Debate 3

[dalmations202]

Question of the Day - Fox News Poll (for whatever polls are worth)

Who won the final presidential debate?

a. President Bush (56%)
9,275


b. Senator Kerry (42%)
6,865


c. It was a tie (1%)
169


d. Didn't watch (1%)
201


e. Not sure (0%)
61


16,571 total votes

[Chiwas]

Which makes it a complete fabrication worthy of the Michael Moore pen name.

Nah, I think our analysts see the same things -they coincide with the American news about the facts- but think of a strenght seen by other side, as a weakness, or the other way around. Just as it happens here. Politics is very subjective.

The only objective output will be the results of the November 2 poll. If they aren't fraudulent.

But it's very interesting to watch how the same points are seen -defined or concluded- totally opposed, by them or by us.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Chiwas

Nah, I think our analysts see the same things -they coincide with the American news about the facts- but think of a strenght seen by other side, as a weakness, or the other way around. Just as it happens here. Politics is very subjective.

The only objective output will be the results of the November 2 poll. If they aren't fraudulent.

But it's very interesting to watch how the same points are seen -defined or concluded- totally opposed, by them or by us.

Wrong. If the translation states that Kerry beat up Bush in the third debate then it is simply incorrect and worthy of other pieces of literary crap like those generated by Michael "Maggot" Moore.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Wrong. If the translation states that Kerry beat up Bush in the third debate then it is simply incorrect and worthy of other pieces of literary crap like those generated by Michael "Maggot" Moore.

This is an opinion piece...everybody is entitled to their opinion, just like you have an opinion that Bush won.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

This is an opinion piece...everybody is entitled to their opinion, just like you have an opinion that Bush won.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you disagree with the author, too.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you disagree with the author, too.

righto, and I don't call them "incorrect" and "literary crap" just because I disagree.

I simply take the position they're not well informed...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: Drbio

Wrong. If the translation states that Kerry beat up Bush in the third debate then it is simply incorrect and worthy of other pieces of literary crap like those generated by Michael "Maggot" Moore.

No, that's what I tried to say, I think the writing is in a proper analitic fashion, for example:

"On the contrary Bush, when it was questioned on the flight of estadunidenses uses to other countries thanks to the attraction of the cheap manual labor, gave return him to the cuestionamiento and it was put to speak on programs of education for the reintegration of workers. The democratic candidate did not waste the moment, and requested to the estadunidenses realized how the president turned aside itself of the subject and, instead of speaking of solutions, put itself to speak of education. "

Even though it is a horrible translation I think it's not hard to understand the point. Bush turned to education when the topic was outsourcing. Kerry and the author believes that it was a distraction. Someone else could think it was actually an answer.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Chiwas

No, that's what I tried to say, I think the writing is in a proper analitic fashion, for example:

"On the contrary Bush, when it was questioned on the flight of estadunidenses uses to other countries thanks to the attraction of the cheap manual labor, gave return him to the cuestionamiento and it was put to speak on programs of education for the reintegration of workers. The democratic candidate did not waste the moment, and requested to the estadunidenses realized how the president turned aside itself of the subject and, instead of speaking of solutions, put itself to speak of education. "

Even though it is a horrible translation I think it's not hard to understand the point. Bush turned to education when the topic was outsourcing. Kerry and the author believes that it was a distraction. Someone else could think it was actually an answer.

I don't think Kerry's answer during that question had much to do with outsourcing or jobs, either. He rambled on about Pell grants just like Bush did.

[Male30Dan]

To be perfectly honest, I believe Kerry has "won" all three debates through his terrific ability to carry himself as a respectable leader, and through his ability to give a speech. With that said, I think, unfortunately, that a lot of the people that will make their vote come November will be doing so based on style rather than substance... If you can honestly listen to Kerry's values and goals and still think he is the best man to run our country, (or should I spell that RUIN), when sitting next to Bush, I feel very sorry for you... Bush will certainly get my vote come election time!!!

[Drbio]

I wish people would stop evaluating the debates on style. Kerry is clearly the better debater in style imho, but save the first debate, Bush throttled Kerry on substance. The style points mean jack squat.

[Male30Dan]

I agree Doc; however, I must say that I think that is exactly what is happening... My point was that on substance, Kerry has come up rather short in the last couple of debates while doing very well in presenting his beliefs, which gives his supporters, (and possibly those riding the fence), more confidence in him as our president. If you don't really listen to the policies while watching all three debates, you will come away wanting to elect Kerry because of his poise and style...

It truly is unfortunate that Bush is not better in that area. If he was, this election would not even be close!

[Drbio]

agreed.

[Usually Lurkin]

I think style plays a fairly big role in the presidency. The pres. has to give many speeches to many peoples of the world, sometimes in order to convince them to do things. The Pres. is in many respects, a "face of America", and an ugly face can only hurt.
In the case of Bush v. Kerry, I think that the substance differences far outweigh the stylistic differences, and that at the top their games, Bush's "personal style" is better than Kerry's "orator style"

[Drbio]

I understand that UL, but the man (or woman eventually) who holds the job of President of the United States of America should be the best man (or woman) for the job on technical merit and actual ability first. Style is subsequent to the position if you do not havea technically qualified candidate.

Bush consistently knocks sKerry out on that front.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I wish people would stop evaluating the debates on style. Kerry is clearly the better debater in style imho, but save the first debate, Bush throttled Kerry on substance. The style points mean jack squat.

Doc, I'm not sure this is the case--for the reason that, as many have said, these things are really not "debates" as much as they are "joint press conferences." Now, sometimes they do debates points on their merits. But just as often, both candidates play the political game of representing reality in the way that is most favorable to them. And of course, in many cases the candidates flat-out lie.

Voters have come to expect this. My own guess is that most of the people watching the debates are working on the assumption that at least one, and possibly both, of the candidates are lying. Not losing debate points on substance. Actually lying. Simply put, that's what a lot of people expect politicians to do.

So when people talk about "style points" in these debates, they are really talking about something different, in my opinion. They are talking about which candidate comes across as more believable, more trustworthy. And I strongly believe that there is a fairly sizeable contingent of voters who choose based on this issue.

That's why I think style points are important. And I think Bush won on this count in the last two debates.

[Drbio]

If you think that then Bush clearly wins on who is most believable. We will see the proof on Nov. 2. However, kerry is clearly the better orator, but fortunately, I believe that most people will see through that.