Your Rections to the Third/Last Presidential Debate

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun



Are you saying that you don't like fluff? HUH? Is that what you're saying?

everyone loves fluff. I especially love fluffers.

[chequita guevara]

According to Mark Shields (on PBS), no one has ever won the Presidency after losing all three debates.

[Ramo]

Interesting picture:

[Ramo]

All the polls on the debates:

Kerry Bush
CBS 39 25 (on undecideds)
ABC 42 41 (heavily Republican sample)
CNN 52 39
DC 41 36

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to Mark Shields (on PBS), no one has ever won the Presidency after losing all three debates.

Hopefully, even you will admit that who wins a debate is highly subjective. I see democrats claiming that Kerry swept all 3 debates. Obviously, Republicans disagree. I personally feel that Bush lost the 1st debate, tied the second debate and won the third debate.

[chequita guevara]

I think Bush lost the first debate badly, lost the second one slightly, and tied the third one, but I didn't see the whole thing, because they bored me.

Doesn't matter cuz I'm voting Walt Brown anyway.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ramo
All the polls on the debates:

Kerry Bush
CBS 39 25 (on undecideds)
ABC 42 41 (heavily Republican sample)
CNN 52 39
DC 41 36

I am sick of polls. One poll shows Bush up by 3, another shows Kerry up by 5. The next day, we get a poll showing Bush down by 2, another day we get Bush up by 4.

polls

[Ramo]

The polls say that Kerry won the three debates.

[Ramo]

I am sick of polls. One poll shows Bush up by 3, another shows Kerry up by 5. The next day, we get a poll showing Bush down by 2, another day we get Bush up by 4.

These aren't horserace numbers... It's who won the debate.

[Drachasor]

There is some truth in all those accounts, though he shouldn't distort things as he has done. Bush has also done some heavy distorting though.

I'd like to see your pell grant info, because I can't find anything saying that is wrong.

If you want to take a look at the facts, let's see who actually was lying more of the time. Something you have to bear in mind is that Bush cited so few facts, that naturally Kerry will probably seem to lie, but that's just because Bush was barely specific on anything and didn't answer job questions.

I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists — and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice — but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.

This is a lie, we have only caught 75% of the leaders that we knew existed on 9/11. There are a lot more leaders now.

My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don't think you can secure America for the long run if you don't have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.

Non-sequitor. Just because Kerry says he wants to reduce the threat of terrorism, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current problem. At least they aren't saying Kerry said he thought terrorism is a nuisance; they were doing that earlier this week.

At home, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it.

We'll give him the truth on this, but it is questionable wether Homeland Security is funded enough (it probably isn't).

We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.

This is an out and out lie.

Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Lie.

Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

Lie.

My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement.

True enough, Kerry said it was primarily an intelligence and law enforcement problem, and added that we must use allies to bring it to bear on it.

No, this war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.

This is an exaggeration, imho, but I won't count it as an out-and-out lie.

Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.

Britain is the nation that suspended production and decided the flu vaccines we too contaminated.

We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.

This is not at all the reason why vaccines are hardly ever produced by our companies. They simply don't find it economical and prefer in almost all cases to treat symptoms and use other medications which require continual use (makes them more money). It's a profit-motive issue, but not the one Bush has stated.

He just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.

Blatant or horrible distortion. Bush didn't even use the biased studies that have been done, yet alone a non-biased one.

He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, or fiscally sound, but he voted over — he voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4.2 trillion.

Distortion (they count votes to end debate and other such procedural matters as voting for higher taxes). Also doesn't compare to the times he voted for lower taxes. (According to Kerry--he's probably using the same distortion Bush is, but that's pragmatic).

He's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich, which is also a tax on many small-business owners in America, raises $600 million by our account — billion, $800 billion by his account.

There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. There is a gap in two estimates, so someone has to fill that gap? I suppose he is saying his estimate is better, but independent groups have shown that Kerry's proposal for what he is implementing for health care will be paid for the way he says.

propose a detailed budget, Bob. I sent up my budget man to the Congress, and he says, here's how we're going to reduce the deficit in half by five years. It requires pro-growth policies that grow our economy and fiscal sanity in the halls of Congress.

Bush also has no fiscal sanity; he can't veto any spending bill for some reason. He's misrepresenting his own record.

I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

As you can see throughout the debate, Bush never answers a question on jobs. He talks about education when such questions come up.

We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

True, he did sign a bill into law on this.

On no child left behind, it is true he raised money on education, so we will also give him that (though it is debateable wether it was raised enough).

So Bush does tell a lot of lies, but he also spends a lot of time not detailing anything specific (one can still catch him on a few things). I will continue as needed looking at what he said in the debate.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I am sick of polls. One poll shows Bush up by 3, another shows Kerry up by 5. The next day, we get a poll showing Bush down by 2, another day we get Bush up by 4.

polls

The up by 5 one seemed to be poorly done, as do a lot of the high ones.

Other polls consistently show Bush and Kerry essentially tied; within the margin error.

Polls

Knowing how to read polls

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

My look into the Pell Grant data so far indicates Kerry was quite possibly correct in general. Funding for Pell Grants seems to be lower, and individuals seem to be getting less money.

-Drachasor

[chequita guevara]

Did anyone else notice a bit of froath in the right corner of Bush's mouth? I couldn't pay attention to what he was saying half the tie cuz I kept staring at that little bit of white foam.

[Dis]

who cares about polls anymore. I just want the election to happen. less than 3 weeks now...

[Drachasor]

Oh, and while Kerry may have gotten some of his facts wrong, or didn't fully flesh out some numbers, on his policy issues he looks like he was quite correct.

Anyhow, I stand by my position that Bush has consistently distanced himself from the working class in each debate, whereas Kerry has demonstrated a concern for what they are worred about (Bush acts like their worries don't exist). This is one large reason that will probably have Kerry win.

Oh, and if Kerry, in retrospect, one the second debate according to Gallup, then there is no way in heck he won't win this one.

-Drachasor