| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2008 11:29:08 AM · #26 |
I watched about 30 mins before I fell asleep. I find US presidential elections fascinating, possibly because whoever sits in the White House has such an affect on the rest of the world.
Oh yeah, can we get this back on topic instead of country bashing? :-)
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:35:05 AM · #27 |
Can I ask you all a question with regard to body language?
How important is it? Really.
I've got friends that speculate Obama "won" the debate because all else being pretty much equal, his body language trumped McCain's because he had more control and composure and McCain was "openly hostile and contemptuous."
And my next question, if body language really is that important, is a televised debate a good thing or bad thing, or does it just allow the media more control over us? |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:37:28 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
So you think either one will F up your country? Too late, it's already f^&(%d up. Which one actually has a plan to move the country forward rather than further down the path Bush has taken it? |
While I am the farthest thing from a Bush suporter there is on this planet, it's foolish to believe that one man led us to where we are, or that one person can fix all of the problems. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for years of mistakes and even worse, turning a blind eye.
I personally have very little confidence in either cadidate. I do firmly believe that John Mccain would be a VAST improvement over the current bumbling idiot, but there is a good portion of his platform that I am absolutely against.
While Obama is a bit exciting, and I agree with a lot more of his ideology, I'm not confident in his level of experience. I don't need training wheels on my president either.
To me, it's a crap shoot either way. I'll vote for Obama because I disagree with Mccain on social issues and the war in Iraq. I'll do that, and hope to hell Obama can pull off a miracle with the economy. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:46:16 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Can I ask you all a question with regard to body language?
How important is it? Really.
I've got friends that speculate Obama "won" the debate because all else being pretty much equal, his body language trumped McCain's because he had more control and composure and McCain was "openly hostile and contemptuous."
And my next question, if body language really is that important, is a televised debate a good thing or bad thing, or does it just allow the media more control over us? |
It's important if you look at the whole way each candidate presented themselves. People seem to be tired of the aggressive unilateral approach the present administration has taken and are anxious to find what appears to be a more mindful, poised tack.
Along with McCains lack of eye contact and tight appearance Obama was pretty generous in offering up praise and credit whereas McCain didn't. Voters seem to want someone who appears to be calm, flexible and a little more yielding as we face a pretty big shitstorm. Obama won on that front.
For the record I thought it was a tie but Obama did come across informed enough and strong enough on the issue of Foreign Policy where McCain could have had a slam dunk. Both men looked strong but cautious overall. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:48:04 AM · #30 |
I don't know why we are so occupied with who "won" the debate. I've been in debate enough to know that the "winner" isn't always the one with the best idea or even the truth. We should be more concerned with the substance of what they said. To echo Karmat, who the hell cares about body language?
If we want to play silly little games, the taller candidate has won nearly every election. Boom. Line them up and let's go home. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:49:30 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Prash:
So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.
Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why? |
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:50:32 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Both men looked strong but cautious overall. |
Thank you, that makes some sense.
I agree that both sounded strong as well. That was part of the reason for my questions. My husband and I even commented that they sounded like they were trying to say whatever would please the most people. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:51:40 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Prash:
So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.
Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why? |
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero. |
And of course you viewed it with a completely unbiased, open mind, right? ;) |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:54:01 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Prash:
So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.
Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why? |
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero. |
And of course you viewed it with a completely unbiased, open mind, right? ;) |
ROFLMFAO! |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:55:36 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Prash:
So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.
Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why? |
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero. |
And of course you viewed it with a completely unbiased, open mind, right? ;) |
Open eyes, yes. Open minds are dangerous.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:56:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Personally...I want the US to pay it's debt and get out of the hole ! |
With what? You need taxes to pay the government's bills. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:57:34 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Prash:
So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.
Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why? |
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero. |
What debate were you watching?
Are you that biased where you couldn't wrangle even a little light for Obama. He did fine. From the pundits down to those who saw the debate and actually listened, neither candidate was awarded a slam dunk win. Generally speaking, all the top polls found that Obama had the edge but he in no way came out a "zero".
Again, what debate were you watching?
karmat-yeah, people are fatigued of hawkish, macho politics and in terms of body language McCain did appear a little tight and aggressive which matches his stance literally and figuratively on Foreign Policy. I've always thought it was perfectly clear what Obama means/meant when he said he would meet with Foreign Leaders"unconditionally " or as he clarifies with "not without preparation". His statement in no way, was as McCain tries to paint it. So with that, his overall appearance did come off as someone who was a little more relaxed and willing to listen, see (eye contact), communicate, supporting his position convincingly.
Message edited by author 2008-09-27 12:28:44. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 12:43:20 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hey  cpanaioti
If we're so F'd up as you say can you please tell me why MILLIONS take risks every day to make it to the US legal and Illegal?
|
Listen, Kenny's baby. Assuming that you really are a kid and that you have lived all your life in one country and thus have only been exposed to the attitudes and opinions of your countrymen and that you have food and shelter and on and on - then you may be excused your ignorance. Your question is insulting.
Very very bad things really really really do happen. You can imagine them in a way and you can probably get to see some illegal films or whatever but, for better or for worse, it stops at imagination. Some people survive some of these horrible things but never get over them. The human psyche is not equipped to deal with such things.
Now, it doesn't take a lot to understand why people would want to get away from stuff like that. New Orleans just before, during or after Katrina would be preferable to some of the places they came from.
It may be churlish and it may not be fair to blame the US for a lot of these bad things happening in a lot of places, but I know that a lot of people who are displaced from them are pretty damned sure that the US, directly or indirectly, through action or inaction, is part of the problem. I know because I deal with people like that every day. Your attitude insults them.
Oops, it's a rant.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 12:59:17 PM · #39 |
Moved from other thread:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I went into watching this debate firmly in McCain's corner. I was dissapointed. I thought Obama won the debate. I thought Obama weathered every punch McCain threw at him. I liked Obama for admitted that he agreed with McCain when he really did. I thought McCain did himself no favors by never even looking at Obama. To me it made him seem scared to confront him openly. I did not like the way McCain seemed to be blaming our financial problems on earmarks and spending. That is a problem but definitely not THE problem. What's more I felt Obama more than held his own on foreign policy and I liked that he would be willing to strike where Osama bin laden was at even if in Pakistan. All around I feel that Obama came off as more in touch with people. Believe me, going in I wanted McCain to defeat him and make him look bad but that didn't happen in my opinion. I think it was a big win for Obama among independent and undecided voters as McCain seemed to play to those who were already on board with him moreso than reaching out to those who might not be. |
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:11:43 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero. |
If "Presidential" = lying, deceitful, not knowing the President of Spain, then sure, McCain's your guy!
If "Leadership" = voting with Bush and GOP hardliners 90% of the time and flip-flopping the rest of the time.
"Good plans for our future" = The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, he'll continue with failed leftover policies because he has few original ideas, he'll keep us in war in the wrong country, add to a record deficit, likely leading to another depression, has promised to slash spending on "un-needed" programs like education, healthcare, environmental protection, etc.
So I echo the question by  pawdrix, what debate were you watching?
If Obama is a zero, the "Palin/McCain" ticket would be a negative number.
And, NO, I was not swayed by the debate. I am really looking forward to the VP debate, however.
Is Rudy Giuliani goint to stand in for Sarah Palin then also???? |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:20:05 PM · #41 |
Next question. Is it significant that Senator Obama repeatedly refers to Sen. McCain as John, and President Bush as "your president," while Sen. McCain never calls Sen. Obama by his first name?
edited to clarify -- I am aware that he does use the title Senator, some, uses "John" a lot as well.
Message edited by author 2008-09-27 13:21:27. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:25:47 PM · #42 |
It might, it might not. The issue is the necessity of the actions the US government does take overseas and whether that need is greater than taking care of the people the government is supposed to care for. I'd say it doesn't even come close.
Any idea how many children could be fed and given health care for $700B? How about spending money on people instead of starting illegal and unjustified wars that drag on and on, bringing nothing but death and suffering?
Originally posted by kenskid:
Spaz...as far as KILLING people...I would gladly support, in addition to withholding American aid..the US not getting involved in ANY altercation or agression in the next 50 years.
I'm sure you'll say that by the US opting out this will lead to world peace beyond belief...but I'll bet my last middle class depressed dollar that the world will NOT be a better place.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hey cpanaioti
If we're so F'd up as you say can you please tell me why MILLIONS take risks every day to make it to the US legal and Illegal? Can you tell me why thousands upon thousands come here for their higher education?
Can you tell me if we're so F'd up why we aid and feed more poor countries than any other in the world?
I'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.
...is it a deal?
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jaker:
The problem with our two party system is that most of us knew who we were voting for as soon as we had the nominations finalized. Had the nominations been different, it wouldn't have mattered. We are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Case in point is John Mccain. The Republicans have hated that guy practically his whole career. Many of the things he has done in the past have been widely and vocally thrashed by his own party, yet now he's the guy they want for president. That makes absolutely no sense! But it's a prime example of how the political system in this country is completely broken.
Give me 4 or 5 strong candidates and I'll be able to actually pick the one that I REALLY feel will do the best job. Give me 4 or 5 strong candidates and they may be able to say what they actually think instead of pandering to the ideals of their party. Give me 4 or 5 candidates, and my country won't be ruled by lobbyists and special interests.
Until then, I'm stuck voting for the person I think will F up my country the least, and that sucks. |
So you think either one will F up your country? Too late, it's already f^&(%d up. Which one actually has a plan to move the country forward rather than further down the path Bush has taken it? |
|
I'd bet that the US also kills more people than any other "civilized" nation.
As for coming here for higher education, that trend is declining. In part because of the onerous immigration process, but also because other countries are developing their own educational institutions that are on par with those here in the U.S. |
|
Message edited by author 2008-09-27 13:34:14. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:29:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Next question. Is it significant that Senator Obama repeatedly refers to Sen. McCain as John, and President Bush as "your president," while Sen. McCain never calls Sen. Obama by his first name?
edited to clarify -- I am aware that he does use the title Senator, some, uses "John" a lot as well. |
I find it very significant. Funny thing is too, I also refer to Bush as "your president" when talking to republicans. I had nothing to do with putting him in there. I don't want to be associated with him or his policies in any way, shape or form. And I do blame the republicans for the financial mess that this country is in, whether I'm right or wrong to feel that way is irrelevant. It is how I feel. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:38:36 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Next question. Is it significant that Senator Obama repeatedly refers to Sen. McCain as John, and President Bush as "your president," while Sen. McCain never calls Sen. Obama by his first name? |
Might be some psychological game playing, same as McCain never looking Obama in the eyes.
Of course, psychologically speaking, a liar tends to not look you in the eyes. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:41:12 PM · #45 |
| I can't wait to see what "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" do with the debate. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:51:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know why we are so occupied with who "won" the debate. I've been in debate enough to know that the "winner" isn't always the one with the best idea or even the truth. We should be more concerned with the substance of what they said. To echo Karmat, who the hell cares about body language?
If we want to play silly little games, the taller candidate has won nearly every election. Boom. Line them up and let's go home. |
I disagree that who 'won' the debate shouldn't matter. It is a chance to see both candidates in a high pressure environment and how they handle it. Persuasiveness,command of knowledge, attitude, temprament and such can be judged. The debates to me are much less about substance of the positions.. I already know those things.. but it is more about the performance and should be. The abilities to win the debate carry over into an ability to lead. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:54:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I can't wait to see what "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" do with the debate. |
And here is the problem with a lot of young voters... they are allowing comedians to shape their view of the world...
not picking on you in particular... I will be watching those show as well but young people should spend more time informing themselves from legitimate sources than listening to these shows as if they were news casts. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 01:59:56 PM · #48 |
Here's some interesting info RE the debate from a non-partisan source. Also good for checking the facts behind the mud-slinging between debates.
//www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
My own opinion:
Obama won it. He wasn't afraid to look McCain in the eyes (well, he would have if McCain had ever looked that way). He had better facts, and more details. Of course, I would never vote for McCain with Sara Palin as his running mate anyway. And he changed when he entered the election--I used to think he wouldn't be bad as a president; now he's saying all the things Karl Rove and his protege taught him. Just another Republican candidate.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 02:44:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And he changed when he entered the election--I used to think he wouldn't be bad as a president; now he's saying all the things Karl Rove and his protege taught him. Just another Republican candidate. |
I agree. He's become almost everything you thought he never would be. He hasn't been showing any of the integrity he's known to have since he began this run. I didn't always agree with him over the years but I could still have seen myself casting a vote his way. He's been leaving me quite flat and his recent stunt to suspend his campaign and miss the debate because he was instantly needed in Washington was low-brow and obvious show boating.
Message edited by author 2008-09-27 15:01:08. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 02:50:21 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It might, it might not. The issue is the necessity of the actions the US government does take overseas and whether that need is greater than taking care of the people the government is supposed to care for. I'd say it doesn't even come close.
Any idea how many children could be fed and given health care for $700B? How about spending money on people instead of starting illegal and unjustified wars that drag on and on, bringing nothing but death and suffering?
|
Kudos on the thought about using the billions at home rather than outside of it.
Also, the wars must be bringing something more precious than the losses we suffer of human lives and tax money (I am perhaps blind or naive enough to see 'what' though). Still looking to understand, have found no answers yet (sadly).
|
|
