GOP Primary Debate #3 |CNBC| Burning Bush

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you in the same reality I'm in?

The democratic debate threw plenty of hardball. The republicans are so far divorced from reality that nearly every everything is a hardball.

That and every line is either an OUTRIGHT lie or something insane.

Carson saying he wasn't affliated with a group that he gave speeches for and hawked products.

Trump among other things saying he never said Rubio was Zuckerburg's personal senator.

Huckabee's crazy insinuation that we aren't trying to cure harmful diseases and we should be able to cure them (easily) like we "cured" polio.

I've never seen more candidates in my life time completely dodge a question and talk about something completely different as much as they had tonight. The moderators were awful.
 
They should, they were complete amateurs. Dude did you watch the democratic debate? It was softball after softball. I don't really care but watching with unbiased eyes I think the republicans get the short end of the stick with the debates.

Softballs?

Anderson accused Clinton of changing her label from moderate to progressive based on who was in the room.

He asked Bernie why he thought he had a chance at the nomination when half the country wouldn't vote for a socialist.

He asked O'Malley why America should elect a man who was mayor of a city exploding in civil and racial unrest, and brought up the fact O'Malley was actually sued by the NAACP and ACLU.

He asked Webb why he was in the Democratic Party given he opposed affirmative action as racist to whites, given half the party was non-white.

He asked Sanders why he was flip-flipping on arms manufacturers being held accountable for mass shootings.

He asked if Hillary was capable of being President given her inability to put her email scandal behind her.

He pretty much destroyed Chafee's candidacy on the spot when he pressed him about voting for the bank bill he didn't understand on his first day.

I'm going to stop here because I've just gone a third of the way through the transcript, but I cannot for the life see how any of these questions are softballs.

The candidates just answered them better (Chafee aside lol) and didn't chuck a tantrum at the idea of held to account.
 
Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.
 
Bottom line, tonight the moderators looked like amateurs
They certainly did, but because they were incapable of controlling the debate and were unequipped with actual sources and citations for their questions, not because they asked pointed questions about critiques of the candidates.

Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.
Except it's laughable that CNBC has a left wing agenda. Simply laughable.
 
Schattenjäger;183349895 said:
I'll take either combination.
Kasich has more experience though.

It would be the Republican version of Obama/Biden, I guess.

Elect the minority President from a state with a large amount of electoral college votes and then put an experienced older guy behind him to combat arguments about experience.
 
Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.

Do you really want to use fox news as a baseline for moderate?
 
It did start strong and cooper was harsh but questions got soft and tone was fucking jovial. There is no way you can sit here and say democratic debate had moderators that tried there best to cut the candidates down. Cooper would ask a tough question then back off.

I can tell you this, Anderson cooper is a million times better then these assclowns. Dude was a great moderator and I like him moderating any side.

Bottom line, tonight the moderators looked like amateurs

It's the GOP. They are going to attack any news outlet that isn't part of the right wing media machine.

Let's not pretend otherwise.
 
Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.
Asking hard hitting questions and keeping candidates under control is supposed to be their job. That said, the first debate done by Fox was absolutely terrible. They tried to crush Trump right from the start and it was obvious to everyone. I'm sorry if the first thirty minutes of CNBC moderation wasn't to your taste, but that is how it's supposed to be done. The few questions pitting candidates against each other regarding their "morality" and such isn't cool, but that was NOT most of the debate we saw tonight.
 
It's weird because the moderators were talking before the debate started and they were all clearly militant Republicans. Those were the same people, weren't they?
 
Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.

It's not the moderator's fault the GOP candidates live in a dreamworld, in this care reality really does have a liberal bias.

Besides it's CNBC, most financial journalists couldn't be more pro-business if they spread their cheeks.
 
The moderators didn't look bad because they seemed liberal. They looked bad because they were just terrible at moderating and the format was bad too
 
I seem to recall a lot of substantive questions being answered with total garbage in the last two debates, so I don't know what people are complaining about.

"What will you do to combat ISIS?"

"Well first of all I would not be afraid to call it what it is, Islamic terrorism, unlike our current President."

And that's the entire answer. Fucking amazing.
 
It did start strong and cooper was harsh but questions got soft and tone was fucking jovial. There is no way you can sit here and say democratic debate had moderators that tried there best to cut the candidates down. Cooper would ask a tough question then back off.

I can tell you this, Anderson cooper is a million times better then these assclowns. Dude was a great moderator and I like him moderating any side.

Bottom line, tonight the moderators looked like amateurs
I disagree. Cooper lit fire on Chafee's hair late in the debate, prompting him to say that infamous line about his first vote. And here is a question that came up late as well:
COOPER: That's right. Secretary Clinton, Governor O'Malley says the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth between two royal families. This year has been the year of the outsider in politics, just ask Bernie Sanders. Why should Democrats embrace an insider like yourself?
Patriot Act
COOPER: Governor Chafee, you and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Patriot Act which created the NSA surveillance program. You've emphasized civil liberties, privacy during your campaign. Aren't these two things in conflict?
Anderson Cooper was respectful, but tough and he did not ask ANY softball questions.
 
Guys once again this has nothing to do with The candidates. Talking about moderators, these people came off like they had a serious left wing objective. The other moderators both cnn and Fox News didn't seem like this.

People are challenging the idea that you put out there that the democratic debate was full of softball questions. It is incorrect.

People are challenging the idea that CNBC is a network of biased liberals. It is incorrect.

The questions might have been shit. Some of them were stupid, but CNBC being some sort of liberal haven is so laughably false it makes my head spin.
 
I disagree. Cooper lit fire on Chafee's hair late in the debate, prompting him to say that infamous line about his first vote. And here is a question that came up late as well:

Patriot Act

Anderson Cooper was respectful, but tough and he did not ask ANY softball questions.

Cooper needs to be given every debate, especially the ones in the general. Sadly the GOP will never let it happen.
 
I mean, what kind of "hardball" question should Anderson Cooper have asked Hillary?

"Secretary Clinton, on the night of Sept 11 2012 you personally ordered ambassador Stevens to stay in the compound in Benghazi as you directed Al Qaida terrorists to his location. When Chris Stevens tried to get out, you gave the order to Sidney Blumenthal to parachute into the compound with an RPG launcher and smoke grenades and kill him, which he did so. Do you regret making that decision?"
 
Also some of the questions asked were not even fact checked beforehand. I didn't see that from the other three debates

If anything that made the questions the GOP candidates got softballs though.

If Becky Quick knew Trump's website had that Mark Zuckerberg line, and Trump wasn't able to pretend she made it up, that might have done some serious damage to him.

If anything the lack of research let the candidates lie.
 
Also some of the questions asked were not even fact checked beforehand. I didn't see that from the other three debates
Most of them were properly factual, the moderators were just stupidly lacking the actual citations. Any moderator arriving to a debate expecting candidates to passively and politely accept the underlying premises of unflattering questions is a fool.
 
Also some of the questions asked were not even fact checked beforehand. I didn't see that from the other three debates

Now THAT was a problem. When Trump flat out lied about the Rubio/Zuckerberg comment, the moderator needed to know exactly where that comment came from, at that moment. The whole, "then where did I hear that from?" was amateurish, and gave Trump a bat to beat them with.
 
If Becky Quick knew Trump's website had that Mark Zuckerberg line, and Trump wasn't able to pretend she made it up, that might have done some serious damage to him.

It would be a useful feature if the moderators could put the source material and/or websites on the screen behind the candidates or something, instead of taking them at their word.
 
Just read in an article that if Fiorina barely managed to muster a bump in the polls after the 2nd debate, where everyone said she won, how's she gonna do after this one where she got lost in the mix of candidates.
 
Now THAT was a problem. When Trump flat out lied about the Rubio/Zuckerberg comment, the moderator needed to know exactly where that comment came from, at that moment. The whole, "then where did I hear that from?" was amateurish, and gave Trump a bat to beat them with.
Which Trump hit a homerun on.

Fucking amateur hour.
 
Now THAT was a problem. When Trump flat out lied about the Rubio/Zuckerberg comment, the moderator needed to know exactly where that comment came from, at that moment. The whole, "then where did I hear that from?" was amateurish, and gave Trump a bat to beat them with.

A five year old could have handled it from that point.

"Why don't you know what's on the policy positions on your own website?"

"What else is on there that you don't believe?"

"Do you just say whatever is convenient in the moment Mr Trump?"
 
Just read in an article that if Fiorina barely managed to muster a bump in the polls after the 2nd debate, where everyone said she won, how's she gonna do after this one where she got lost in the mix of candidates.
You know, the NASDAQ dropped 80 percent — 80 percent — and it took 15 years for the NASDAQ to recover.
 
Actually thought these moderators were the worst tbh- a lot of sort of "gotcha/gossipy" moments, which I totally enjoyed, but weren't as substantive as the last too. Didn't think they were more biased than the past one tho.

Mostly it think it's just too many candidates for how much time is there.
 
7 Republicans debate in 1995: http://www.c-span.org/video/?63441-1/new-hampshire-republican-forum

9 Republicans debate in 1995: http://www.c-span.org/video/?69366-1/republican-presidential-candidates-debate

They also used to do candidate forums where each went one at a time with moderator questions:
10 Republicans in one in 1995: http://www.c-span.org/video/?67578-1/republican-presidential-candidates-forum

You can find a lot more of those forums in the 1980s and 1990s. But it's hard to create drama if the candidates can't insult each other back and forth about the SCANDAL OF THE WEEK.

So hilarious to watch cause none of those clowns were beating Bill Clinton.

LOL
 
Just read in an article that if Fiorina barely managed to muster a bump in the polls after the 2nd debate, where everyone said she won, how's she gonna do after this one where she got lost in the mix of candidates.

Fiorina was pretty interesting in that she was able to talk her way out of the kiddie table debate into the big leagues debate. But that's pretty much as far as she'll go. She has no substance whatsoever, her business record is a black hole on her career history, and she's LTTP as the two leading "outsider" candidates are Trump and Carson. Compared to those two, Trump's business record isn't a complete embarrassment and Carson is like the Keanu Reeves of politics.

It was a nice dream, Carly. But in the end it was just a dream.
 
A five year old could have handled it from that point.

"Why don't you know what's on the policy positions on your own website?"

"What else is on there that you don't believe?"

"Do you just say whatever is convenient in the moment Mr Trump?"

Instead its a cut from commercial:

"Well I found out where I read that… from the Trump website!" *crickets*
 
The person who really stood out for me was Christie. He seemed floundering and desperate. Pretty much everything he said in any question was inevitably spun into "blab blah blah EVIL HILLARY blah blah blah BIG GOVERNMENT BAD".

His closing remarks were just cringe. Really basic shit you learn in high school debating. "OK, look at the camera, now forceful but not too forceful, ask these canned rhetorical questions". It's like he was on a late-night infomercial on QVC. "Are you TIRED of inconvenient government making your life harder? Are you frustrated with what's going on? Do you ever want a household cleaner that JUST WORKS?? WELL HAVE I GOT THE PRODUCT FOR YOU!!!"
 
The person who really stood out for me was Christie. He seemed floundering and desperate. Pretty much everything he said in any question was inevitably spun into "blab blah blah EVIL HILLARY blah blah blah BIG GOVERNMENT BAD".

His closing remarks were just cringe. Really basic shit you learn in high school debating. "OK, look at the camera, now forceful but not too forceful, ask these canned rhetorical questions". It's like he was on a late-night infomercial on QVC. "Are you TIRED of inconvenient government making your life harder? Are you frustrated with what's going on? Do you ever want a household cleaner that JUST WORKS?? WELL HAVE I GOT THE PRODUCT FOR YOU!!!"

Lmao, that's a great way to describe it. Spot on.
 
The person who really stood out for me was Christie. He seemed floundering and desperate. Pretty much everything he said in any question was inevitably spun into "blab blah blah EVIL HILLARY blah blah blah BIG GOVERNMENT BAD".

His closing remarks were just cringe. Really basic shit you learn in high school debating. "OK, look at the camera, now forceful but not too forceful, ask these canned rhetorical questions". It's like he was on a late-night infomercial on QVC. "Are you TIRED of inconvenient government making your life harder? Are you frustrated with what's going on? Do you ever want a household cleaner that JUST WORKS?? WELL HAVE I GOT THE PRODUCT FOR YOU!!!"

It's really hard to believe that at one point, he was the chosen one. People legitimately thought he was going to be a threat for the Presidency. The thought had actually crossed my mind more than once too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom