The GOP, is the party of winners, cancel future debate.

[ivwshane]

https://gop.com/nbc-letter/

I knew Republicans are a bunch of ******* and this just confirms it. They complain about the media and yet they use it to push their agenda (fox news). They complain about not being able to discuss the issues and when questions come up regarding their policies they pivot and talk about something else.

Here's an article with account point to the repubs complaints.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

 

[CADsortaGUY]

https://gop.com/nbc-letter/

I knew Republicans are a bunch of ******* and this just confirms it. They complain about the media and yet they use it to push their agenda (fox news). They complain about not being able to discuss the issues and when questions come up regarding their policies they pivot and talk about something else.

Here's an article with account point to the repubs complaints.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

lol klein. The tone, delivery, and banter is why CNBC was rightly booed. If the questions would have been asked in a straight forward manner all would have been fine but that snarky bitch just couldn't help herself all night. It's like she was hell bent on "getting" one of them.

NBC cancels trump stuff over politics - liberals cheer. RNC cancels NBC stuff - liberals whine. Go figure.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I heard Dan Rather on the radio this morning, you know that super conservative guy (sarcasm) he agreed CNBC did a poor job moderating the debate. I don't think its weird for the RNC to not give them another chance.

 

[Newell Steamer]

The media is de facto a Liberal boogie man who decimates Conservatives - yet, Fox News is #1 in ratings.

So, when the networks who are trailing last or a distant 2nd utter ANYTHING negative about Conservatives, there is all out screaming and wailing on how there is a media bias against Conservatives.

Also, what is bias? Calling out an abortion video that is really a miscarriage video is bias? Pointing out how those who demand NO government involvement are they themselves directly benefiting from government involvement? These cries of victimization are no different than soccer players who double over in supposed pain when someone lightly grazes them on the field.

 

[DrDoug]

I heard Dan Rather on the radio this morning, you know that super conservative guy (sarcasm) he agreed CNBC did a poor job moderating the debate. I don't think its weird for the RNC to not give them another chance.

They did a poor job of moderating because the idiots they were supposed to be moderating are anything but moderate...lol! Herding rabid cats would be easier than trying to get those gasbags to stop preening and grandstanding on the stage for their supporters. They don't need Democrats or the media to make them look bad, they do that quite well all on their own. I say put them in a cage, toss in a piece of paper that says "YOU WIN THE NOMINATION!" and let them duke it out.

Make it PPV and the RNC will rake in the cash! :biggrin:

 

[Jhhnn]

lol klein. The tone, delivery, and banter is why CNBC was rightly booed. If the questions would have been asked in a straight forward manner all would have been fine but that snarky bitch just couldn't help herself all night. It's like she was hell bent on "getting" one of them.

NBC cancels trump stuff over politics - liberals cheer. RNC cancels NBC stuff - liberals whine. Go figure.

Nice whine, yourself.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I agree that the moderation was an absolute travesty. The Mods would interrupt Trump (or somebody) after a few seconds, attacking what he was saying. There were relatively long periods of cacophony, candidate refusing to shut up when Mod was trying to drown him out. It's normal to let a candidate finish a sentence or two when time has expired, but some candidates were allowed to add several paragraphs, while others were cut off, insulted etc. Part of the problem may have been using "moderators" like Jim Cramer, probably not even a competent interviewer let alone moderator.

CNBC's performance was an utter joke. I hope they're duly embarrassed. Although, the Fox moderators in the first debate did more of the "Hey, he said this about you. What about that?" type of question than either CNN or CNBC.

Still one has to blame the GOP candidates themselves for these travesties. Bullshit ideas and blatant lying now seem to be the norm. When Trump said "I'm going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it" - Is this not a serious policy prescription?. doesn't it warrant a question like, "How do you expect to accomplish this?" In conjunction with some of the other things Trump has said, warrant a question like, "Why should we continue to take you seriously when you propose such complete nonsense?"

If you take positions that have gone beyond realistic and into crazy land, highlight that fact for the folks at home. ETA: If some of the GOP candidates don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard, maybe they ought to try re-establishing their connection with reality. What I'm interested in is debates which actually fulfill their purpose of helping voters make up their minds about candidates.

I think the crux of the question is really what role should moderators have when candidates' positions are actively contradicted by basic reality. Until voters demonstrate they care that candidates are lying to them, candidates will continue to lie. Journalists should still point this out when this is happening. Also, when you don't like the question or don't have a good answer - the fallback is to attack the question and the person asking it (media). This has been going on forever.

Another problem is that there are to many fucking candidates. Some of the batshits, Cruz, Huckabee etc., who have no chance of winning, should drop out so some of the saner ones such as Rubio and Kasich can get their idea's out to the public without the batshit drowning them out.

 

[CitizenKain]

The republican candidates were too stupid to handle questions they weren't prepared for. This is somehow the fault of the moderators.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Raise your hand if you didn't expect the libs to sandbag the GOP debate. It's rather shocking that those morons couldn't see it coming. The letter is pretty freaking funny too. Not gonna fool us twice!

 

[ivwshane]

First off CNBC is hardly a liberal media arm. Hell one of the people asking questions was a tea partier himself!

 

[hardhat]

Honestly I agree that some of the moderation and questions weren't very good. However, I still thought that it was the best debate to date. I am completely serious. It was the only debate to begin to actually talk about the candidate's proposed economic and social policies instead of focusing on 'who can dis Obama and Clinton the most'.
It's pretty ridiculous for the RNC to withdraw from future debates as if they think those questions hit a little too close to home they don't have any idea how bad the actual campaigns will be once the nominations are finished. Why not see how candidates can handle the pressure now? The moderators may have been bad, but they were not partial to any particular candidate as far as I noticed. And the reasons given in the letter could absolutely apply to each of the other debates as well.

 

[DrDoug]

I agree that the moderation was an absolute travesty. The Mods would interrupt Trump (or somebody) after a few seconds, attacking what he was saying. There were relatively long periods of cacophony, candidate refusing to shut up when Mod was trying to drown him out. It's normal to let a candidate finish a sentence or two when time has expired, but some candidates were allowed to add several paragraphs, while others were cut off, insulted etc. Part of the problem may have been using "moderators" like Jim Cramer, probably not even a competent interviewer let alone moderator.

CNBC's performance was an utter joke. I hope they're duly embarrassed. Although, the Fox moderators in the first debate did more of the "Hey, he said this about you. What about that?" type of question than either CNN or CNBC.

Still one has to blame the GOP candidates themselves for these travesties. Bullshit ideas and blatant lying now seem to be the norm. When Trump said "I'm going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it" - Is this not a serious policy prescription?. doesn't it warrant a question like, "How do you expect to accomplish this?" In conjunction with some of the other things Trump has said, warrant a question like, "Why should we continue to take you seriously when you propose such complete nonsense?"

If you take positions that have gone beyond realistic and into crazy land, highlight that fact for the folks at home. ETA: If some of the GOP candidates don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard, maybe they ought to try re-establishing their connection with reality. What I'm interested in is debates which actually fulfill their purpose of helping voters make up their minds about candidates.

I think the crux of the question is really what role should moderators have when candidates' positions are actively contradicted by basic reality. Until voters demonstrate they care that candidates are lying to them, candidates will continue to lie. Journalists should still point this out when this is happening. Also, when you don't like the question or don't have a good answer - the fallback is to attack the question and the person asking it (media). This has been going on forever.

Another problem is that there are to many fucking candidates. Some of the batshits, Cruz, Huckabee etc., who have no chance of winning, should drop out so some of the saner ones such as Rubio and Kasich can get their idea's out to the public without the batshit drowning them out.

Maybe the Republicans need to hold their own debates with their own cherry-picked moderators asking questions that all of the candidates have seen beforehand and approved, then selectively invite the press they want to cover it. Because the way the Republicans have set it up, that's the only way they will get the kind of debate they believe would be fair to them. The whole press corpse and their networks/outlets are librul so there's no other way for them to have the kind of debates they want unless they do it all and send out invites to the people they trust to cover it the "Right way". I would bet right now that even if they did this it would be another massive train wreck.

Yup, every news outlet in the nation is out to get Republicans. Hell, the only unity the idiots showed at the last debate was in attacking the press.

What leadership...lol!

 

[boomerang]

Yeah, well you guys just wait until the Democrats hold their debate on Fox News. The tables are going to be turned then I'll tell ya. The moderators on Fox are gonna tear Hillary and Bernie new assholes.

Oh ... wait, the DNC won't hold a debate on Fox News.

There's some leadership for ya!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...hould-Host-a-Democratic-Debate-Part-I-But-Why

Of course I acknowledge that Fox News generally represents an entity out to tarnish and destroy the Democratic brand, and cannot deny the possibility that such a debate could devolve into a shitshow.

Hmm, like CNBC's debate turned out?

Contrasting the tactics of Fox News compared to other networks, one might imagine that they would make it extremely difficult to craft an effective Democratic message, let alone one that speaks to Republican voters.

Hmm, let's change a few words around, shall we?

"Contrasting the tactics of CNBC compared to other networks, one might imagine that they would make it extremely difficult to craft an effective Republican message, let alone one that speaks to Democrat voters."

Some of you guys really crack me up with your partisan demagoguery.

 

[hardhat]

Boomerang, thanks for your viewpoint. I wonder how it contrasts to mine on the general fairness and merits of the debate.

Do you think that the moderators were partial to any particular candidate?
Do you think that the debate was more or less focused on the economic and social policies of the candidates in comparison to previous debates?

These aren't 'gotcha' questions. I honestly would like to know what you thought.

 

[DrPizza]

Yeah, well you guys just wait until the Democrats hold their debate on Fox News. The tables are going to be turned then I'll tell ya. The moderators on Fox are gonna tear Hillary and Bernie new assholes.

Gee, didn't the Republicans just spend 11 straight hours attempting to "gotcha" with Hilary? And, she stood up to them just fine. Yet, the Republicans get a couple of minutes (each) of "gotchas" thrown at them and they bend, buckle, and cry about it. I don't think that either Hillary or Bernie will have any problems with Fox.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yeah, well you guys just wait until the Democrats hold their debate on Fox News. The tables are going to be turned then I'll tell ya. The moderators on Fox are gonna tear Hillary and Bernie new assholes.

Oh ... wait, the DNC won't hold a debate on Fox News.

There's some leadership for ya!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...hould-Host-a-Democratic-Debate-Part-I-But-Why

Hmm, like CNBC's debate turned out?

Hmm, let's change a few words around, shall we?

"Contrasting the tactics of CNBC compared to other networks, one might imagine that they would make it extremely difficult to craft an effective Republican message, let alone one that speaks to Democrat voters."

Some of you guys really crack me up with your partisan demagoguery.

Fox isnt a real news station they are entertainment. They said this themselves.

 

[Subyman]

Fox had some crazy questions too. Crazy candidates = crazy questions to answer.

 

[sportage]

Oh hahaha.
So republicans want to adopt a "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" debate format?
I think what they really want is a circle jerk (Carly... good luck), with 3 hours of Hillary bashing.
Yeah, like that will get them elected.....

We had maybe one question from CNBC that was over of line, that being the question for Huckabee over Trump's religion (something like that).
And Donald handled that very well. Donald didn't need any help defending himself.

As far as nailing Carson on his association with snake oil salesmen, THAT was 100% legit question because it is well documented Carson is and was indeed hand-in-hand involved with this shady snake oil manufacturing company.
And sure.... Carson DID NOT enjoy being exposed as a Schmuch, cheat, snake oil salesman, and a lowlife that he obviously is.
And for Carson, I truly suspect his religious is lacking of moral authority.
Carson is just another republican, exactly like so many others, that use religion as a weapon. Kinda like an assault weapon.
I tryly doubt he has a clue what it is to be religious beyond what he has on his cue cards.
Carson gave up his medical career to make the fast buck selling a product that is total scam. Carson is nothing more than some snake oil salesman. That is where his morality begins, and ends.
And THERE you have the real Ben Carson. Say hello to Ben.....

Then take Trump.
Exposed for not knowing what he has on his own website.
Oh yeah guys, its easy to bash Obama and Hillary over their running of the country, when you yourself have not a clue on how to run a debate let alone an entire nation.
Ypu think things are bad now.... Just elected anyone of these schmucks as your next president. THEN you will know what true pain is.

As far as the republicans debates go, I have the better idea.
Turn the process over to Disney. Disney is the master at creating fantasy, which republicans on the debate stage obviously would prefer.

The republican debate. Don't ask (us), and we won't have to tell you.

 

[DrDoug]

Hillary sure acts a hell of a lot more presidential than the clown car full of Republican presidential candidates when under pressure, that's for sure. Hillary spent eleven hours in front of a hostile Republican-led House committee and what did she do? Show up and deal with it. What do the Republican candidates do when asked a simple questions about their positions by a reporter at a debate? They attack the reporter and whine about it afterward. Hillary shows she can deal with tough assholes and the Republican candidates can't. They can't handle a damned reporter so how are they going to handle Putin, for example? Are these the leaders we should listen to?

Nope, they're a bunch of whiny wimps who can't handle pressure.

 

[stormkroe]

From the admittedly few spots I've read about this latest outrage, isn't the problem that the mods were asking Kardashian trash style questions instead of important policy questions?

 

[UberNeuman]

Hey, OP. You misspelled "whiners" in your topic header.

 

[bozack]

Hillary sure acts a hell of a lot more presidential than the clown car full of Republican presidential candidates when under pressure, that's for sure. Hillary spent eleven hours in front of a hostile Republican-led House committee and what did she do? Show up and deal with it. What do the Republican candidates do when asked a simple questions about their positions by a reporter at a debate? They attack the reporter and whine about it afterward. Hillary shows she can deal with tough assholes and the Republican candidates can't. They can't handle a damned reporter so how are they going to handle Putin, for example? Are these the leaders we should listen to?

Nope, they're a bunch of whiny wimps who can't handle pressure.

Right because nothing says "being presidential" like lying, breaking the law, cronyism, blame avoidance, and shifting policy stances like she is whipping and nay nay....

As others have said all of the bitching in this thread becomes valid once the dems decide to have a debate on Fox, the one and only conservative leaning television network that isn't even regarded by those here as "news"...always love the false equivalence from the lefties on this board CNBC was a joke, why even bother with another of their affiliates or in this case Parent.

 

[werepossum]

Right because nothing says "being presidential" like lying, breaking the law, cronyism, blame avoidance, and shifting policy stances like she is whipping and nay nay....

As others have said all of the bitching in this thread becomes valid once the dems decide to have a debate on Fox, the one and only conservative leaning television network that isn't even regarded by those here as "news"...always love the false equivalence from the lefties on this board CNBC was a joke, why even bother with another of their affiliates or in this case Parent.

Considering MSNBC, might have to modify that to "when the Dems hold a debate moderated by the John Birch Society."

 

[ivwshane]

Hey, OP. You misspelled "whiners" in your topic header.

Ahahaha!! Damn auto correct!

 

[DrDoug]

Right because nothing says "being presidential" like lying, breaking the law, cronyism, blame avoidance, and shifting policy stances like she is whipping and nay nay....

As others have said all of the bitching in this thread becomes valid once the dems decide to have a debate on Fox, the one and only conservative leaning television network that isn't even regarded by those here as "news"...always love the false equivalence from the lefties on this board CNBC was a joke, why even bother with another of their affiliates or in this case Parent.

Fox defended themselves in court by stating that they are an entertainment network and not a news network. They chose to define themselves that way, so be it. Regarding Fox, the Democrats can boycott Fox and still appear on many other networks. How are the network options looking for Republicans lately? Yeah... Regarding Hillary and lying, I don't give a shit about what she said because that is not what I am talking about, so great way to miss the point Sparky! I'm talking about appearances; projecting calm, cool authority and dealing with shit like a pro. Republican presidential candidates can't do it, she can.

End of story.