abundance of coal is absolutely ridiculous. He said he was just in West Virginia, well that state is expected to be completely out of mineable coal in 15 years.
Both of them got on my nerves at times. If Bush said "fuzzy math" one more time I was going to throw the remote at the screen. Gore asked twice for him to come right out and say that he was lying about figures and all Bush would say is, "there's that fuzzy math again".
Gore got on my nerves with his beating the "tax cut for the wealthiest 1%" to death. ALRIGHT ALREADY! I heard you the first 10 times!
Bush lost points with me when he attacked Gore personally at the end, but it also did remind me of a time that Gore acted quite Clintonish. I thought Gore did a good job of coming right back with saying he would sign the McCain bill and challenging Bush to say the same and Bush wouldn't, but overall that part just left me not liking either one of them for it.
I think that the people who were all for Bush before the debate will still be all for him, but they'll hope that he'll be a lot more prepared for the next one.
I think the people who were all for Gore before the debate will still be all for him and rightly think he looked better in this one, but they'll know that the next debate is in an entirely different format, informal discussion, and it may not suit Gore's style as well.
I'm still not sure who I'm voting for. I'm not particularly excited about either one. I plan to watch all the debates.
- Oct 30, 1999
- 11,815
- 102
- 106
SuperGroove: Hey! Nader didn't actually kill the Corvair! Not by himself, at least. They made necessary safety changes to the Corvair and Nadder even gave it a big fat seal of approval, but by then the damage was done. The car shouldn't have had the issue it had to start with.
Gotta admit, Nader does do a lot for consumer safety BUT he's all fo industry and jobs. The last thing he wants to do is to shut down a product and cost jobs. He just wants to make sure what we buy isn't going to kill us.
Gotta admit, Nader does do a lot for consumer safety BUT he's all fo industry and jobs. The last thing he wants to do is to shut down a product and cost jobs. He just wants to make sure what we buy isn't going to kill us.
Who do you choose, a person who is under investigation for campaign finances, who wants bigger and more costly government. Someone who will lead this country to socialism and bankruptcy.
Or the someone like Bush, stutters once in awhile possible, but is clearly the better choice.
Don't let the liberal socialists of this board influence you. Watch the debates, read and study their agendas and make up your own mind as to whom you would be better off with.
Or the someone like Bush, stutters once in awhile possible, but is clearly the better choice.
Don't let the liberal socialists of this board influence you. Watch the debates, read and study their agendas and make up your own mind as to whom you would be better off with.
All presidents are puppets. The same money controls either party's candidate.
The question is, with whom are you most comfortable: your prefered puppet, or your despised puppet?
You all vote for the same handlers.
The candidates are irrelevent.
The men who would be King.
The question is, with whom are you most comfortable: your prefered puppet, or your despised puppet?
You all vote for the same handlers.
The candidates are irrelevent.
The men who would be King.
<I found a few more "Bushisms" to add to my personl list during the debate (mostly paraphrased):
1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
I remember this as Natural gas. Somebody will have a transcript up soon and it can be checked.
<2) "I feel that we should use the military to fight wars to prevent wars.">
This is an absolutley correct statement. A military that is fully prepared to fight and win a war will alomst never be challenged. Germany didnt attack Poland because they thought would lose to Poland. A weak military invites war, history proves it.
<I also thought it was pretty funny when Gush said "We wouldn't want to use the Russians to help us if they didn't agree with us on the matter [of getting Milosevic out of office]," and Bore quickly responded "Well, they do [disagree with us].">
You missed the implication that Bush made that he would pressure Russia to assist. This ties in what he has advocated before, getting more the UN to carry more of the load. He can see as I think most of the world can that the UN gets involved in conflicts and constantly pushes america to take the heaviest load, particularly if the matter is thought unfavorable by many countries. Russia has had the luxury of the US fixing things up and the benefit going to them while at the same critisizing the US publicly. Think Persian gulf.
<Bore was being a bit of an @$$ to the moderator towards the start when he ignored his requsts for him to stop talking. Gush was an @$$ at the end when he kept attacking Bore, though.>
It would haave taken a true saint to have been interrupted countless times and watch Gore break the rules of the debate over and over, and going off topic time and again, and talk lomger than allotted, to not finally attack him. How many out there would have stayed within rules like Bush did while Gore kept breaking them?
<It wasn't as funny as I'd hoped it would be. Maybe Gush will slip up a few more times next time. >
It wasnt funny. It was watching a born and raised politician saying and doing whatever will get a vote against a guy who was for the most polite and followed the rules of the debate. One guy made promises to make a change once he gets to the white house, one guy made promises to make changes after he haad 8 years in the white house to them before.
1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
I remember this as Natural gas. Somebody will have a transcript up soon and it can be checked.
<2) "I feel that we should use the military to fight wars to prevent wars.">
This is an absolutley correct statement. A military that is fully prepared to fight and win a war will alomst never be challenged. Germany didnt attack Poland because they thought would lose to Poland. A weak military invites war, history proves it.
<I also thought it was pretty funny when Gush said "We wouldn't want to use the Russians to help us if they didn't agree with us on the matter [of getting Milosevic out of office]," and Bore quickly responded "Well, they do [disagree with us].">
You missed the implication that Bush made that he would pressure Russia to assist. This ties in what he has advocated before, getting more the UN to carry more of the load. He can see as I think most of the world can that the UN gets involved in conflicts and constantly pushes america to take the heaviest load, particularly if the matter is thought unfavorable by many countries. Russia has had the luxury of the US fixing things up and the benefit going to them while at the same critisizing the US publicly. Think Persian gulf.
<Bore was being a bit of an @$$ to the moderator towards the start when he ignored his requsts for him to stop talking. Gush was an @$$ at the end when he kept attacking Bore, though.>
It would haave taken a true saint to have been interrupted countless times and watch Gore break the rules of the debate over and over, and going off topic time and again, and talk lomger than allotted, to not finally attack him. How many out there would have stayed within rules like Bush did while Gore kept breaking them?
<It wasn't as funny as I'd hoped it would be. Maybe Gush will slip up a few more times next time. >
It wasnt funny. It was watching a born and raised politician saying and doing whatever will get a vote against a guy who was for the most polite and followed the rules of the debate. One guy made promises to make a change once he gets to the white house, one guy made promises to make changes after he haad 8 years in the white house to them before.
About the attack.
If I remember correctly the moderator asked about character. Bush rightly pointed out that Gores character is questionable. I don't see that as an attack.
Gore with nothing bad to point out about Bush tried to take the high road and failed.
1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
He had earlier discussed about getting together with the leaders of Canada and Mexico about setting up a unified energy policy. That is something Clinton and Gore have not done.
If I remember correctly the moderator asked about character. Bush rightly pointed out that Gores character is questionable. I don't see that as an attack.
Gore with nothing bad to point out about Bush tried to take the high road and failed.
1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
He had earlier discussed about getting together with the leaders of Canada and Mexico about setting up a unified energy policy. That is something Clinton and Gore have not done.
Gore was a non-stop, arrogant prick with his overbearing interruptions.
Gore would destroy America if he got in.
Quit trying to be cool, hip and with it. The GOP has been lied about, smeared and distorted by the liberal media and if you fall for it, you deserve the suffering you'll get.
Just leave me out of your socialist dreams, it's MY DAMN MONEY!:|
Gore would destroy America if he got in.
Quit trying to be cool, hip and with it. The GOP has been lied about, smeared and distorted by the liberal media and if you fall for it, you deserve the suffering you'll get.
Just leave me out of your socialist dreams, it's MY DAMN MONEY!:|
<< 1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
I remember this as Natural gas. Somebody will have a transcript up soon and it can be checked. >>
I'm pretty certain that I heard oil, but I could be wrong. Either way, he is still talking about buying stuff from another countrty to reduce our dependance on other countries, which is obviously pretty nonsensical. Like I said, these are paraphrased.
<< <2) "I feel that we should use the military to fight wars to prevent wars.">
This is an absolutley correct statement. A military that is fully prepared to fight and win a war will alomst never be challenged. Germany didnt attack Poland because they thought would lose to Poland. A weak military invites war, history proves it. >>
Yes, but our military's power is already well known, so fighting in lots of conflicts, especially little ones, with our NATO and/or UN buddies won't prove a thing.
What it will do is weaken our military.<< <I also thought it was pretty funny when Gush said "We wouldn't want to use the Russians to help us if they didn't agree with us on the matter [of getting Milosevic out of office]," and Bore quickly responded "Well, they do [disagree with us].">
You missed the implication that Bush made that he would pressure Russia to assist. This ties in what he has advocated before, getting more the UN to carry more of the load. He can see as I think most of the world can that the UN gets involved in conflicts and constantly pushes america to take the heaviest load, particularly if the matter is thought unfavorable by many countries. Russia has had the luxury of the US fixing things up and the benefit going to them while at the same critisizing the US publicly. Think Persian gulf. >>
Good point.
I only mentioned it because I thought it sounded funny. BTW, I was a little kid when the Persian Gulf War came about. The only thing I remember about it in any detail are all of the things mentioned in the Discover Channel Wings series about the aircraft used.<< <It wasn't as funny as I'd hoped it would be. Maybe Gush will slip up a few more times next time. >
It wasnt funny. It was watching a born and raised politician saying and doing whatever will get a vote against a guy who was for the most polite and followed the rules of the debate. One guy made promises to make a change once he gets to the white house, one guy made promises to make changes after he haad 8 years in the white house to them before. >>
Since I can't vote yet, I was only watching the debate for entertainment, and the show wasn't as good as I thought it would be.
Regardless, I feel that Gush's (sorry...that's getting old) plans, such privatizing Social Security and destroying portions of our national parks for resource harvesting, are stupid. His stance on the National Missile Defense System doesn't please me much, either; he wants to go ahead and build it (AFAIK) even though it could potentially ignite another Cold War.
<Wait a second there Mr. Chicken, wasn't Bush's Grand Pappy and his Pappy life long Politicians? And gosh Darn it, didn't Bush follow in his Pappy's Foot Steps? And if it weren't for Bush's Pappy being the Real George Bush, do you actually think that Junior Bush would be were he is now, running as the RepubliKlan Nominee for the President. Maybe he's just a late bloomer and it just took in a little longer than his Pappy and his Grand Pappy to find his calling? Your assertions that he is not an insider is rubbish>
As Gore and others have pointed out, Bush has 6 years political experience as Governor, and that's it right? I may be wrong, I'm not his biographer, so he may have some smaller experience that I dont know of, and to me doesnt count like being a Governor or Cogressman does.
Gore repeatedly say 24 years of political experience, that's a big contrast. He was raised by a politician, was a senator in Tenn, while being effectively raised aand living in the Wash DC area.
I dont think he is running or was picked to run because of his father. If you dont remember, SR was soundly whupped in his bid for re-election, that isnt a reputation to run on. JR truly cares about making a change, particulalry for children and education, unlike Gore, Bush sent his kids to public schools, his wife taught in public schools and has familial interest in minorities.
As a republican I cringed when I heard he was the "golden boy" of the party, just because of the way his father lost the election. But as I listened to him talk about children and education, I could tell that he dead serious about every child being entitled to an education. He does not eschew minorities or the poor, he was able to muzzle the far right at the convention and come across as guy who wants to make a change for the better. Yeah, he isnt the best speaker in the world, and Gore has made fools of the best of them. This time Gore comes off as an ass and Bush as a nice guy trying to play by the rules in my eyes.
You are wrong that I asserted Bush was not an insider. I did insinuate that Gore is an Insider and he surely is that, but I did not say that Bush was not. He can be considered an Insider, but certainly nowhere near the degree that Gore is.
The great thing about america is that if you and I have different opinions, we can argue and when it comes down to the President, we have equal say in the decision.
As Gore and others have pointed out, Bush has 6 years political experience as Governor, and that's it right? I may be wrong, I'm not his biographer, so he may have some smaller experience that I dont know of, and to me doesnt count like being a Governor or Cogressman does.
Gore repeatedly say 24 years of political experience, that's a big contrast. He was raised by a politician, was a senator in Tenn, while being effectively raised aand living in the Wash DC area.
I dont think he is running or was picked to run because of his father. If you dont remember, SR was soundly whupped in his bid for re-election, that isnt a reputation to run on. JR truly cares about making a change, particulalry for children and education, unlike Gore, Bush sent his kids to public schools, his wife taught in public schools and has familial interest in minorities.
As a republican I cringed when I heard he was the "golden boy" of the party, just because of the way his father lost the election. But as I listened to him talk about children and education, I could tell that he dead serious about every child being entitled to an education. He does not eschew minorities or the poor, he was able to muzzle the far right at the convention and come across as guy who wants to make a change for the better. Yeah, he isnt the best speaker in the world, and Gore has made fools of the best of them. This time Gore comes off as an ass and Bush as a nice guy trying to play by the rules in my eyes.
You are wrong that I asserted Bush was not an insider. I did insinuate that Gore is an Insider and he surely is that, but I did not say that Bush was not. He can be considered an Insider, but certainly nowhere near the degree that Gore is.
The great thing about america is that if you and I have different opinions, we can argue and when it comes down to the President, we have equal say in the decision.
[snip]
<< <2) "I feel that we should use the military to fight wars to prevent wars.">
This is an absolutley correct statement. A military that is fully prepared to fight and win a war will alomst never be challenged. Germany didnt attack Poland because they thought would lose to Poland. A weak military invites war, history proves it. >>
Yes, but our military's power is already well known, so fighting in lots of conflicts, especially little ones, with our NATO and/or UN buddies won't prove a thing. What it will do is weaken our military.>>
His premise is that yes we are powerfull now, but in decline. Just as we were powerful after both world wars, but weak when the next world conflict started again. The decline has to be reversed soon. Ask yourself this question, is being the biggest strongest military enough to stop a war if the opposition is 99% as strong as yours good enough to prevent a war between you? Now what if your military is twice or three times as strong? Also keep in mind that our military is currently tied in a couple of small conflicts, we dont have a huge reserve to fight in a third large scale conflict and certainly not for an extended period. It gets inviting to some countries to know that eventually we wont be able to respond everywhere anymore.
Bush would like to keep us out of all those little conflicts as much as possible, and let the UN carry more of the weight. Our Military was not built and trained and as "Peace Keepers", that is his point, we should not fight when we dont need to, and when do we should win and get out. That just makes too much sense. Peace Keeping is for police, not soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill other people, not enforce laws.
[snip]
<< <It wasn't as funny as I'd hoped it would be. Maybe Gush will slip up a few more times next time. >
It wasnt funny. It was watching a born and raised politician saying and doing whatever will get a vote against a guy who was for the most polite and followed the rules of the debate. One guy made promises to make a change once he gets to the white house, one guy made promises to make changes after he haad 8 years in the white house to them before. >>
Since I can't vote yet, I was only watching the debate for entertainment, and the show wasn't as good as I thought it would be.
Regardless, I feel that Gush's (sorry...that's getting old) plans, such privatizing Social Security and destroying portions of our national parks for resource harvesting, are stupid. His stance on the National Missile Defense System doesn't please me much, either; he wants to go ahead and build it (AFAIK) even though it could potentially ignite another Cold War.>>
It's great you get some exposure now to elections, you will be old enough to vote some day.
Privatizing Social Security: This is the most misunderstood thing in the election. The reason is that Democrats like voters being dependant on entitlement programs. The 401K retirement plan is the greatest thing available for personal wealth available to workers. Wisely invested, a modest amount over the course of working life, could make you a milloinaire when you retire. Allowing you to invest 1/6th of the Sociaal Security tax you will pay with every paycheck in a similar account could greatly increase the amount Social Security you will recieve at retirement age. I will conservatively say that you could easily double you retirement benefit while at worst case you could end up losing 1/6th of your retirement income. And this would be only if you never elect to participate ina 401k plan at work in addition to expecting SS retirement. Also remember that under Bush you can stay with old SS plan and invest nothing or risk nothing.
Resource exploration/exploitation in parks: This is touchy, a balance needs to be made between national security and economic security and saving the environment. One thing Bush should have mentioned is that Sadam is using those 1 million barrles of a day we import to buy weapons. He had chemical weapons, it will only be a matter of time before he will be able to buy nukes or build them himself as long as the money flows in from oil sales. We may very well be financing the very bomb that kills millions in the US or elsewhere by buying oil from Iraq. I agree with gore that we need to reduce consumption, but again, he had 8 years to do something, but didnt.
Missile Defense: The time is coming when many countries will have both nukes and the missles that can send them to the US. Terrorists sponsored by one of these countries will certainly try it someday. Every country in the world should worry about this. So you either accept that it will happen and o something or do nothing. Heavy duty negotiating needs to be done with both Russia and China to get them onboard, no doubt.
BTW, for not being old enough to vote, you've impressed me that you actually are aware of the issues and concerned.
<< <2) "I feel that we should use the military to fight wars to prevent wars.">
This is an absolutley correct statement. A military that is fully prepared to fight and win a war will alomst never be challenged. Germany didnt attack Poland because they thought would lose to Poland. A weak military invites war, history proves it. >>
Yes, but our military's power is already well known, so fighting in lots of conflicts, especially little ones, with our NATO and/or UN buddies won't prove a thing. What it will do is weaken our military.>>
His premise is that yes we are powerfull now, but in decline. Just as we were powerful after both world wars, but weak when the next world conflict started again. The decline has to be reversed soon. Ask yourself this question, is being the biggest strongest military enough to stop a war if the opposition is 99% as strong as yours good enough to prevent a war between you? Now what if your military is twice or three times as strong? Also keep in mind that our military is currently tied in a couple of small conflicts, we dont have a huge reserve to fight in a third large scale conflict and certainly not for an extended period. It gets inviting to some countries to know that eventually we wont be able to respond everywhere anymore.
Bush would like to keep us out of all those little conflicts as much as possible, and let the UN carry more of the weight. Our Military was not built and trained and as "Peace Keepers", that is his point, we should not fight when we dont need to, and when do we should win and get out. That just makes too much sense. Peace Keeping is for police, not soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill other people, not enforce laws.
[snip]
<< <It wasn't as funny as I'd hoped it would be. Maybe Gush will slip up a few more times next time. >
It wasnt funny. It was watching a born and raised politician saying and doing whatever will get a vote against a guy who was for the most polite and followed the rules of the debate. One guy made promises to make a change once he gets to the white house, one guy made promises to make changes after he haad 8 years in the white house to them before. >>
Since I can't vote yet, I was only watching the debate for entertainment, and the show wasn't as good as I thought it would be.
Regardless, I feel that Gush's (sorry...that's getting old) plans, such privatizing Social Security and destroying portions of our national parks for resource harvesting, are stupid. His stance on the National Missile Defense System doesn't please me much, either; he wants to go ahead and build it (AFAIK) even though it could potentially ignite another Cold War.>>
It's great you get some exposure now to elections, you will be old enough to vote some day.
Privatizing Social Security: This is the most misunderstood thing in the election. The reason is that Democrats like voters being dependant on entitlement programs. The 401K retirement plan is the greatest thing available for personal wealth available to workers. Wisely invested, a modest amount over the course of working life, could make you a milloinaire when you retire. Allowing you to invest 1/6th of the Sociaal Security tax you will pay with every paycheck in a similar account could greatly increase the amount Social Security you will recieve at retirement age. I will conservatively say that you could easily double you retirement benefit while at worst case you could end up losing 1/6th of your retirement income. And this would be only if you never elect to participate ina 401k plan at work in addition to expecting SS retirement. Also remember that under Bush you can stay with old SS plan and invest nothing or risk nothing.
Resource exploration/exploitation in parks: This is touchy, a balance needs to be made between national security and economic security and saving the environment. One thing Bush should have mentioned is that Sadam is using those 1 million barrles of a day we import to buy weapons. He had chemical weapons, it will only be a matter of time before he will be able to buy nukes or build them himself as long as the money flows in from oil sales. We may very well be financing the very bomb that kills millions in the US or elsewhere by buying oil from Iraq. I agree with gore that we need to reduce consumption, but again, he had 8 years to do something, but didnt.
Missile Defense: The time is coming when many countries will have both nukes and the missles that can send them to the US. Terrorists sponsored by one of these countries will certainly try it someday. Every country in the world should worry about this. So you either accept that it will happen and o something or do nothing. Heavy duty negotiating needs to be done with both Russia and China to get them onboard, no doubt.
BTW, for not being old enough to vote, you've impressed me that you actually are aware of the issues and concerned.
<The thing is MrChicken, it isn't you that he needs to do good for, it's those who are undecided. You and I both were skeptical of at least one of the candidates or in my case, both. Nothing that could have been said probably would change the way we feel. In fact nothing that was said in the debates would change the way most here in this forum feel.>
True, and also sadly true is that many will vote simply on looks or simply because one is Dem or Rep and blindly believe the party line. Also that some simply go by what is said without really thinking whether or not they are promises in the dark or deeply held ideals.
True, and also sadly true is that many will vote simply on looks or simply because one is Dem or Rep and blindly believe the party line. Also that some simply go by what is said without really thinking whether or not they are promises in the dark or deeply held ideals.
Watched it a little bit and I gotta tell ya, Bush earned more respect from me tonight than Gore...
Gore had some valid points, but the segment I watched (Income tax), Bush won me over...
note that I'm a single male and my viewpoints may be differ from others..
Gore had some valid points, but the segment I watched (Income tax), Bush won me over...
note that I'm a single male and my viewpoints may be differ from others..
I think Gore definitely won this one. Bush stalled a lot more, was a lot less specific, and was always on the defensive for most of it. Bush could have taken an offensive stance, but didn't.
However there are two more, and I think in the more informal ones, Bush will do better.
<< I dont think [Bush] is running or was picked to run because of his father. >>
Yeah sure. And Ted Kennedy being a senator has nothing to do with his brothers.
<MrChicken, after reading your last post I can truly say that I think I would prefer to vote for you over the two candidates. Maybe you can email Bush and explain to him actually what it is that he means. You'd be doing him a big favor.>
Well he just isnt good at speaking and couldnt explain everything in a debate format, even if Gore didnt disrupt the debate like he did. But if you had followed what he has said over the campaign you know how he feels. Belive me it easier for me to type this out than it would have been in that debate.
I could never run for prez because I have a problem with plain speaking and getting to the root of the problem. Comes from years of troubleshooting computers, find the problem, determine what course of action to take, and do it. But that doesnt work with people does it?
For example: The national debt, what the repubs in congress are talking about is they way I would handle my debt if it was my number one concern. Take 90% of my current surplus and pay down the debt until it's gone. Then take the money and put towards the next biggest problem until it's gone if it is that important.
This will never fly, why? Because some self serving and some well meaning and possibly correct people will cry the money can be better used for education, medicare, the military etc.... The debt lives on as a low priority regardless of what everybody says....
Well he just isnt good at speaking and couldnt explain everything in a debate format, even if Gore didnt disrupt the debate like he did. But if you had followed what he has said over the campaign you know how he feels. Belive me it easier for me to type this out than it would have been in that debate.
I could never run for prez because I have a problem with plain speaking and getting to the root of the problem. Comes from years of troubleshooting computers, find the problem, determine what course of action to take, and do it. But that doesnt work with people does it?
For example: The national debt, what the repubs in congress are talking about is they way I would handle my debt if it was my number one concern. Take 90% of my current surplus and pay down the debt until it's gone. Then take the money and put towards the next biggest problem until it's gone if it is that important.
This will never fly, why? Because some self serving and some well meaning and possibly correct people will cry the money can be better used for education, medicare, the military etc.... The debt lives on as a low priority regardless of what everybody says....
Gore kicked ass!
Bush seemed less informed, could not spell out in detail like Gore his proposals, and when attacked did not do a good job defending himself.
For example: When the question was asked about RU-486 Bush could not answer about his own comments that contradicted what he was saying on stage. That happened more than one time.
His delivery with his jokes was poorly timed like his "Inventing the Internet" and the calculator joke, he launched into personal attacks that Gore refused to get into. (Not to seem sexists but that plays well with women voters)
Gore did VERY well in painting Bush true or not, as a pawn of special interests and the wealthy. Over and over Gore hammered him about spending most of the surplus on the millionares. That kind of class warfare resonates with the middle class.
Gore was detailed and specific and gave more info about Bush's plans then Bush himself. That mean Gore was the one defining the Bush agenda and that is bad for Bush
Bush seemed less informed, could not spell out in detail like Gore his proposals, and when attacked did not do a good job defending himself.
For example: When the question was asked about RU-486 Bush could not answer about his own comments that contradicted what he was saying on stage. That happened more than one time.
His delivery with his jokes was poorly timed like his "Inventing the Internet" and the calculator joke, he launched into personal attacks that Gore refused to get into. (Not to seem sexists but that plays well with women voters)
Gore did VERY well in painting Bush true or not, as a pawn of special interests and the wealthy. Over and over Gore hammered him about spending most of the surplus on the millionares. That kind of class warfare resonates with the middle class.
Gore was detailed and specific and gave more info about Bush's plans then Bush himself. That mean Gore was the one defining the Bush agenda and that is bad for Bush
Data Fly, CNN has the transcript up.
From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html
<1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
I brought this up recently with Vicente Fox, who's the newly elected president. He's a man I know from Mexico. And I talked about how best to be able to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States, so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil.
From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html
<1) "I've spoken to the President of Mexico about helping him transport his oil up to the States so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.">
I brought this up recently with Vicente Fox, who's the newly elected president. He's a man I know from Mexico. And I talked about how best to be able to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States, so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil.
I didn't watch the debate and didn't need to to know that Gore won. Why would I want to let anything real affect my judgment.
Does anyone remember the qualifications of out current president? besides being the best speaker we've ever had as president.
Hmmm ...well I was out at a sportsbar watching the A's take down the Spankees (who haven't won in 2 weeks) ...however I did tape the debate and just watched it and Bush was clearly the winner. I don't want a robot blockhead loser in the Whitehouse and I would rather vote for Pat Buchanan (who I hate) over Algore. Doesn't anyone remember how Tipper Gore ran one of the worst censorship campaigns against the music industry in modern history??
RacerX
Well you must have had too much to drink if you think Bush won. Are you serious? I am not even voting for Gore but can see he was the clear winner. Did you hear Chris Matthews from Hardball or Robert Novak after the debate slam Bush's performance? They are not exactly Gore lovers to put it mildly either.
He sounded aweful for most of the debate. Gore did not sound as robot as much as usual either and had a strong command of any issue he wanted to speak on, especially the Bush agenda. Bush could not speak clearly on his own plans I am sad to say. Are you sure you watched the same debate the rest of us watched?
From your post about how much you hate Gore and his wife it sounds like you are letting your bias against gore prevent you from taking an objective view on who won. We are not talking about who we are voting for or which of the two is closer to us on issues we find important but just who won the debate.
Well you must have had too much to drink if you think Bush won. Are you serious? I am not even voting for Gore but can see he was the clear winner. Did you hear Chris Matthews from Hardball or Robert Novak after the debate slam Bush's performance? They are not exactly Gore lovers to put it mildly either.
He sounded aweful for most of the debate. Gore did not sound as robot as much as usual either and had a strong command of any issue he wanted to speak on, especially the Bush agenda. Bush could not speak clearly on his own plans I am sad to say. Are you sure you watched the same debate the rest of us watched?
From your post about how much you hate Gore and his wife it sounds like you are letting your bias against gore prevent you from taking an objective view on who won. We are not talking about who we are voting for or which of the two is closer to us on issues we find important but just who won the debate.
Anyone else think that Bush looked like a deer caught in headlights when asked about a potential financial crisis?
-Wipeout667
-Wipeout667
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter