Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: How Republicans saw their debate

By: Down And Out Man in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 30 Oct 15 10:53 PM | 79 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 17483 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 17482 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

You want to see some talking head "moderator" argue with a candidate? I don't. If I want that, I'll watch them interview the guy on their talking head show.

I want them to ask their question, then shut up and stay out of the way. If the candidate's answer includes false "facts", I'd like to see if one of the other candidates will call him out on it. The "debate" should be between the candidates, not a moderator and a candidate.

I have zero interest in letting the talking heads make these shows as much about themselves as they are the candidates. Again, I'll watch an interview if I want to see a one on one between the talking head and the politician. Plenty of chances for those on many channels.

It pretty much is out of line to ask someone (even the bozo trump) if his is a comic book campaign, or quote some third party about chances equivalent to flapping wings and flying away. Yeah, Harwood, we already know what your opinion is......

The customer for these things is the voters. The dumbasses asking the questions apparently have no clue what we'd like to hear discussed, or they'd dispense with the baiting and ask better questions.

Then, once in a while, when a (possibly) insightful issue finally comes out, they only let one of the candidates speak to it. Somebody else will want to address it, but "NO!!!, I want to ask you about (fill in the blank - why did you cash your IRA, why do you think your poll numbers are bad, do you think we should regulate Fantasy Football, blah blah.)"

For crying out loud, let all the candidates speak to the same subject, for once in my life! How am I supposed to compare A and B on foreign policy if A is asked how to deal with ISIS, and then B is asked if he thinks C has an ugly tie?

I've not seen a "debate" in many years without coming away pissed at how it was run. But the CNBC one was the worst EVER. (Well, maybe Tapper's rivaled it!) The candidates have a valid point. That "debate" was not well designed to help voters understand the candidate's positions on the most important issues.

I agree with Carson, change the format, give more time for more than "sound bite" answers. Let everybody address the same issues. Give the voters some insight into how their positions and philosophy compare and differ.

If you think I'm defending the GOP, think again. There's not much more chance of me voting for those bozos than for Hillary. She has a zero percent chance of getting my vote, and depending on who the GOP puts up, it's between zero and about 1%. I have about as much use for the GOP as I do the Dems. (Close to none.)

But I can certainly see a great difference in how they're treated. They (GOP) bring part of that upon themselves. But you have to lean well left to not be able to see the difference. And I "understand" that.



- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
How Republicans saw their debate
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Fri, 30 Oct 15 8:35 PM 		Msg. 17482 of 54959

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-not-ready-for-prime-time-bush-1446160562

It's interesting that Noonan is concerned by the form but not the substance of the moderation.

Christie talks about investing in energy. The moderator suggests this is government intervention in the market. Christie says "how rude!" to point out the hypocrisy. But actually, the moderator makes a valid point. These guys talk about contracting the government, but they grow it where it suits them. So if it is rude to point out the discrepancy, you still ought to do so.

Because actually the point leads to something important. What are the government programmes they want to stop? The answer is, anything that supports the vulnerable. The poor must be poor because they don't want to work, rather than that there are few jobs available, or a person has had bad luck etc. So bully them. Immigrants. Same thing. And so on.

Whereas the rich and powerful are also the virtuous. Rather than partly lucky. Encourage selfishness and self-righteousness. Support incumbents over innovators. etc.

The questioner points out that Ben Bernanke sees the Republican Party as know-nothing. That's a serious point to respond to. It's a shame that someone has to point it out. But maybe you have to be cruel to be kind.

The trouble is, the smart Republicans left the party. Only the oiks and ideologues are left. To offer a meaningful candidate for president, they could use a change of philosophy.

Cruz thinks the party has ideas. I can't think of one that falls outside tkc's scope or that is consistent with other values they espouse. They are totally predictable. As puritans always are. It's the party of Limbaugh. The politicians are prisoners of his air. No wonder they are nothing but bombast and self-interest.

So of course they think it is rude for someone to point it out. I doubt the emperor was too pleased when the kid pointed out that he had no clothes.

My guess is they set out to complain about media bias simply because their own performances are so weak. It can't be them that's the problem. Blame the media for being unfair.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next