|
The second debate... (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
As I mentioned earlier on this thread, Kerry's "$200k" comment was not in good taste. And here's some of the fallout:
| quote: |
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4431
Saturday, October 09th, 2004
Swing Voters Swinging
We now know of at least one undecided voter who decided to vote for Bush after the debate.
Robin Dahle, who asked President Bush the first question yesterday, was just on NPR’s Weekend America. Dahle is on about 3:40 into the
audio.
Dahle said that, before the debate, there was a 40 percent chance he’d vote for President Bush. He’s now 80-90 percent sure of his vote, although not 100 percent.
The reason he gave was that Bush was more “personable.” He also said that Kerry blundered when he said that only 3 people in the room made $200,000/year. He said that Kerry had made that assumption based on the appearance of the audience and the location of the debate. Dahle found that condescending. |
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well having reviewed the transcript it's more clear to me than ever that Kerry completely and utterly annihilated Bush for the second consecutive debate.
Kerry, for the most part, actually addressed the question which was asked of him. Bush, on the other hand, typically avoided the specific question being posed and gave a generic speech about the issue it addressed (or that he arbitrarily decided it addressed). Kerry supported his positions with specific facts, names, numbers, et cetera. Bush supported his positions with lies, logical fallacies, and the ever-popular ostrich argument.
It's reaching to even refer to this event as a debate, as the only one actually advancing arguments was Kerry. |
You know, I was watching c-span this morning where they callers from all over called in with their impression of the debate. It seemed to me that many of the Bush callers made arguments that appealed to the emotional impression they got whereas the Kerry supporters called in thier support appealing to the specifics of what he actually said or the argument that he made.
Ex:
Kerry supporter: I really thought kerry did well in expressing how, despite his personal religious beliefs, he didn't feel like he should push those beliefs onto the rest of the country with respect to issues such as abortion or stem cell research ... that he would better represent the entire country as a whole rather than be divisive.
Bush supporter: I really though that the President came across tough, strong, and resolute. And I feel that we need somebody like that to combat terrorism.
Very little people supporting bush actually referenced anything he actually said, but rather described how he appealed to them emotionally. I found that highly disconcerting how so much of the country seemed to be like that. They didn't listen to what he said, they listened to how he said it. For example, some supporters were clearly impressed with how bush said he was simply against partial birth abortions. They then criticized Kerry's explantion of his stance, that he's against it unless the mother's life is at stake, because it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It's like they totally disregard the fact that, in life, very very rarely is ANY answer to ANY question a simple yes or no.
It's very frustrating but many people operate on such a level that it's difficult to reason with them or expand their intellectual capacity beyond the most basic level of simplicity. Anyway, that's simply my own personal impression of how people responded to the debate based upon the calls coming into cspan the next morning. BUt yea I fully agree with your assessment 100% Arbiter. Not too many people are going to take the time to actually analyze what was said I'm afraid. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by che
Kids??? :rolleyes:
It unfortunate but its the way it works. The president of any country reflects the people who selected him/her. |
so which is it? is it unfortunate that young people from other countries think that there were a bunch of hillbilly simpletons in the audience, or that the president has an accent?
you may think the president is a hick, but the people that voted for him and that are going to vote for him see things much differently. take me for example. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's very frustrating but many people operate on such a level that it's difficult to reason with them or expand their intellectual capacity beyond the most basic level of simplicity. Anyway, that's simply my own personal impression of how people responded to the debate based upon the calls coming into cspan the next morning. BUt yea I fully agree with your assessment 100% Arbiter. Not too many people are going to take the time to actually analyze what was said I'm afraid. |
since when, did voting for a president become study in analytical specifics? |
|
|
| ZinG |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You know, I was watching c-span this morning where they callers from all over called in with their impression of the debate. It seemed to me that many of the Bush callers made arguments that appealed to the emotional impression they got whereas the Kerry supporters called in thier support appealing to the specifics of what he actually said or the argument that he made.
Ex:
Kerry supporter: I really thought kerry did well in expressing how, despite his personal religious beliefs, he didn't feel like he should push those beliefs onto the rest of the country with respect to issues such as abortion or stem cell research ... that he would better represent the entire country as a whole rather than be divisive.
Bush supporter: I really though that the President came across tough, strong, and resolute. And I feel that we need somebody like that to combat terrorism.
Very little people supporting bush actually referenced anything he actually said, but rather described how he appealed to them emotionally. I found that highly disconcerting how so much of the country seemed to be like that. They didn't listen to what he said, they listened to how he said it. For example, some supporters were clearly impressed with how bush said he was simply against partial birth abortions. They then criticized Kerry's explantion of his stance, that he's against it unless the mother's life is at stake, because it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It's like they totally disregard the fact that, in life, very very rarely is ANY answer to ANY question a simple yes or no.
It's very frustrating but many people operate on such a level that it's difficult to reason with them or expand their intellectual capacity beyond the most basic level of simplicity. Anyway, that's simply my own personal impression of how people responded to the debate based upon the calls coming into cspan the next morning. BUt yea I fully agree with your assessment 100% Arbiter. Not too many people are going to take the time to actually analyze what was said I'm afraid. |
Also it looks like those supporting Bush only see things in "black & white", only YES or NO, as if theres no conditions or exemptions on issues that can solve many of the problems Bush didn't handle wisely.
Like abortion and same sex marriage.
what do you think occrider? |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
since when, did voting for a president become study in analytical specifics? |
So you are saying we shouldn't dig deeper into what the candidates are saying besides how much it appeals to our "simplistic" side? If that were the case then I would be voting for Bush...I don't think you need to look into every aspect of every issue the candidates bring up, but I think that if one has a very small idea of an issue, then a little in depth analysis is called for. His point was, that the people that called into c-span were just going off President Bush's "human appeal." And last time I checked, we don't elect a President based on how he says he is going to do something, but what he actually does.
I think Kerry could have explained his position on abortion a bit better. I for one understood what he was saying, but coming from Oklahoma I can see where people would get confused and say Kerry was dodging the question. But as for me, I thought he did a superb job of explaining his position.
But based on the debate, I will have to say that this one was a wash and won't benifit either candidate when it comes to a bounce. I guess I will just have to hope Bush s up the last one. He will be out of his "town-hall" elemen so there is a good chance that Kerry could get a bounce off the last debate. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by priveye03
So you are saying we shouldn't dig deeper into what the candidates are saying besides how much it appeals to our "simplistic" side? |
no. you and occ are refering to a specific election. i'm refering to the voter public throughout history. party lines, ideology, core values, human appeal, ect.
not meant to be argumentative, just something else to ponder. |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| The problem in America is, that most people don't care about politics and don't over-extend themselves to understand what is going on in the country, let alone the world. So when they watch the debates they do just look to the human appeal aspect of the candidate. And I think that is a huge source of George Bush's base. *unwarrented personal observation* And the people that vote for the president, just because he was the president for 4 years. *end unwarrented personal observation* |
|
|
| GeneraLeePissed |
It's frustrating to say the least...To see how some people (even members of my own family) can have there vote sway on a issue like abortion. I can say this for a fact. Thousands of people out there vote on an issue of morality rather than livelyhood. This could be described as a grand illusion, a way to pull votes that would in another circumstance go the other way. This is the reason the issue WILL NEVER be resolved. This race would not be as close if the issue was given to the states in the morning. If montana wanted abortions.....go to montana and have one. The very idea of someone elses morals being put into law is a violation of my rights. My morals are different than yours are different than the mail mans than his are different than the school teachers....you get it.
The voters have to look in the mirror and ask themselves. What has Bush done for this country in his 1st term? Try to think internally; As for me, in the first 6 months of his term I received a book telling me which doctor I can see or my kids and my wife can see. Does this take the side of the insurance company?--Yes-- Two years ago the first insurance premium raise took place. (my health care premiums are taken hourly) Last year, again another raise. Now I pay more than I did 4 years ago and receive less benefits. Now the economy....not just loss of jobs but loss of commitment. By this I mean, companies will not risk building new structures when they are losing customers. Ten years ago the city of St. Louis had one of, if not the largest construction growth of any major city in the country. Now on the other hand..work is scarce and layoffs are rampant.
What Kerry said about the school closings in the city of St. Louis is 100% true. I witnessed a good friend lose his job due to funding that ultimatly led to the closing of 10 public city schools.
Now...lets look globally. I spent the better part of my late teens and early twenties overseas in the military. I have kept good relationships and friends that find themselves still living abroad. Friends that are and are not U.S. citizens. After talking with many of them to get there opinion I found it shocking to hear many foreigners think the United States is nothing but a "bully". Masking the true adjenda behind a fight for democracy. Shocking because I thought that I was the only one that thought that. One in particular saying.."If Bush wins your country is full of idiots". One the other hand Bush did say in the debate that the "ideals of the American people can not be translated by a foreign nation". But you tell that to Tony Blaire. If democracy is the fight, and the people in Iraq or any nation with a dictator wants it than our ideals would be pretty close.
In my opinion, Bush has taken the perverbial "dump" on the internal aspects of our country, to invade a nation for his own adjenga, with no clear plan to get out. As for the sanctions imposed on Iraq..They were working, by sea at least. I was detatched to a Helo squadron out of Japan that did routine cruises to the Gulf making sure nothing got by that was not supposed to. Two nine month cruises in the Gulf will make anyone leave the military. Most of all Support our the troops they just do what they are told.
This country needs a change of leadership, the last 4 years have been nothing but a lie. |
|
|
| 3xx3r7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
do you guys know how prevalent knock-off prescription meds are?
you two sound like Beavis and Butthead. |
You don't sound any better with your personal criticisms. |
|
|
| ierxium |
| quote: | Originally posted by priveye03
The problem in America is, that most people don't care about politics and don't over-extend themselves to understand what is going on in the country, let alone the world. So when they watch the debates they do just look to the human appeal aspect of the candidate. And I think that is a huge source of George Bush's base. *unwarrented personal observation* And the people that vote for the president, just because he was the president for 4 years. *end unwarrented personal observation* |
I'm very fond of the president's smile. It's so appealing. But then again, I thought the same about Saddam's and bin Laden's. :D Can't go by human appeal, ever. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You know, I was watching c-span this morning where they callers from all over called in with their impression of the debate. It seemed to me that many of the Bush callers made arguments that appealed to the emotional impression they got whereas the Kerry supporters called in thier support appealing to the specifics of what he actually said or the argument that he made.
Ex:
Kerry supporter: I really thought kerry did well in expressing how, despite his personal religious beliefs, he didn't feel like he should push those beliefs onto the rest of the country with respect to issues such as abortion or stem cell research ... that he would better represent the entire country as a whole rather than be divisive.
Bush supporter: I really though that the President came across tough, strong, and resolute. And I feel that we need somebody like that to combat terrorism.
Very little people supporting bush actually referenced anything he actually said, but rather described how he appealed to them emotionally. I found that highly disconcerting how so much of the country seemed to be like that. They didn't listen to what he said, they listened to how he said it. For example, some supporters were clearly impressed with how bush said he was simply against partial birth abortions. They then criticized Kerry's explantion of his stance, that he's against it unless the mother's life is at stake, because it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It's like they totally disregard the fact that, in life, very very rarely is ANY answer to ANY question a simple yes or no.
It's very frustrating but many people operate on such a level that it's difficult to reason with them or expand their intellectual capacity beyond the most basic level of simplicity. Anyway, that's simply my own personal impression of how people responded to the debate based upon the calls coming into cspan the next morning. BUt yea I fully agree with your assessment 100% Arbiter. Not too many people are going to take the time to actually analyze what was said I'm afraid. |
I've noticed that also, and it makes it seem as if half the country sees things in black and white, and the other half sees the shades of grey in between that do exist in the world. |
|
|
|
|
