PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

JonPorobil · Post by **JonPorobil** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:28 am

Johnny Cashpoint, look! You're Johnny Cashpoint's Raspberry Liqueur!

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:54 pm

so dubya, how about all those jobs that got created last month? think they'll bring that up tonight?

sometimes, timing can be such sweet poetic justice...

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:19 pm

Although, it seems to me that the mistake is that the administration is claiming that X number of jobs are going to be created. I mean, realistically, how much control does an administration, let alone the President personally, have over how many jobs get created every month? I just don't really understand how over the course of a month the administration could do something to impact how many new jobs become available. Are they just deciding to stick by forecasts they made several months ago? And what's the administration gonna do when more and more people start getting replaced by machines??

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:44 pm

there are a number of things which affect the number of jobs created. it's important to look at where the job losses are occuring (mostly in manufacturing, retail, and high tech). these job losses are coming as a result of things this administration has either done or supports, such as sending jobs overseas through offshore holding companies, etc. adjustments to the prime interest rate have an effect. and sometimes, the fact that technology makes manufacturing processes more efficient has an effect (which IS beyond the presidents control).

but in reality, fuzzy math is a prerequisite for being a politician. if you're gonna blow smoke, you better be prepared for the ensuing heartburn.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:43 pm

Future Boy wrote:I mean, realistically, how much control does an administration, let alone the President personally, have over how many jobs get created every month?

Very little.

Though, Bush's tax cuts, which were first to give the surplus back to the voters, then because we're paying too much in taxes, then to get us out of the recession, then to create jobs, could've been better-made to encourage job creation. Tax cuts might've been the right course of action or they might not have been the right course of action, that I don't know. Increased spending and tax cuts during a time of war is rather unprecedented. Prior to the current sort of war where we don't declare war or want to be responsible for things, we'd say who our enemy was and sell war bonds to pay for things. We've spent $127 billion on this war in Iraq and the more general war on terror, and allocated $200 billion. A lot of the tax cut went to upper tax brackets, who are less likely to invest or create new businesses (since the law of diminishing returns is invoked; people who already have ten million dollars have less of a need or want to make another ten million). Better economic policies might include more tax credits for the middle class and extending and perhaps paying more in unemployment benefits.

Don't believe Bush's talking points about how he inherited a recession from Clinton, though. The National Bureau on Economic Research dates it as starting in March `01. Then, calling it Bush's fault is misleading too. Basically with the boom comes a bust. Such is life.

Here is a Paul Krugman (Democrat-leaning economics professor of Princeton) essay on the tax cuts, and public perception thereof.

Kamakura · Post by **Kamakura** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:24 am

I watched last nights 'head to head' (or a bit of it) with interest. It seems to me that they both seem very 'grey'.
Pehaps it was just the studio lighting, but Kerry looked cadaverous (more makeup required) and Bush, when not talking, looked as if he was being programmed with his next speech.
If all our futures didn't ride on the result I would be much happier.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:31 am

Kamakura wrote:I watched last nights 'head to head' (or a bit of it) with interest.

Well, I don't think you missed much. Here was Bush's answer to NEARLY EVERY FUCKING QUESTION:

BUSH: Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein was a threat and I will do anything for the safety of the American people.

GIBSON: That's nice Mr. President. But the question was about the environment.

And Kerry wasn't any better. Here's his answer to NEARLY EVERY FUCKING QUESTION:

KERRY: Our president made a horrible, catastrophic mistake in going into Iraq.

GIBSON: Thank you Senator. But the question was about welfare reform.

I swear, the debate could've been cut in half -- or even better, they could've had time to speak on other topics, like capital punishment, ever-extending copyright, and an overpowered and hypocritical FCC -- if they'd just STAYED ON FUCKING TOPIC.

I guess I know who I'm voting for now, but I don't like it one bit. They're both a couple of assholes and I have a bad taste in my mouth just from watching them. I mean, the president couldn't even name 3 mistakes he's made and how he's fixed them. EVERYBODY make mistakes. It's not a sign of weakness to admit that. It shows wisdom and maturity. Maybe it's because he hasn't fixed them. And Kerry, right at the end, had a chance to really show up the president and name 3 mistakes of his own, and what does he do? He points out Bush's mistakes. Look fellas, the American people don't want someone who never makes mistakes. We know that's impossible. We want someone with the self-awareness and lack of ego enough to recognise when he's made them and to fix them as best he can. Which neither of you seem to be capable of.

*sigh* I guess that's my debates rant.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:47 am

And for me personally, I don't think a way to sell yourself or make yourself look good is to demonize your opponent. Telling me about what the other guy did wrong gives me absolutely no information about how you are going to do things right. And I'd rather it not take the form of "the president fucked this up and this is how I'm going to fix it", but rather, "I view such-and-such as a problem and this is how I plan to address the problem." Mudslinging is fucking stupid and only enhances the "worse of two evils" feeling. Why won't people realize that?? It's like, criticize the other guy and the public likes it because they are dissatisfied with one thing or another, but when criticism becomes the norm then people start to think there's something wrong with you if you don't do it, which is absurd.

jack · Post by **jack** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:22 am

just once, i'd love to hear Kerry respond to Bush's broken-record "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" with "no sir, just the wrong man in charge"

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:27 am

If anyone missed the debate Friday night, there's a full video link on this news site. Just scroll down past the photographs and click on "Second presidential debate (full debate)":
http://cbs4boston.com/news/topstories_s ... 81101.html

Overall, I thought the simple fact that Kerry backed up his (mostly) articulate responses with facts, while Bush spoke mostly in rambled generalities, made Kerry the clear winner of the debate. The Kerry campaign has been really criticized by pundits in the past for not being hard hitting enough with the Bush campaign- so it seems he's trying to make up for that now by taking a swing at Bush any chance he gets. I agree that he was often way too focused on Bush's record, but Kerry still answered more of the questions with direct answers than Bush.

That '3 mistakes' was a really great question.

The question was:
"President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it."

This question is well worded. Bush has been accused of living in such a fantasy yes-men bubble that he's completely out of touch with reality and can't admit there are problems that need fixing. This question gave him an opportunity to illustrate himself as a strong man who is still flexible enough to *correct* things that go wrong. Everyone I know: engineers, writers, musicians, revisit their previous work and find ways to improve, and so should a President. Bush had his perfect chance and he flubbed it up royally.

Poor June · Post by **Poor June** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:32 am

i just wished it wasn't kerry running against bush... maybe they could bring back clinton... say fuck kerry... and bush... clinton serves a third term makes history...

end of speech... i will not vote for either retard goin'... cause my fuckin' vote isn't goin' be responsible for either one of the dumbasses goin' into office... either one is goin' to fuck it up like mad...

i hear germany's nice... :::nods:::

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:44 am

Turns out Afghanistan's elections aren't that great. The only guy with a chance of winning was the puppet we installed, and all his opponents withdrew from the race because of massive fraud.

Anyway, about last night's debate.

Kerry did well, again, if it wasn't a win then it was a draw. I wish he would've called out Bush and been a bit more of an asshole, but what can you do. Anyway, anything that isn't defeat, at this point, helps Kerry. Basically all Kerry has to do is convince some swing voters he doesn't excessively suck. He doesn't need to pull people away from Bush. Bush isn't trying to pull liberals away, he's trying to energize conservatives into voting for him. Swing voters traditionally vote for the challenger, and most of the swing voters (80%) already lean Democratic, so, I would say without hesitation that Kerry has the opportunity to win at this point.

jack · Post by **jack** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:06 am

mkilly wrote:[url=http://reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup ... ID=6458284]
Basically all Kerry has to do is convince some swing voters he doesn't excessively suck.

i agree. at this point, if Kerry can just avoid pulling a Howard Dean and stay focused and rational and not do anything stupid. the debates have actually shown Kerry to be more of the statesman, showing more "presidential" qualities than the president himself, who comes off slightly mad with that smirk of his, like a slick pedaling used car salesman. i keep waiting for him to wink one of these times. the debates i think have hurt Bush in that it really shows his talk to be lacking in substance. he is most effective when he lets the others around him do the talking. he is a man of sound bytes, and lately his sound bytes just come across as those of a stubborn and bitter man who can't admit he made mistakes. the lack of contrition on sooo many fronts in this administration will hopefully cost them severely. a dose of humility is really needed here and this november, hopefully people will give that to them.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:41 am

"Mr. Lucas, please give 3 examples of mistakes you've made and how you've fixed them."

"Well, first, I didn't put enough crap in them. So I fixed that by putting lots more crap in -- monsters that can't sit still, extra explosions, you name it. Also, I created undue suspence and mystery by not showing the Hutt until the third one. I fixed that by putting him in the first one, so viewers wouldn't get too excited. And lastly, I made Han Solo, with no provocation, shoot the innocent evil bounty hunter that was pointing a gun at him. which made Solo look like a bad ass, which only made the public like him more when he had a change of heart at the end of the movie. It was a big mistake, because people were getting to like him more than me. So I fixed it by making him shoot only after the bounty hunter tried to shoot him first, even though Han was worth more to Jabba alive so it would be stupid for the bounty hunter to shoot him for no reason."

You know, I wish he was more like George Bush.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:03 pm

"Making Star Wars movies is HARD WORK. But I'm George Lucas, it's my job. It's what I do, I make Star Wars movies."

JonPorobil · Post by **JonPorobil** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:07 pm

Bush did look like he winked numerous times last night. But not in a "Just-between-you-and-me,-America" way, more like Tweek.

Has it occured to y'all that the same qualities that make us feel like Kerry, hands-down, won both debates... They're the exact same reasons republicans and Bush supporters are going to feel Bush won?

Oh and hey, we increased the wet lands by three million! Good job, Georgie!

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:16 pm

There is no "us".

JonPorobil · Post by **JonPorobil** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:18 pm

Touché, herr erik.

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:53 pm

When a Canadian has no hockey, he moves his attention to America's greatest sport: politics.

The debate was awesome. The most incredible thing is how these guys both get caught in lies and distortions.... and just keep doing it! They should have to draw on a set "fact" book of information for the next debate. Why has Kerry not once responded to the whole "you voted 98 times against tax cuts" and the attendance record thing?

I thought Bush came back big. If this was hockey, it was a sudden death playoff game... and while I personally would vote Kerry, I'm gonna give the debate to him... simply cause it makes for a more exciting finish. I mean best out of three means he would have already one... and we can't have that cause it ruins the suspense.

Ah.... politiicans. I don't envy those people one bit... but I sure like pointing and laughing.

Bush's best line: "Wanna buy some wood?"

Kerry's response should have been: "ah... thank god you didn't wear jogging pants cause I do not wanna see that!"

(ok. For those that just can't figure that out... you obviously never got a boner while wearing a track suit....)

Kerry's best line: Too many to quote actually.

But Bush won the debate. Simply cause it improves the theatre.

Joking aside, damn but he did come back way stronger. He didn't seem stupid, he didn't seem overwhelmed. He came off like he actually knew the issues. In that peripheral, skim the surface political answer kind of way... anyway... you all should try watching Canadian debates next time...

You got a rabid, pitbull personal attack with a unionized-we the working people Jack Layton from the NDP, Bush-like policies with Kerry delivery in HArper for the Conservative Party, A sputtering, yet intelligent, informed, yet arrogant constantly on the defensive liberal in MArtin (who won with a minoirty government... enough seats to out number the other three parties, but not enough to pass any legislation without their help!!!) and the wild card: the (my opinion coming up...sorry Quebequoiers....) traitorious, seperatist Bloc Quebeqoius member whose name I don't care to remember (ikes on the spelling dude) running to be the Prime Minister of Canada so he can organize a seperation... what a fucked up country!!

American debates seem strangely more relevant though.... now that's fucked up!!

Poor June · Post by **Poor June** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:37 pm

well... i don't know if this link has been posted or not
but i figured it was perfect for this thread haha

<a href="http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/ ... meset.html" resourcewindow="_top">this land is our land</a>

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:18 pm

Well, the pre-match fixture for the US election has just finished - you Seppos* may find it interesting.

Last night in the Australian election, John Howard's Liberal Partry was returned to government with an increased majority.
(NB. this is the Liberal Party with a capital "L" which is our right-wing conservative party - the American use of the word 'liberal' with a small "L" more applies to the left-wing of our Labor Party or the Green Party).

So, take heed - the Australian public has chosen to overlook the fact that the incumbent PM and his government:
- lied to the Australian people re. reasons for committing Australian troops to Iraq,
- implemented policies which resulted in asylum seekers, including children, being imprisioned indefinately without charge or trial in remote camps in the WA and SA deserts, and Nauru,
- refused to sign the Kyoto protocol to limit greenhouse gas production,
- allowed Australian citizens to be held without charge by the US Government at Guantanamo Bay, and
- slavishly followed and supported all of your President Bush's foreign policies.

The opposition Labor Party ran a campaign which virtally ignored all of the above, and instead concentrated on (relatively) petty domestic economic issues.

As I have predicted earlier - times are good in Australia, unemployment and interest rates are down and people are making money. To our shame we have ignored the bigger picture and our place in the world as a whole and selfishly decided to retain the status quo. Will the USA do the same?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seppos = septic tanks = Yanks = citizens of the USA - it's a term of endearment.

the Jazz · Post by **the Jazz** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:23 pm

***Sorry in advance for bringing up the stuff from a page or two ago in the midst of debate talk, perhaps a thread splitting is in order here...***

mkilly wrote:Turkey's a democracy. Yemen's a democracy. Israel has had some tarnishes on its record as a democracy.

Perhaps I spoke in error. Typed in error, actually, but whatever. I have heard it said many times unchallenged that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east; and so I neglected to do any fact-checking. But before I concede the point, please humor me with some evidence of your own. As for "tarnishes on its record", give me a break. Is the U.S. not a democracy because it kept slaves for some 90 years as a country, or denied women the right to vote?

Have the nations you cite not recognized Israel, or just not recognized that it ought exist? The last time a country openly acted aggressively towards Israel was several decades ago, anyway, at least in the form of an attack of war.

'Cause they got schooled!

Seriously though, the official stance of these nations (as far as I know) is that the existence of Israel has never been legally justified. This is a relatively "safe" approach, in that it can be easily argued as a mere stating of the facts. But now that Israel has been around for half a century and is well established in the world, the point is moot, and the biggest (perhaps the only?) effect of this position is to encourage extremist terrorism against Israel.

denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel.

In other words, they wanted more than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, even though those are the officially disputed areas.

Anyway, as far as the second presidential debate, I was too hopped up on a Sox victory to watch the whole thing, but what I saw (and I missed the first 20 minutes to half hour) was Bush making faces and whining. His tone through most of it was "Geeeeeez, I'm the Presi-dent, why can't you people just believe me? I thought Kerry was supposed to pull his punches, no fair!"