NationStates Jolt Archive

As a slight liberal, I have to say Cheney.

As a hard-core liberal, I have to say no one won.

Also this debate was really anti-climatic. Oh, and the moderator sucked.

Yes, the moderator did suck...
But Cheney did make a pretty valid point about not having met Edwards until tonight.

Yes, the moderator blew donkey nuts.

They both dropped some really significant points, but I think that some of the main points really hit home:

The voting records of both candidates are less than praiseworthy.

The admission of Edwards that there may have been a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq

The effect of malpractice suits on health-insurance costs

The failure to procure Bin-Laden in Afghanistan while leaving enforcement largely in the hands of the Afghani aristocracy.

I think that Cheney won, but it was very close. He was better at answering questions directly...

Cheney did point out that Saddam did support Palestinian suicide bomber's families with payments of $25,000. If that is not considered supporting terrorism, then what is?

I would have to say that the debate was a virtual deadheat. Both Cheney and Edwards made a huge point of avoiding questions and dragging previous topics into irrevelent topics.

Both of them made their fair share of points as well. Over all, it was pretty disappointing to me. I was expecting a major win by one side or the other.

Cheney It's obiovous the points ha made stode firm and Edward had to go backwards to try and answer each question

I would have to say that the debate was a virtual deadheat. Both Cheney and Edwards made a huge point of avoiding questions and dragging previous topics into irrevelent topics.

Both of them made their fair share of points as well. Over all, it was pretty disappointing to me. I was expecting a major win by one side or the other.

Agree with your assertion that both candidates made a huge point of just competely ignoring the questions.

It was close but I think Cheney did a little better.

They both ignored some questions to spout off their grievances against the other camp, but I think Edwards was really bad at using the 'straw man' fallacy. He took a position that wasn't directly prompted by the question and tried to drive it home - he was really bad at answering the moderator directly. Cheney was a lot better at that.

I also think that Edwards is a demagogue.

They both ignored some questions to spout off their grievances against the other camp, but I think Edwards was really bad at using the 'straw man' fallacy. He took a position that wasn't directly prompted by the question and tried to drive it home - he was really bad at answering the moderator directly. Cheney was a lot better at that.

I also think that Edwards is a demagogue.

Doesn't make your opinion an impartial one does it?

Both of them really sucked at answering the questions; more importantly, however, the moderator asked really bad questions, as well as phrasing the questions horribly.

I liked the debate; it was an acual debate, not just a tandem champain apperance. where did they find that mod, anway? on Nation States?

Doesn't make your opinion an impartial one does it?

Both of them really sucked at answering the questions; more importantly, however, the moderator asked really bad questions, as well as phrasing the questions horribly.

I'm a political relativist. I don't think that there are any clear answers for how to solve the nation's problems...and that certain approaches must be relative to each situation.

As a competitive debater, I try to focus more on the argumentation. Although Edwards made some really valid points, they didn't address the questions directly. Cheney is not exempt from this, but I noticed it a lot less. The moderator was not the best (she made plenty of mistakes), but I don't think that the questions were that bad. They were vague enough to give a lot of ideological lee-way, but direct enough to warrant direct responses.

I would have to say that the debate was a virtual deadheat. Both Cheney and Edwards made a huge point of avoiding questions and dragging previous topics into irrevelent topics.

Both of them made their fair share of points as well. Over all, it was pretty disappointing to me. I was expecting a major win by one side or the other.I only watched bits and pieces of the debate, but I noticed that Edwards chose to continue his attack on Cheney regarding tax issues after the moderator asked Cheney about gay unions and his disagreement with Bush on that topic.

I don't know if I'd blame the moderator. It seemed to me like she was pretty even-handed and asked the tough questions directly. She's there to field questions, not be a reporter, though some of the questions I saw were reporter-worthy.

My guess is that both sides tried to play not to lose rather than get some zingers in on their opponent. They didn't want to steal points from Bush or Kerry so they had a pretty lackluster debate. There aren't very many "you're no Jack Kennedy" moments in Vice Presidential debates.

Cheney did point out that Saddam did support Palestinian suicide bomber's families with payments of $25,000. If that is not considered supporting terrorism, then what is?While this is true, it is not reason enough to invade a country. Nor does it explain the failures of the administration after the invasion.

Also edwards home land secruity motto is "mmore of what he said", realy cheney rocked hard he openly challenged his oppents records brought points to the table and brought wisdom he has learned form years passed while edwards seems coached and uninspired.

I'm a political relativist. I don't think that there are any clear answers for how to solve the nation's problems...and that certain approaches must be relative to each situation.


Still doesn't mean your not partial, especially, as you mentioned, you think Edwards is a demagogue.


As a competitive debater, I try to focus more on the argumentation. Although Edwards made some really valid points, they didn't address the questions directly. Cheney is not exempt from this, but I noticed it a lot less. The moderator was not the best (she made plenty of mistakes), but I don't think that the questions were that bad. They were vague enough to give a lot of ideological lee-way, but direct enough to warrant direct responses.

I disagree with you, especially about the moderator, but that's a matter of opinion, not fact, so I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree.

edward's sorta won, because he held his own against the evil genius that is cheney. of course cheney was super solid on policy, who do you think actually makes policy in this administration. sure cheney kept his lies straight, he is an evil genius after all. but just remember the line that got the most favorable response from the cnn undecided focus group was his position on gay marriage where he actually contradicts the president's position. how can you win a vp debate if your best statement is in opposition to your platform and president. cheney didn't prove he would make a better president than edwards, he just proved he would make a more competent one than bush, and most people have known that since the 2000 campaign.

Cheney is an evil genius huh? :rolleyes:

I count this as a minor victory for Edwards. He's relatively new to the whole game, and was able to hold his own against Cheney. I thought he won, but just by the slightest of margins, but even the fact that it was so close is a victory for him. Not a ton of experience as a Senator, and none as a Vice President, and he held his own fairly well.

Considering that Cheney lied his way through at least the first four questions, I don't know how anyone can say that he was even close. Edwards smoked him.

No one won. Cheney and Edwards both fumbled at points and both neglected to answer the question at certain moments. Edwards kept on throwing out Kerry's name in a clingy manner and Cheney was unable to defend himself against some of Edward's accusations.

All in all, a draw.

Considering that Cheney lied his way through at least the first four questions, I don't know how anyone can say that he was even close. Edwards smoked him.

True, Cheney did lie a lot. But the problem is, do you think that most Americans know where he lied, mistated facts, or generally misconstrued his facts? I doubt it. It takes a lot of time and energy to read, learn, and look up statements and facts, especially since the Internet is willing to allow any idiot that likes to lie back up any other person's "facts".

Cheney is an evil genius huh? :rolleyes:
well at least a fairly smart evil manipulator

Stop it lefties your making adolf look better than you on measures of insanity [/joke] but realy being conspiracy nuts is dumb people.

Stop it lefties your making adolf look better than you on measures of insanity [/joke] but realy being conspiracy nuts is dumb people.

?Parles-tu anglais?

During the first half or so, Edwards seemed sort of shaky in his answers, and Cheney definitely had the edge. But Edwards came on strong in the second half, especially with the "flip-flop" issue. Overall, I'd say it was too close to call. Hopefully it got some people thinking. It was pretty close to restoring some of my faith in the American democratic system, but both Edwards and Cheney were trying so hard to avoid the actual questions (Edwards was, I admit, a little worse about this, always going back to previous questions). And I really didn't think the mod was that bad, FWIW.

True, Cheney did lie a lot. But the problem is, do you think that most Americans know where he lied, mistated facts, or generally misconstrued his facts? I doubt it. It takes a lot of time and energy to read, learn, and look up statements and facts, especially since the Internet is willing to allow any idiot that likes to lie back up any other person's "facts".
The group of people sitting in the coffee house at Stanford knew he was, but then again, they're college students at an elite university. But some of the stuff he was saying is stuff that while everyone ought to know it's shit--al Qaeda linked to Saddam, for instance--a lot of people still don't. I thought Edwards popped him pretty well on that, and I wish he'd mentioned that Bush himself had said that there was no link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

I just thought it was sort of interesting that I only watched 20 minutes of the Bush/Kerry debate, but all of this one. You have to give both Edwards and Cheney credit for being excellent debaters, and they were much better (IMHO) at defending their positions than the presidential candidates. I did think Sen. Graham's defense of Cheney's arguments was rather weak, though (this was on NBC).

Yet another thing: I was surprised by how much Cheney avoided coming off as evil. He almost seemed like a human being at times! He did better than I expected. No devil horns sprouted or anything.

I am voting Libertarian, but Kerry-Edwards is my second choice. Even I thought Cheney won by a landslide. What was with Edwards and the sticking out of the tongue?

the thing was tied i think

hey did anyone catch a part near the end where edwards was starting to talk and the feed jumped or something? cause it looked like there was editing or something, but that cant be, cause its live...

help me figure this out!

two things one how well a person did under circumstances doesn't change wether or not he was the best or worse (edwards here), two if cheney is evil he would be ruler of the world already to damn smart cheney.

the thing was tied i think

hey did anyone catch a part near the end where edwards was starting to talk and the feed jumped or something? cause it looked like there was editing or something, but that cant be, cause its live...

help me figure this out!
I didn't catch that, but I hear other people mention it: I don't think it was "live," per say. Things like this usually have a few seconds' delay, so censors can jump in in case a naughty word slips in or something. :)

The VP debate was much more perfessoionally played out, more entertaining, and more informative than the Presidential one was. Although I am very Concervitive I would say that Cheiney came ahead by only a little, John Edwards was an excellent debator and made a few points but beat around the bush too much and wouldn't always directly answer the questions while Cheiney was very straight and avoided repeating himself.

the left wing on NS will vote for edwards and kerry over jesus christ and john the baptist, if they came up to them and resurected their families.

I didn't catch that, but I hear other people mention it: I don't think it was "live," per say. Things like this usually have a few seconds' delay, so censors can jump in in case a naughty word slips in or something. :)

ok thanks

im goin to bed, ill find out more tomorrow. night all.

the left wing on NS will vote for edwards and kerry over jesus christ and john the baptist, if they came up to them and resurected their families.

Is it just me or is this between Edwards and Cheney, where did John the Baptist come from?

Is it just me or is this between Edwards and Cheney, where did John the Baptist come from?
I was refering to the polls

the left wing on NS will vote for edwards and kerry over jesus christ and john the baptist, if they came up to them and resurected their families.

Left wingers are very often atheist/agnotist. I think Edwards won by a small margain, but it will have little effect on the real race overall.

As a hard-core liberal, I have to say no one won.

Also this debate was really anti-climatic. Oh, and the moderator sucked.

First, politically I'm so left wing, that Kerry scares me nearly as much as Bush. But I'd say that Cheney came across as better informed.

Do I agree with Cheney: no?
Do I feel he would listen to me: no?
Do I feel Edwards would liste to me: no?
Do I feel more people would listen to Cheney ...

Now that is the question, isn't it? ;)

Watching the post-debate analysis, I'm a bit sick out partisan the comments are coming. Personally I don't think it was that close between the two and that Cheney did have a better command of the situation, which was Edward's mistake. He shouldn't have turned it into 90 minutes of Iraq, because Edwards a few times slipped up and said Iran or Afghanistan, and then Cheney pounced on him referencing the elections in Afghanistan (when that door was opened).

I think most of the people going into this debate already had their minds made up, and so the canidates just didn't have to look like a Bush did in the Presidential debate in order to get their pep squads screaming.

Frankly, I didn't hear any major differences between the two parties (SHOCKER) and felt the debate came down to a question of who should be in charge, and not *what* should be done. Ironically I felt Kerry did offer some ideas with respect to the UN, that where a bit more interesting last week, so even if Edwards focused on that (which I don't feel he did enough of), it would still have come off as old news.

The big zinger I think goes to Cheney, when he pointed out that Kerry and Edwards changed their positions when they were attacked by Howard Dean. (BTW I *was* a Dean supporter, and snicker for that comment ... they deserved that for being pro-war, anti-war, now pro-new-war-government -- that isn't to say that change is bad, but it does worry me that their policies on Iraq were formed in the past year, when I've personally felt that many US liberals were asking for Democratic leadership on this well over a year ago and were ignored).

For me it was draw.

Neither really had a knock out blow. Each streched the truth on certain facts and issues.

If you had to label a point won, then it was Edwards. Many people only had an idea of what Edwards is about; now they know.

The one really sad thing is Cheney. He is a mean nasty jackass; but he comes across as a leader. A tough one at that.

What does that say for the Shrub and the nasty comments about who is really running the goverment?

I didn't catch that, but I hear other people mention it: I don't think it was "live," per say. Things like this usually have a few seconds' delay, so censors can jump in in case a naughty word slips in or something. :)
Did y'all catch those handsome outfits? Maybe the video people were concerned about that hunk Cheney and a "wardrobe malfunction" or at least a profane reference to self-copulation.
Any takers?

BTW, i voted narrowly Edwards, since although the first 20 minutes looked dismal, it perked up after that. Edwards invoked Kerry too much (remember: don't use their name!) but nailed Cheney repeatedly about Halliburton, to which Cheney poorly or even didn't answer at all without a misdirection.
But the whole debate wasn't about Halliburton or nonexistent links, and i think Edwards spent too much time on the defensive. If i were after style i'd vote Cheney but i was after content so Edwards gets it, JUST NARROWLY. I would've thought Edwards would be better at debate given his background, and since Cheney has been the same for f*cking years i didn't expect anything different from that (Edwards should've seen that coming).
I also agree that it was a good point about the Dean issue, really hard to refute.
For the record, also, i may see things differently after VIEWING it, since i've only taken in the audio version so far. Obviously my last post was a jest. Sort of.
So what's this about Edwards' tongue?

Debating Cheney is like debating a wall
debating Cheney is like debating yourself
he ignores you like you are not even there
I loved it.

I think it was a good back and forth debate,
Cheney won the foreing policy debate
he clearly pointed out Kerry s (flip flops) in the Senate and
in the debate and on the campaing.

Edwards did do a good job of defending Kerry s
statements but Cheney did point out Kerrys flip flops.

On the domestic debate, Cheney defended
the administrations positions, and Edwards did a good job
of defending his positions, of which we all have our rights
to agree or disagree.

So what's this about Edwards' tongue?

He kept drinking his coffee and then sticking out his tongue afterwards. Usually he was looking at Cheney while doing it. I thought it was the funniest thing! But no one else seems to have noticed it!!!