PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:06 am

I used to have this campaign button that said "Vote Cthulhu in '96 - Why vote for the lesser evil?"
It was awesome, but now it is lost.
-bill

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:12 am

Haha, I remember seeing posters to that effect in the comics shops in Worcester. Awesome.

starfinger · Post by **starfinger** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:50 am

My political views have flipped 180 degrees in the last couple of months, and after seeing the debates, I actually like Kerry a lot more than I thought I would.

Politics is an evil business that brings out the worst in people.

When I look at just about anybody in the Bush administration, I don't even see humans. There is a little devil in each one of them with his own dangerous agenda.

At least Kerry is a clean slate. If he's no good, we can get rid of him in 2008.

-craig

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:28 am

Watching the debates, all I kept thinking was "This is all we have to choose from? Almost 300 million people in this country, and this is what we get? Whose job is it to pick these guys?"

I don't trust either of them. I guess you just have to prioritize your issues, and vote for the guy that goes your way for the most important ones, even if that means other important ones are gonna get shot to Hell. Lesser of two evils? How about, lesser of two greedy spiteful selfish underhanded slimeball motherfuckers?

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:57 am

Again, I haven't seen a speck of evidence that supports the idea that Kerry is a greedy slimeball motherfucker, aside from the fact that he is a politician.

To me, he seems very intelligent (not dangerous intelligence, like Cheney). He seems honest and trustworthy.

Give me some solid dirt on Kerry and I'll change my mind, but at the moment, Kerry is a fucking angel as far as I'm concerned.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:28 am

jimtyrrell wrote:Kerry actually said this last night. In this order. Verbatim.

"I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally.

Let me come back in one moment to that, but I want to speak for a second, if I can, to what the president said about fiscal responsibility."

Tell me again why I'm supposed to like either of these assholes.

What's the problem? Kerry spoke for a second about fiscal responsibility and then segued back so that he could talk principally about jobs. I guess if you just look at that quote, you can imagine hypocrisy, but looking at his actual answer, it's just not there.

User - if you think Kerry is a greater politician than Bush, then you've bought wholesale into the Bush myth. The man is pure politics. Even moreso because he's able to convince so many people that he's just talking "from the heart."

Erik - come to Colorado and you can totally vote against Coors.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:40 am

Here, then, are Kerry's statements immediately following the previously quoted.

Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country.
(LAUGHTER)
This president has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see. Health-care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent; tuitions have gone up 35 percent; gasoline prices up 30 percent; Medicare premiums went up 17 percent a few days ago; prescription drugs are up 12 percent a year.
But guess what, America? The wages of Americans have gone down. The jobs that are being created in Arizona right now are paying about $13,700 less than the jobs that we're losing.
And the president just walks on by this problem. The fact is that he's cut job-training money. $1 billion was cut. They only added a little bit back this year because it's an election year.
They've cut the Pell Grants and the Perkins loans to help kids be able to go to college.
They've cut the training money. They've wound up not even extending unemployment benefits and not even extending health care to those people who are unemployed.
I'm going to do those things, because that's what's right in America: Help workers to transition in every respect.

Can you tell me, from this, what he intends to do? If, when asked what he would do, all Kerry can offer is a list of things Bush has done wrong, I'm not enthusiastic about joining him in chastising his opponent for not staying on-topic.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:51 am

To my knowledge, Bush doesn't change his stance to please whoever's listening. He has seemingly pretty solid beliefs, and he acts on them. Sure, he changes angles and dodges sore spots to an extent that really aggravates me, but with Kerry, it's just ridiculous.

Two things I hate about Bush that I think are really important: He wants to ban abortion and gay marriage. But even Kerry is too scared to push anyone's buttons with a slightly radical thought on either of these issues. He doesn't support gays--in fact, he has claimed to be against gay marriage. He's just less adamant about it because there clearly aren't many gay republicans. What an asshole. Also, he wants to keep partial birth abortions legal, which to me is just as bad, if not worse, as banning abortions. Does this guy have a shred of common sense? Only if conforms to what the party says.

Point is, in a parallel but not too different universe, it's not hard to imagine Kerry being a republican. Can anyone imagine Bush being a democrat? Bush may be an asshole (he is, no doubt about it), but at least he's got a fucking spine.

But don't vote for him. Hitler had a spine, too.

But don't vote for Kerry, either. Especially if you're gay, or if anyone you give the slightest amount of shit about is. And especially especially if you don't like it when people kill a live baby, but justify it because it's only partially through the vagina.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:08 am

Man, Nazis *AND* abortion. Awesome troll.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:11 am

Dear User,

For more insight into the Coke/Pepsi situation I suggest you listen to the album Dispepsi by Negativland. Also, I personally believe that Jolt Cola is a much better cola than either of those two, in terms of taste.

Dear Jim,

I agree that Kerry had his fair share of annoying repeated points (like the tax cut) in answers to questions that had nothing to do with such points, but I found that overall he was much better at providing some kind of direct answer to the question being posed. One fine example of this is that he directly answered the RvW question, whereas Bush decided to field it as "will you have a litmus test for judges" and championed the "culture of life", which is code for "I am anti-abortion." Why doesn't he just say, "I believe abortion is wrong because of my religious beliefs."? I found Bush FAR more guilty of repeating the same things over and over again: Kerry's voting record, educate our children and everything will be fine.

-------------------

One thing that I think is worth appreciating is that, for the most part, the two candidates acknowledged that they had a difference of opinion on some issues and that was why they wanted to take difference approaches, rather than just saying that the other guy is totally wrong.

One thing that baffles me is that there *is* a third party on the ballet (well, he's on my ballet anyway [absentee from texas]) but he was not involved in the debate. Why the fuck not? The country's obsession with dualism is really fucking annoying.

Something else that I think people need to take into account is that a candidate for president needs to appeal to the largest possible number of people. I think that this need to please just about everyone is at the root of what many consider to be "asshole" remarks or sidestepping issues. I was mildly surprised to hear Kerry say that he thinks homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be handled by the states. However, he did not go so far as to point out tax benefits and other things afforded to married couples (as an argument for why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry), nor to say that he thought *legal* marriage and religious marriage, which Bush refuses to acknowledge as separate entities, should be separate. Now, *that* is irksome, but if a candidate were to say such a thing it would not go over well with many many people, therefore you just aren't going to hear it.

Another thing that I think is a problem is that both the populace and the candidates seem to think that the President has a lot more power than s/he actually should. I mean, they can make promises to write this law or that law or roll-back this or that thing that the previous administration has put into place, but the whole point is that they have to work with Congress. If Congress don't wanna do it, it won't happen. What probably *is* more feasible, is to get more third/fourth/fifth party candidates voted into Congress so that a Dem or Rep President won't be dealing with a majority of one or the other.

I'll stop now, I'm no poli-sci major.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:20 am

user wrote: And especially especially if you don't like it when people kill a live baby, but justify it because it's only partially through the vagina.

Dear User,

Please do not spread disinformation like this.

Please read the following article about partial birth abortions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Here's an excerpt in case you are too lazy to click the link:

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?

This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy. The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:28 am

Future Boy wrote:One thing that baffles me is that there *is* a third party on the ballet (well, he's on my ballet anyway [absentee from texas]) but he was not involved in the debate. Why the fuck not? The country's obsession with dualism is really fucking annoying.

The Commision on Presidential Debates has rules defining who is invited to the debates. Badnarik (Libertarian), Cobb (Green), Nader (Reform), LaRouche (Democrat), Peroutka (Constitution)... these gentlemen aren't invited because the rules say you have to have a mathematical chance to win the election (i.e. your name appears on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes) and they have to have polled at 10% or above for six weeks prior to the first debate. These men, combined, poll at about 4% or less. It's not the country's obsession with dualism--I don't think such an obsession exists--as much as it is people finding these parties too liberal, too conservative, or simply unfeasible or without justifiable agenda. I mean, the Green party wants to up the minimum wage to $15/hr, as does Nader, Badnarik wants to get rid of Social Security and the public school system, Peroutka wants to install a Christian theocracy.

Future Boy wrote:I was mildly surprised to hear Kerry say that he thinks homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be handled by the states. However, he did not go so far as to point out tax benefits and other things afforded to married couples (as an argument for why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry), nor to say that he thought *legal* marriage and religious marriage, which Bush refuses to acknowledge as separate entities, should be separate.

Kerry supports civil unions for homosexuals. He's against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Civil unions are marriages in every legal sense of the term, with tax benefits and visitation rights and insurance rights and power of attorney, but without the word "marriage" that turns off so many voters. He signified that gays ought have hospital visitation rights afforded to heterosexuals, which one could reasonably ascertain he means gays should have the marriage rights, e.g. hospital visitation.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:28 am

Jim - Kerry wasn't asked for a plan. He was asked to rebut Bush, who was asked to address the net job loss during his term. I think Kerry spoke directly to that topic. Kerry has outlined his plans on all manner of topics in all kinds of venues. On the other hand, yes, he has relentlessly attacked Bush. Why? Because before a person decides to hire Kerry, he/she has to decide to fire Bush. It's the dynamic of running against an incumbent.

I will grant you that Kerry is not the dynamic kind of candidate that fires voters up. If he were, Bush wouldn't have a chance in hell. Personally, I like him and trust him, but I understand that people still have their doubts.

User - You seem to have bought the BC04 flipflopping line. The way I see it, Kerry has complex yet consistent positions. I will fault him for emphasizing different aspects of his positions when it suits him politically, but I have yet to see an out-and-out flipfop absent of new information. If you could point me to some specifics, I might retract.

Bush doesn't have to change his stances because he doesn't run on policy. He runs on character traits, which is the smart thing to do. People resonate more strongly with that kind of thing.

I'm not sure how you imagine Kerry as a Republican. Perhaps you don't know much about him? Maybe it's because he's been campaigning to moderates, while Bush has been campaigning more to his base.

Bush is certainly a strong Republican, though lately I've been having trouble imagining him as a conservative.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:30 am

15-16 puzzle said:

Man, Nazis *AND* abortion. Awesome troll.

I can't believe you just called me a troll. Was there a specific point that I made that you found to be mere immature heckling, or are you just tired of coming up with intelligent responses?

There's nothing I've said whose purpose was to be bothersome. I want people to see my side of the issue, because I believe that I'm more or less right, so I present it in what I believe to be a reasonable manner.

I see now that you're not really worth debating with, because the closer I get to changing your mind, the angrier you'll become.

One more thing: Sure, Nazis aren't exactly an important issue here (I merely used Hitler as grossly exaggerated analagy to Bush, and you decided to pick on that), but are you really implying that abortion isn't something we should be talking about??? I mean, it's a pretty important fucking issue right now.[/quote]

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:34 am

Did anyone else notice last night, after the debates, when they interviewed the lady who was all about getting young people to vote, the banners the college kids were waving behind her? They said things like "Matthews is hot" and "Dukes in 2020." And people wonder why they don't get any respect.

jimtyrrell wrote:Can you tell me, from this, what he intends to do? If, when asked what he would do, all Kerry can offer is a list of things Bush has done wrong, I'm not enthusiastic about joining him in chastising his opponent for not staying on-topic.

That's my biggest problem with Kerry. he criticizes Bush all the time, but never says what he would do instead. He says he wouldn't have gone into Iraq (despite voting for it), but when asked if Hussein would still be in power if he were president, he dodges the question. He never gave us a solid plan for what he wants to do with Iraq, despite being asked a bazillion times. He says Bush's social security plan is no good, but doesn't say how he would fix it. At least with Bush, we know what we're getting. Most of it might suck, but at least we know.

so, to wrap up:

If you're an embryo, vote for Bush.
If you're a baby but not quite born yet, vote for Bush.
If you're on death row, vote for Kerry.
If you're a soldier in Iraq, or an Iraqi citizen, I think it's a crap shoot either way.
If you're poor, vote for Kerry.
If you're rich, vote for Bush.
If you're poor and have a decent state-sponsored healthcare plan (like my sister), vote for Bush.
If you're poor and don't have health insurance (like me), vote for Kerry.
If you're a tree or an animal or Alaska, vote for Kerry.
If you're troubled about the FCC, the suckage of radio, or ever-extending copyright, vote for Kerry, but don't expect things to get better.
If you're a Howard Stern fanboy, vote for Kerry.
If you're in need of cheap medication, vote for Kerry. Maybe. I don't understand this issue too well.
If you hate terrorists and want them to all die, vote either way.
If you don't trust France and Germany, vote for Bush.
If you're happy with the PATRIOT act taking away our rights, vote for Bush.
If you think the best way to stop terrorists is to change foreign policy to not continue putting evil dictators/puppets in power wo we have control over their oil, you're fucked.
If you're gay and want to get married, you're fucked.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:34 am

mkilly wrote: The Commision on Presidential Debates has rules defining who is invited to the debates.

Kerry supports civil unions for homosexuals. He's against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Civil unions are marriages in every legal sense of the term, with tax benefits and visitation rights and insurance rights and power of attorney, but without the word "marriage" that turns off so many voters. He signified that gays ought have hospital visitation rights afforded to heterosexuals, which one could reasonably ascertain he means gays should have the marriage rights, e.g. hospital visitation.

Yes, OK, that kind of makes sense, but I think it'd be more entertaining and ultimately open up the opportunity to have a more viable third party if they were allowed to participate anyhow.

As far as civil unions go, I am aware of his stance and did catch the hospital visitation comment. My problem with it is that it was an implicit reference to marriage rights rather than an explicit one. But, as I mentioned out in my earlier post, I understand the necessity of that sort of thing for politicians.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:35 am

User - Trolls kill discussion. If you wanted to talk seriously about abortion, you would talk rationally instead of just pushing buttons.

Jefff · Post by **Jefff** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:42 am

user wrote:I want people to see my side of the issue, because I believe that I'm more or less right, so I present it in what I believe to be a reasonable manner.

I see now that you're not really worth debating with, because the closer I get to changing your mind, the angrier you'll become.

If your side of the issue is "abortion is killing babies!" then you haven't the slightest understanding of the other side of the issue. And if you have no understanding of the other side, then you have no business trying to convince anybody of your side. And given that, if you think 15-16 is angry cuz you're changing his mind, you're fucking high.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:45 am

c hack wrote: That's my biggest problem with Kerry. he criticizes Bush all the time, but never says what he would do instead. He says he wouldn't have gone into Iraq (despite voting for it), but when asked if Hussein would still be in power if he were president, he dodges the question. He never gave us a solid plan for what he wants to do with Iraq, despite being asked a bazillion times. He says Bush's social security plan is no good, but doesn't say how he would fix it. At least with Bush, we know what we're getting. Most of it might suck, but at least we know.

I disagree, I think he offered what explanations he could in 2 minute and 90 second intervals.

Regarding Iraq, can you really expect a senator, who probably doesn't have as much access to intelligence about the situation, to come up with a solution? Can you expect *anyone* to offer a complete explanation of their plan for the future in a stump speech or debate? As far as what he *would* have done if he had been President instead of Bush, I don't even think it's worth talking about. The fact is that we are in the ditch now and nobody is going to be able to magically take us out of it, no matter how good they are.

Regarding social security, his beef with Bush's social plan is that he doesn't think it'll work to allow young people to transfer their social money to their own savings account because the money they are putting in now is being used to pay out people currently getting social checks. He did offer that he'd been involved with fixing it once in the 90s and that they'd do it again if they had to. Again, can you really expect a totally detailed plan during a debate or a stump speech?

Regarding fiscal issues of any kind, Bush has got us in a big shit hole by going into Iraq and dumping a whole bunch of money into the effort. Even if the guy running against him had absolutely perfect ideas about how to start to fix things he wouldn't be able to accomplish all of it because he'd have to deal with the mess Bush has made. How can you fix social security if the country has already dedicated trillions of dollars to a war effort in the middle east?

Everybody heard Bush say "armies of compassion", right? Does he mean, like, The Crusades??

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:46 am

Future Boy wrote:I was mildly surprised to hear Kerry say that he thinks homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be handled by the states.

He did not say that. Here's what he said:

Future Boy wrote:KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

Now aside from bringing up Cheney's daughter (which was completely innappropriate and just plain rude), everything he said seemed to make sense.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:48 am

Jefff wrote: If your side of the issue is "abortion is killing babies!" then you haven't the slightest understanding of the other side of the issue.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:50 am

Ooop, sorry, got mahself all backwards.