....oh, that's right, the GOP whined about Fox too! I guess everyone is against them. Poor babies.
Maybe they should move their debates to Fox...
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
Only the closed minded sheep of the GOP can't see the ridiculousness of their leaders. You see that great intellect Ted Cruz spouting off the same foolishness as other idiots of saying only those ever voted in a GOP primary should be allowed to be moderators. Not only is that so foolish as the media is supposed to be objective but two of the 4 of the CNBC moderators are Tea Partiers just like Cruz and the whole Fox team are conservatives and Republicans. Just goes to show you where these whiners minds are at and how they are not the least bit interested in doing what is good for the country. Instead, they are just interested in getting power by looking good and fooling the public.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/02/media/gop-candidate-revolt/index.html
Give props to Kasich, Christie and Carly. Trump is a freakin idiot. Negotiating independently. Will someone show him the door? Especially after his comments today saying the debates should be a for profit exercise for the candidates charity of choice. Someone tell the dumbass the presidency is not for sale with tv ratings.
Give props to Kasich, Christie and Carly. Trump is a freakin idiot. Negotiating independently. Will someone show him the door? Especially after his comments today saying the debates should be a for profit exercise for the candidates charity of choice. Someone tell the dumbass the presidency is not for sale with tv ratings.
....oh, that's right, the GOP whined about Fox too! I guess everyone is against them. Poor babies.
Well, once they get through the horribly unfair debate process and one of them gets elected president, they can can take solace in knowing that they won't ever be asked any hard or leading questions again, or deal with anybody or any country as difficult as the debate moderators. pfffft
Any candidate complaining about moderators should be immediately excluded from consideration as they clearly don't have the backbone required for the job.
I myself think the candidates were justified in their criticism as to the manner in which they were "moderated" during last week's debate. But they......and the GOP as a whole......should be throwing a party for Carl Q, Becky Q, and (especially) John H.
That's because they've successfully galvanized the entire Right-wing/leaning universe over an issue.....so called mainstream (meaning everyone aside Fox, political Talk Radio, and Right-wing newspapers/websites) media bias......which has always been oxygen for them. CNBC should have put a bow on this friggin' gift when they handed it to both the candidates and Reince Priebus.
And which is why this is a horse the Right will now ride this campaign season until it has 5 broken legs.
That's because they've successfully galvanized the entire Right-wing/leaning universe over an issue.....so called mainstream (meaning everyone aside Fox, political Talk Radio, and Right-wing newspapers/websites) media bias......which has always been oxygen for them. CNBC should have put a bow on this friggin' gift when they handed it to both the candidates and Reince Priebus.
And which is why this is a horse the Right will now ride this campaign season until it has 5 broken legs.
The only thing I'll say is that the manner in which some of those questions were asked was extremely disrespectful to the process, the candidates, and the electorate. Especially in light of the softballs tossed to Hillary.
This comment has me wondering if Fox News could actually try to get the GOP candidates back on stage.....presumably without Megyn Kelly in the room.....in some manner where they can refer to it as something other than a "debate", .thereby (theoretically) creating an opportunity to sidestep whatever Federal campaign laws which typically dictate such affairs.
In order to do something like this, they might feel forced to invite the minor-leaguers (Graham, Jindal, Pataki, Santorum, etc) on stage to satisfy "equal time" laws. Of course, the last thing anyone needs is more candidates on stage......though if they're making an attempt to sidestep debate "laws", you'd have to think they'd be equally prepared to thumb their noses surrounding those pertaining to equal time as well.
Your extreme bias showing once again. Anderson Cooper did not throw softballs in the debate. The 11 hours joke of a hearing were not softballs. Hillary to date has performed very well and Presidential in those instances of being grilled. You may have an issue with her answers and that is legitimate but not how she was grilled.
There is no excuse for these whiners. Don't try and make one for them. You only look foolish.
Not sure what you are saying. My guy isn't on board with this stuff, neither is my gal.
Anderson Cooper did a pretty good job but some major glaring issues were lightly touched on with her. The hearing is not applicable because we are discussing debates.
As to my bias, I have stated multiple times, depending on the GOP candidate, I might consider voting 3rd party. I was open to Biden and even Webb, but neither are an option currently.
I agree, and I'm certainly not "debating" that point at all. However, they were debating each other, not Hillary. If they debate Hillary and there's that much disparity, that will be a different issue.
I completely agree that the moderators were a bit inappropriate with their questions and the way they were asking them. But your character and abilities are shown in adverse situations, not when things are perfect. How you react to things is more important than what happens to you.
I think the manner in which the first 2 debates were fine. They asked tough and pointed questions. This 3rd one was obviously an attack job.
Yes, I agree. This is where it seems a lot of my opinions get misconstrued. I don't always feel like I have to pick sides, but it seems my comments are taken as if I am (not accusing you of this in this instance). I agree that it was an attack job, but I also think some of them responded inappropriately for a Presidential candidate. There's nothing wrong, IMO, with acknowledging both.
Your bias is not with who you like; it is with you dislike and your comments along that point of conversation.
My opinion, the 3 GOP debates have been poor. There have been good moments by the individual candidates but the problem is too many people on stage in order to ask/answer properly and meaningful. For a 2 hour debate, you can't really have more than 7-8 people on stage regardless of the other rules. Got to split up the candidates and have two sessions. But that won't happen. So, this circus will continue and the whining by some will get louder. It is ridiculous.
Oh, there is no question some of the fielded questions were answered horribly. I'm fine with that. That's on the candidate. I also think how some of the candidates handled the post debate was atrocious.
Not sure how I get labeled as "obviously biased" when I'm calling out both sides.
That comment was explained and it is obvious to anyone that reads your constant Hillary and Obama and Dem bashing. She did not get "softball questions". That is ridiculous and was offered by your based on something that isn't the truth. So what caused you to say it?
Even 7-8 is stretching it. We set up these "talking point" debates and then complain when all we get are talking points.
Thin the herd, change the debate format.
Amazing that each of us can easily see the biases or the fellow posters while attempting to point to our own logical conclusion. Although I did sleep thru a good bit of the Hillary Show, I was awake long enough to see that she had a friendly bunch of folks asking questions and the cheerleaders standing with her on stage. Friends, those were softballs. Nothing as hard as "boxers or briefs", but they were not as derogatory as Trump Show. Ben has not gotten a real zinger yet either. Who has been probed with a subject as biting as Trump bankruptcies. And that is a totally legal option. Of course I don't have a lot of sympathy for those selling money and charging enough to overcome the risk associated.
huh? What are you talking about? The Benghazi hearing from the GOP members were softballs and cheerleaders? Anderson Cooper was the only one asking questions during the only debate and he indeed was asking "gotcha" questions and to the extreme where a competitor had to put himself in a politically disadvantage position and said "enough".
No clue where you are coming from.
I could be wrong but I think the first question Cooper asked Hillary was "would you say anything to be elected"? Did she pitch a fit? GOP= babies
Wait until "The Donald" get hold of her....that is, if he gets the nomination.
My TV also had some input from Dems in the hearings. All she had to do was to run the clock in responding to Repubs. The Dems were nothing short of cheerleaders. I obviously slept thru the "gotcha" questions. I saw the lovefest. Which questions did Cooper ask regarding Benghazi? Who asked her about the "Right wing conspiracy"? Does she still support all the defenses he made against the ladies who brought complaints? Has she provided defenses for all claims against Bill in public life. MO has been the same during his career. She is the only constant from the beginning.
I haven't heard anyone report those probing questions of Hillary by Cooper. I don't think all those items are pertinent. Just like a lot asked of Repubs. It is just the media intent to portray the different parties differently, or do you really think both sides are treated the same in their questions?
My TV also had some input from Dems in the hearings. All she had to do was to run the clock in responding to Repubs. The Dems were nothing short of cheerleaders. I obviously slept thru the "gotcha" questions. I saw the lovefest. Which questions did Cooper ask regarding Benghazi? Who asked her about the "Right wing conspiracy"? Does she still support all the defenses he made against the ladies who brought complaints? Has she provided defenses for all claims against Bill in public life. MO has been the same during his career. She is the only constant from the beginning.
I haven't heard anyone report those probing questions of Hillary by Cooper. I don't think all those items are pertinent. Just like a lot asked of Repubs. It is just the media intent to portray the different parties differently, or do you really think both sides are treated the same in their questions?
Yes, I realize you must have been asleep or not paying attention. Only reasonable excuse you could have for not knowing the truth.
I don't agree with the right wing spin that you follow. No, I don't think all the media treats both sides equally especially since there are so many op-ed type shows and outlets. They are not meant to be objective. But to date in the four debates that have been held, it is my belief that Anderson Cooper asked the toughest questions. The Fox anchors also asked some very tough questions and it sure pissed off Trump. The CNBC anchors did a poor job with the entire debate but their questions were nothing out of the ordinary and only the whiners and excuse makers have revolted. It is going to backfire on them and is exactly why Trump has flip flopped on the whining.
BRU, I honestly think you have made your mind up about me and project a lot more than I actually say. I bash Hillary, yes. That is one that I will give you. I did not see your clarifying response when I made the post you quoted. I don't bash Obama. I question some his decisions and they should be questioned. I have also given him deserved props when appropriate. The Dem bashing, you'll have to point out more of because I'm not sure I agree with you. I don't "bash" any specific Dems any more or less than I do specific GOP members. I equally call out ******** on both sides for things I agree on or disagree on.
There is no question, I more closely align with the GOP on fiscal and defense issues. I also more closely align with the DNC on social things like gay marriage and religion. As I said, I was giving Webb a hard look and have said numerous times that I could potentially support Biden had he ran depending on what the GOP put forward for the general. My position as I have stated and will continue to state is that we need someone who is going to get the machine working together again. We need someone to bridge the gap. Let's be honest, unless Hillary is indicted at this point, which we all know she won't be nor at present should be, will be the DNC nominee. How anyone can think she is the answer to bridging the gap is beyond me. So in my opinion, if she is elected, you can almost guarantee 4 more years of gridlock at best, at worst, we continue to polarize a significant portion of the country that will have consequences to the country as a whole. Not sure what those will be but we are not currently in a good place as a country and it will only get worse.
Specific to Hillary in the debate, Cooper threw out one tough question to her at the onset. The "say whatever will get you elected" question. Beyond that, there was nothing questioning her record, though several of the other candidates managed to shoehorn in points that required her to follow up. Regardless, the level of difficulty of the questions is going to be very subjective depending on your respective stance of Hillary. With that said, sometimes, it's not the question that is asked, it is how it is phrased in my opinion. For her, they were phrased so she could use the Clintonese approach to answering where she basically said nothing. On the GOP side, most of the questions that are asked are phrased in a way that "it's so obvious you should be against this, why are you for it"? Again, this is my opinion.
And you offer "the truth"? There is no reason for anyone else to watch anything political, but wait for your truthful analysis for the rest of us to get "the truth"? Bru, your offerings are not that much unlike the Trump offerings for everyone else to withdraw from the race. The difference being that Trump knows he is not being honest. Unless I am missing a hell of a lot of witty content in your offerings, I will have to admit that I do not read between the lines from you.
Here are some softballs Cooper asked Hillary:
1. Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency.
You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
Will you say anything to get elected?
2.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. Just in July, New Hampshire, you told the crowd you'd, quote, "take a back seat to no one when it comes to progressive values."
Last month in Ohio, you said you plead guilty to, quote, "being kind of moderate and center." Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?
3. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, on the campaign trail, Governor Webb has said that he would never have used military force in Libya and that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was inevitable. Should you have seen that attack coming?
4.
COOPER: And welcome back. We are live in Nevada, in Las Vegas, at the Wynn Resort for the first Democratic presidential debate. The questions continue.
We begin with Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your e-mails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it; you joked about it; you called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?
5. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, Secretary Clinton, with all due respect, it's a little hard -- I mean, isn't it a little bit hard to call this just a partisan issue? There's an FBI investigation, and President Obama himself just two days ago said this is a legitimate issue.
6.
COOPER: I'll let you jump in a moment. Everybody will get in on this in a moment.
Secretary Clinton, how would you address this issue? In all candor, you and your husband are part of the one percent. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?