Lets see if MSNBC can match the spectacular job that was done last night.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/media/gop-debate-fox-news-ratings/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/media/gop-debate-fox-news-ratings/index.html
This shattered all records.....
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
The NY Times called in an inquisition, not a debate. There is not a single lib outfit (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC) that would be nearly as tough on Dems. Fair and Balanced indeed.
Another comment by you that again exposes your agenda.
Other than the start, I thought the production of the debate was quite good. Questions could have been better but I most certainly have seen worse. I give it a B by Fox News. But regardless of the job Fox did last night, it has nothing in regards how another network might do. Totally assinine.
So let me get this straight from a nutjob like you. You criticize softball questions posed Obama but when posed to GOP candidates, you stand up and applaud it.
Yup......we all understand your warped trolling.
Last night was softball questions? That's insane. Obama wasn't vetted. He was totally unprepared. No leadership skills. The media failed in its job because they had an agenda. And America has paid a dear price.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say those were softball questions last night. Every question that was asked hit right to the point and allowed very little room for wiggle. Even when the candidate tried to shy away, they went right back at them. Hell they offered Trump additional time to try and address his allegation of having direct evidence the Mexican Gov't was behind sending people our way. It was absolutely nothing like any debate I have seen in the past 2 election cycles. Do you not remember Candy Crowley lying on behalf of Obama to assist him on the Benghazi thing?
I agree that were not softball. Wasn't the point.
For god's sake, I was complimentary of the job Fox did and gave them a B. And you two still can not see through the hatred for Obama and anything from those like myself that don't fall in line with right-wing talking points. If whacko behavior wasn't so sad, it would be funny. But it is actually sad.
You have an inability to read deeper into comments, we know. This is why you are who you are and since you need help reading deeper, that was not a compliment.
Lol. Reading deeper? Typical lib. Don't listen to my words, I actually meant something else.
Maybe your buddy devil will tell you about the agreement he made to my comment about "interview questions" this morning. Then after that, maybe you will get past your 3rd grade reading comprehension and understand irony and sarcasm. But then again, you probably are still wondering why doc posted a picture of a bunch of cars in a traffic jam. We know you are not too bright.
These morons are so stupid. Trump doesn't care about anything except himself. He's playing these wingnuts and they don't even know it. Yet the plurality of Repubs right now are supporting him...he tells it like it is they say. How embarrassing that a significant number of our citizens support this reality tv huckster for the presidency.
The Reoublican field is infinitely stronger than the Dem field. Dems are praying that the clown named Biden will run. As of now, you have a lying, felon in Hillary and an avowed socialist in Sanders.
Patraeus did far less and pled out. If DOJ were honest and independent they'd bring charges of mishandling classified materials. She's obviously guilty.
How can you arrive at Trump is attempting to take down Fox? Is that just a bit of hyperbole on your part?
Up front, I think all the Repub candidates are strong and good except Rand Paul. I could support any of them and will eventually support the winner of the General. I only saw a short segment of the debate due to loss of power. What I saw, hosts were being pure *** holes in general and Trump in particular. It may not be PC, but if he is backed into a corner he will respond. That may not be Presidential, but it is reality for most.
Fox hosts were directing the debate with 3-4 minutes to form a question and the candidates given one minute to respond. No time given for puffery in the answer. They could only answer directly which actually played to Trump strength, but it was obvious that there was an intent to expose him for what they thought he was.
This Red thing in Atlanta was terrible. It allowed one man to invite those he though were worthy of being called Repubs. Hearing this, I was mad as hell at that forum and the Republicans that would allow fellow Republican candidates to be excluded by one individual's concept. Then I heard this AM that John Kasich had also been excluded. I that point, I realized this man and his forum was complete zero and not worthy of hosting Republicans. That left me with the participants, and they are going to have to impress me greatly to get my support.
It crossed my mind that this kind of treatment was what Trump was alluding to when he would not pledge to support the winner if Repubs acted in some manner. Is this the **** he was referring to?
Up front, I think all the Repub candidates are strong and good except Rand Paul. I could support any of them and will eventually support the winner of the General. I only saw a short segment of the debate due to loss of power. What I saw, hosts were being pure *** holes in general and Trump in particular. It may not be PC, but if he is backed into a corner he will respond. That may not be Presidential, but it is reality for most.
Fox hosts were directing the debate with 3-4 minutes to form a question and the candidates given one minute to respond. No time given for puffery in the answer. They could only answer directly which actually played to Trump strength, but it was obvious that there was an intent to expose him for what they thought he was.
This Red thing in Atlanta was terrible. It allowed one man to invite those he though were worthy of being called Repubs. Hearing this, I was mad as hell at that forum and the Republicans that would allow fellow Republican candidates to be excluded by one individual's concept. Then I heard this AM that John Kasich had also been excluded. I that point, I realized this man and his forum was complete zero and not worthy of hosting Republicans. That left me with the participants, and they are going to have to impress me greatly to get my support.
It crossed my mind that this kind of treatment was what Trump was alluding to when he would not pledge to support the winner if Repubs acted in some manner. Is this the **** he was referring to?
That and the establishment directly and indirectly attacking him politically and professionally.
I think the questions they asked Trump were fair. He said those things, he should have to either explain, clarify, or own his statements.
That's the one thing I really liked about the debate. Fox asked them all questions about things they have stated as their position and platform. They deserve to be held accountable for them, good/bad/indifferent. If they are embarrassed by their statements, actions, or beliefs, then why say them? I think Fox understands of we want a Republican in office, especially in this election, it can't be one of these hard line GOP religious Huckabee/Cruz type candidates. 80% of the country is turned off by that ****. It's great if you have strong beliefs, but it makes you unelectable.
Looks like we will disagree a bit on this one a bit. The first question to raise hands..... . was out of line. If it was something that had to be asked, ask it directly Trump. Nor do I think it would be proper to get a Rush type to interrogate Hillary about Bill's affairs. Was there a "vast right wing conspiracy"? She said it, she must own and explain it. What about the women that Hillary made statements about?
I could accept/support any of the Republicans on ticket currently except Ron Paul. I got irritated toward Trump when he identified himself as reserving the right is he is mistreated by the Repub Party. Then I thought about Rience Preibus attempting to tone Trump down. Who the hell is he to put demands on anyone in the campaign. If Trump(or whoever) wins the nomination, why would that individual not be charged to work for the nominee rather than attempt to be a manager. RP is not a political broker.
If Trump wins the Repub nomination, how is it anyone in the party has a reason to question the will of the people? Odds may be long, but until his party removes him, I don't think anyone has a legitimate right to question his approach.
What is the plank of anyone at this point in the process. I'll suggest to you that this early, we do not know enough about any of the contestants to compare and contrast.
GOP will never own the Whit House, all of congress and the majority of governorships and state houses now.