(10-30-2015 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I've said before, I don't understand why they can't do it the way Lincoln and Douglas did to start this whole debate frenzy--let the candidates ask each other questions.

I don't see that having the moderators go around asking different questions of different candidates serves any useful purpose. It certainly doesn't qualify the proceedings to be called a debate.

Also, I have never quite understood the usefulness of debates as a method of choosing among candidates. Being president is not running a debating society, it's getting things done. That's a whole different skill set, and one that is more easily measured by looking at a resume than by looking at a debate. Fortunately for us, the guys who win the debate contests frequently turn out to be very bad at getting things done, since most of the things they want to get done would be pretty horrible if they actually happened.

Very much agree with you on debates. Its a different skill set than being president. Its also not a real debate, but just a couple of people trying to twist a moderators question so they can repeat their standard campaign talking points. With the primaries, the latter isn't so bad, but the Presidential debates in September and October get pretty bad.

(10-30-2015 02:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 02:40 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I think the biggest issue the GOP had was with the tone of the questions and how they did not allow people to answer questions. Several times the moderators made back handed remarks when the candidate answered their question. Examples:

HARWOOD: Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit.
TRUMP: Right.
HARWOOD: And make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others.
TRUMP: That’s right.
HARWOOD: Let’s be honest.
(LAUGHTER)
Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

HARWOOD: We’re at 60 seconds, but I gotta ask you, you talked about your tax plan. You say that it would not increase the deficit because you cut taxes $10 trillion in the economy would take off like…
(CROSSTALK)
HARWOOD: Hold on, hold on. The economy would take off like a rocket ship.
TRUMP: Right. Dynamically.
HARWOOD: I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.

Those are legitimate concerns that people have. A question about Trump calling people stupid and saying he's much smarter than everyone is going to arise sooner or later. And speaking to economic advisers of both parties who have a consensus that such tax plans are - at least - unfeasible...

These are issues that the GOP needs to address and fix now, otherwise they will be absolutely annihilated in the generals. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing that - but it's clear that was the intent of the CNBC debate, to get the discussion on the problems that majority of Americans have with GOP candidates and positions. How can you honestly say you will win the election if you refuse to tackle the criticisms of your own politics?

Did you watch the debate? Or listen to it? The condescension and sneering down their noses was unmistakable. The basis of some of the questions may have been "fair", the way they were asked and the tone taken when asking was clearly that they were above having to address such rubes and they were far to anxious to answer the questions for them and put words and answers in their mouths.

The questions were designed to get the answer the "moderators" thought they were looking for, 90% of them designed to paint the candidate and GOP in the worse light possible. Worst moderated debate I've ever had the displeasure of witnessing and I've been watching/listening to these things since around 1975.

I wish I could find the article again, but someone did an analysis of the language used in the Lincoln-Douglas debates compared to recent debates. I don't remember the exact comparison, but it was something like college level language vs. 5th grade level now.

And they were talking about real things that really mattered. The issues they talked about lead to a half million dead Americans in the next decade.

(10-30-2015 04:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I've said before, I don't understand why they can't do it the way Lincoln and Douglas did to start this whole debate frenzy--let the candidates ask each other questions.

I don't see that having the moderators go around asking different questions of different candidates serves any useful purpose. It certainly doesn't qualify the proceedings to be called a debate.

Also, I have never quite understood the usefulness of debates as a method of choosing among candidates. Being president is not running a debating society, it's getting things done. That's a whole different skill set, and one that is more easily measured by looking at a resume than by looking at a debate. Fortunately for us, the guys who win the debate contests frequently turn out to be very bad at getting things done, since most of the things they want to get done would be pretty horrible if they actually happened.

Its hard to do that when there are a million candidates.

You're right, it'd be much better if they just decided eight years ago who the nominee would be.

1. If the debate is about the economy, ask questions about the economy. Ask about the budget. Ask about taxes. Ask, then shut the f*&k up and let them speak.

2. The yappy dog in the middle wouldnt allow a question to be answered without constantly interjecting "the numbers dont add up" , "i've run the numbers, thats not right","Youd have to get rid of 40% of the budget", "your time is up your time is up your time is up your time is up"

No, *****, their time isnt up, because you yapped non-stop through half the answer. How about shutting the f*&k up?

3. This is a republican debate. This is for republican voters to decide which candidate they want, normally determining if someone is conservative or not on certain issues. In this case, it was supposed to be on the economy, taxes, and the budget. Asking one of these guys how they can be on the board of a gay friendly company without vomiting is not an appropriate question.

4. CNBC is supposed to be a financial network. I watch the show in the early morning. Why werent any of those guys moderators instead of the clueless f*cks they had.

5. When you incorrectly state an entity's position on Marco Rubios plan, and Rubio calls you out and says you already had to issue a correction on that statement, dont lie and say "oh no thats not true." Because someone like Megan Kelly is going to show the world how stupid you are and show the tweet where you had to correct yourself.

6. Dont ab lib. It only shows your liberal bias.

(10-30-2015 02:44 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  1st Question - To all candidates - "Your greatest weakness is?"
---Not necessarily a bad question, just a useless question. Nothing to do with policy.
2nd Question - To Trump - "Is your campaign like a comic book campaign?"
---Insulting and snide question. Not a policy question
3rd Question - To Carson - "Your tax plan doesn't add up..." The moderator kept trying to argue with him about his Math and wouldn't let him explain
4th Question - To Kasich - "You had something to say about 2 other candidates. Would you repeat it?" "You said someone was crazy, who were you talking about?" - Basically an attempt to get him to attack the others, which worked....Trump and Kasich went at it and then Kasich and Carson went at it. Cruz and Fiorina jumped in too about their tax plans. Then there was a snarky attack on Fiorina's idea of a 3 page tax code. Was an embarrassment for the moderator.
5th Question - To Rubio - "Why not slow down and get other things accomplished first before running for President?" "Do you hate your job? (repeated twice) Moderator jumped in a couple times to argue with him when he tried to answer it....a pattern repeated numerous times throughout the debate.
6th Question - To Bush - "Your stock has fallen in this race based on your poll numbers. Why are you having difficulty?" "Republican is a party of know-nothingism, is that why you're having difficulty in this race?"
7th Question - To Fiorina - "HP Stocks tanked since you took over at HP, your board fired you, why should we hire you?"
8th Question - To Cruz - "You're maybe not the kind of problem solver we need.." Cruz then attacks CNBC moderators and liberal press for the snarkiness, bias, doublestandard, and lack of policy questions so far in the debate.

More snarkiness as each tried to answer. The repeated interruptions of the candidates during their time to answer questions continued throughout the debate....by the moderators. Usually the moderators were combative and snarky. It was painful to watch.

There's a huge difference between tough questions about positions and policy and the crap that occurred during the debate. There were good moments by the moderators and some good questions during the debate but that was greatly overshadowed by the unprofessional behavior of the moderators.

Great synopsis. AND let's keep in mind this was hosted by CNBC, and was billed as a debate focused on budgets, markets, finances and whatever else. The PUBLIC's budgets and financials, not the individual candidates "gotcha" schit.

There was next to ZERO of that. Total crap show.