ADVERTISEMENT

Republican debate demands

qazplm

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
32,289
2,721
113
So the republicans are trying to negotiate debate terms. Some want little things like room temp or not being shown with notes, but the undercurrent is that at least some of them or the RNC want more "republican" moderators.

My question is...why? If you are President, you are President for the whole country...and the GE debates aren't going to be just republican moderators. Given the inherent demo and Electoral College advantages Hillary will have (or any Dem nominee for President), you'd think they would want to practice against tough questions to hone and shape their best candidate for the GE (or their eventual candidate)...not softballs lobbed by folks agreeable to their views.

And no, I don't think the Dem debate should be just about liberal softballs either. I most enjoy it when they get asked, and nail a debate that raises a conservative argument, because I feel better about their chances of engaging that line of attack during the GE. So ask more socialism questions of Bernie, or more questions about Hillary's history as SoS and Senator and First Lady.

You'd think the republicans would want to hear questions about how their policies impact the poor, or minorities or women, or their plan to address undocumented immigrants that's more substantive than seal the border and get rid of them all. But apparently not, and I think if they succeed to making the remaining debates more "republican" they are only hurting themselves in preparation for the GE debates.
 
So the republicans are trying to negotiate debate terms. Some want little things like room temp or not being shown with notes, but the undercurrent is that at least some of them or the RNC want more "republican" moderators.

My question is...why? If you are President, you are President for the whole country...and the GE debates aren't going to be just republican moderators. Given the inherent demo and Electoral College advantages Hillary will have (or any Dem nominee for President), you'd think they would want to practice against tough questions to hone and shape their best candidate for the GE (or their eventual candidate)...not softballs lobbed by folks agreeable to their views.

And no, I don't think the Dem debate should be just about liberal softballs either. I most enjoy it when they get asked, and nail a debate that raises a conservative argument, because I feel better about their chances of engaging that line of attack during the GE. So ask more socialism questions of Bernie, or more questions about Hillary's history as SoS and Senator and First Lady.

You'd think the republicans would want to hear questions about how their policies impact the poor, or minorities or women, or their plan to address undocumented immigrants that's more substantive than seal the border and get rid of them all. But apparently not, and I think if they succeed to making the remaining debates more "republican" they are only hurting themselves in preparation for the GE debates.

I do not think the Republicans mind the tough questions. I am not sure where you are getting that from.

They agreed to CNBC moderators because they were supposedly going to stick to questions about economy/taxes things they allegedly know something about. A debate especially early in the primary season with about 10 candidates should be time to get your message out. This debate was anything but.

There is only one Republican candidate that wants to seal the border AND get rid of all illegals as you put it..

Go back and listen to the 'debate' if you have too. It was a complete joke the way they asked questions about Trump's campaign, constantly interrupted answers, and baited the candidates to attack each other, and attacked intelligence of candidates. Attack Rubio on his voting record while running for President even though everyone of those moderators voted for a Democrat that has missed way more votes while running for another office.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ttacked-missed-votes-marco-rubio-calls-out-b/

I thought the second debate moderator with Romney vs Obama was bad when the moderator interrupted Romney and helped out Obama more than once-this last fiasco put that to shame.

Liberal outlets even thought the moderators bad. And NBC put a gag order on MSNBC and others not to critique the moderators of their sister station and move on. That did not happen cause moderators did well.

The time difference candidates got to speak ranged from about 9 minutes for Rubio and under 5 for Bush. Look, they did a crap job.

They asked a question about freaking fantasy football-seriously?

A quote from Cruz-

"You look at the questions: Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, can you insult those two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?”Cruz added.

I do not think that Republicans mind tough questions. I think they mind crap moderators that attempt to make candidates look bad, do not afford them the ability to get message out, ask stupid questions, and cannot control the time for responses.
 
Point me to where anyone asked Trump "are you comic book villain" or asked Carson "can you do math?" (Here's a hint, check Cruz's rear end, because that's where he pulled that from). They asked Carson to explain his economic plan and questioned whether the math worked out.

Here is the actual question to Carson:

"You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes," said moderator Becky Quick. "This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?"

And yet that's not a "substantive" question? lol

And no, Trump wasn't asked if he was a comic book villain either. Cruz was asked a substantive question about his opposition to raising the debt limit, and instead of answering that question, he did the tried and true librul media attack that folks like you eat up.

As for your puzzlement at the idea that republicans don't want tough questions:

Ted Cruz wants only moderators who want to help conservatives decide:

“Instead you’d have moderators that were trying to help conservatives make a decision who’s going to be the best and strongest conservative to represent us and win, who is the proven conservative, the consistent conservative."

Reince Priebus thinks moderators should:

"at least care about the future of our party. I mean ... this is a Republican primary."

Ben Carson:

“We should have moderators who are interested in disseminating the information about the candidates, as opposed to, you know, ‘gotcha,’ ‘you did this’ and ‘defend yourself on that,’

Oh and Fox News is exempt from this by the way...I'm SURE it's because they are neutral and fair folks who would never take sides at all.

But yes, heaven forbid we have debates where folks have to, ya know, defend their positions or policies or actions...no, it should simply be about "disseminating information about the candidates."
 
Point me to where anyone asked Trump "are you comic book villain" or asked Carson "can you do math?" (Here's a hint, check Cruz's rear end, because that's where he pulled that from). They asked Carson to explain his economic plan and questioned whether the math worked out.

Here is the actual question to Carson:

"You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes," said moderator Becky Quick. "This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?"

And yet that's not a "substantive" question? lol

And no, Trump wasn't asked if he was a comic book villain either. Cruz was asked a substantive question about his opposition to raising the debt limit, and instead of answering that question, he did the tried and true librul media attack that folks like you eat up.

As for your puzzlement at the idea that republicans don't want tough questions:

Ted Cruz wants only moderators who want to help conservatives decide:

“Instead you’d have moderators that were trying to help conservatives make a decision who’s going to be the best and strongest conservative to represent us and win, who is the proven conservative, the consistent conservative."

Reince Priebus thinks moderators should:

"at least care about the future of our party. I mean ... this is a Republican primary."

Ben Carson:

“We should have moderators who are interested in disseminating the information about the candidates, as opposed to, you know, ‘gotcha,’ ‘you did this’ and ‘defend yourself on that,’

Oh and Fox News is exempt from this by the way...I'm SURE it's because they are neutral and fair folks who would never take sides at all.

But yes, heaven forbid we have debates where folks have to, ya know, defend their positions or policies or actions...no, it should simply be about "disseminating information about the candidates."

Sure that one was a substantive question. Good-they got one right.

Trump was specifically asked by John Harwood, a far left CNBC guy, about running his version of a comic book campaign for President. That is a real Delta Bravo question. Even if it was my thought that you run a comic book version of a JAG unit-no way in hell in a public platform I would ask you a question like that in that manner. Ask you why you run it like you do and what made you come to that decision-sure? Not something to attack or make you look bad from the start though.

I would say that this is a Republican Primary with ten candidates or so still in play. Let them get their platform out. So sure, this being a primary, let Republicans decide. That is where we are at right now. And that includes asking tough questions about candidates-but let them answer and move on. Hardly revolutionary thought though. There will be time for GE type debates do not think this time for it. Let that occur when field is apired down to three to four people or the actual GE. That debate was full of crap questions, poor moderation as I pointed out time differences, and personal attacks.

As for FOX, by far the best debate so far. That said, I did think Megan Kelly had it out for Trump.

I find your posts and questions slightly amusing considering Democrats will not even debate on FOX, FOXNews, or CNBC. And their one debate was a total love fest. It was nothing short of a Hilary promotion.

Folks like me eat up the attacks on liberal media? Well glad you finally admit the media is liberal. And not sure I ate it up as much as I am glad they got called out on it. NBC had to tell its anchors on other sister networks to just move on and not attack its CNBC sister. That is hardly the far right wingers admitting it was a poop show.
 
President Obama said to the effect that if the republicans cannot handle CNBC moderators then they cannot handle Putin or the Chinese. I am sure he is speaking from experience. After all he was afraid of tough questions from Fox News back in 2008 and ducked a democratic debate because of it. And look . . . he has been getting absolutely humiliated by Putin in from of the whole world the last two months!
 
  • Like
Reactions: timster
So the republicans are trying to negotiate debate terms. Some want little things like room temp or not being shown with notes, but the undercurrent is that at least some of them or the RNC want more "republican" moderators.

My question is...why? If you are President, you are President for the whole country...and the GE debates aren't going to be just republican moderators. Given the inherent demo and Electoral College advantages Hillary will have (or any Dem nominee for President), you'd think they would want to practice against tough questions to hone and shape their best candidate for the GE (or their eventual candidate)...not softballs lobbed by folks agreeable to their views.

And no, I don't think the Dem debate should be just about liberal softballs either. I most enjoy it when they get asked, and nail a debate that raises a conservative argument, because I feel better about their chances of engaging that line of attack during the GE. So ask more socialism questions of Bernie, or more questions about Hillary's history as SoS and Senator and First Lady.

You'd think the republicans would want to hear questions about how their policies impact the poor, or minorities or women, or their plan to address undocumented immigrants that's more substantive than seal the border and get rid of them all. But apparently not, and I think if they succeed to making the remaining debates more "republican" they are only hurting themselves in preparation for the GE debates.

I'll start paying attention when the conservatives start taking the election of a president seriously.

Right now, it is time wasting theater. Which tells me that Republicans don't take this seriously.
 
I'll start paying attention when the conservatives start taking the election of a president seriously.

Right now, it is time wasting theater. Which tells me that Republicans don't take this seriously.

At least Republicans are actually having debates and have more than one candidate. That tells me they take it more seriously than the Democrats who have no debates, one real candidate, and continue to try to cover up her constant lying about emails and Benghazi.
 
ahahaha...oh wait, you were serious about that post?

So you think the clown car that has Carson and Trump leading and Cruz in third in some polls shows seriousness?

LMAO, you put the delu in delusional.
 
At least Republicans are actually having debates and have more than one candidate. That tells me they take it more seriously than the Democrats who have no debates, one real candidate, and continue to try to cover up her constant lying about emails and Benghazi.

This post shows just how seriously those on the right are taking this election. If this election were taken seriously, Benghazi would have been dropped long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toast. and kescwi
.

I find your posts and questions slightly amusing considering Democrats will not even debate on FOX, FOXNews, or CNBC. And their one debate was a total love fest. It was nothing short of a Hilary promotion..

LMAO here are the questions asked of Hillary by Anderson Cooper:

  • "You were against same-sex marriage, now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies, now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times, you even called it 'the gold standard,' now suddenly last week you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?"
  • "You are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your emails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it. You joked about it. You called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?"
  • "In all candor, you and your husband are part of the 1%. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?"
  • "You spearheaded the 'reset' with Russia. Did you underestimate the Russians? And as president, what would your response to Vladimir Putin be right now in Syria?"
  • "What would you do for African-Americans in this country that President Obama couldn't?"
  • "Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toast.
LMAO here are the questions asked of Hillary by Anderson Cooper:

  • "You were against same-sex marriage, now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies, now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times, you even called it 'the gold standard,' now suddenly last week you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?"
  • "You are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your emails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it. You joked about it. You called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?"
  • "In all candor, you and your husband are part of the 1%. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?"
  • "You spearheaded the 'reset' with Russia. Did you underestimate the Russians? And as president, what would your response to Vladimir Putin be right now in Syria?"
  • "What would you do for African-Americans in this country that President Obama couldn't?"
  • "Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?"

These are softball questions. I do not see Benghazi or Monica Lewinski mentioned once in them.
 
LMAO here are the questions asked of Hillary by Anderson Cooper:

  • "You were against same-sex marriage, now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies, now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times, you even called it 'the gold standard,' now suddenly last week you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?"
  • "You are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your emails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it. You joked about it. You called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?"
  • "In all candor, you and your husband are part of the 1%. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?"
  • "You spearheaded the 'reset' with Russia. Did you underestimate the Russians? And as president, what would your response to Vladimir Putin be right now in Syria?"
  • "What would you do for African-Americans in this country that President Obama couldn't?"
  • "Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?"
Right. And she was afforded the chance to answer questions. Fairly staight forward questions at that. Now look at questions Or more like statements the Republicans received against their policies/beliefs/actions and note the difference. And even the people she debated against defended her.
 
This post shows just how seriously those on the right are taking this election. If this election were taken seriously, Benghazi would have been dropped long ago.

Yeah because who wants to know why --State promoted some bs movie that has its maker thrown in jail as cause of the riots,
-Hillary telling relatives of deceased attack was due to movie
- so dies Rice a week later
-hundreds of requests for security were denied or not answered
-but yet in an email the night of the attack Hillary emails Chelsea and tells her Attack had nothing to do with movie.

It is called accountability and answering for actions or lack thereof. She thought emails were gone-it is called blatant lying.

Says a lot about one's character if this is not an issue for people.
 
Right. And she was afforded the chance to answer questions. Fairly staight forward questions at that. Now look at questions Or more like statements the Republicans received against their policies/beliefs/actions and note the difference. And even the people she debated against defended her.

lol so we started with:

"And their one debate was a total love fest. It was nothing short of a Hilary promotion."

I show how ridiculous that claim is, and your response is to ignore you ever said that.

Then I listed questions asked of Carson. Again, actual questions about actual policies. And certainly nothing worse than ""Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?" or "Will you say anything to get elected?"

Neither of which are about any policies of Hillary's.

If I were you, I'd sit the rest of this thread out. Take a break Champ.
 
lol so we started with:

"And their one debate was a total love fest. It was nothing short of a Hilary promotion."

I show how ridiculous that claim is, and your response is to ignore you ever said that.

Then I listed questions asked of Carson. Again, actual questions about actual policies. And certainly nothing worse than ""Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?" or "Will you say anything to get elected?"

Neither of which are about any policies of Hillary's.

If I were you, I'd sit the rest of this thread out. Take a break Champ.

Whatever. You ignored my entire first post when I explained the issue.

Gee I ignore a lot of what you said and you do not like it. Just took a page from your book and you seem to attack what you always do, ignore the message and focus ona part of post. You are a lawyer, I am not even trying, and owning you.

Again Hillary was asked some straight forward questions, allowed to answer, and not set up to be attacked by people she was supposed to be debating. Nor did any of the Dems or moderators for that matter attack her.

So go back and read first response. It is pretty well detailed the issues Republicans had/have with the CNBC moderators. Or choose to ignore it.
 
lol yes because "will you say anything to be elected" doesn't set up Hillary to be attacked, nor does calling her out for her flip-flopping or asking her about her income in a primary where income equality will be huge.

Yeah no opening for her opponents there.

The "issue" were addressed, repeatedly, but yeah I can see why Trump leads your side when you think you "owned" anyone on here. If it makes you feel more special, feel free...goodness knows I'm sure you need the validation.
 
Don't look now but that clown Carson leads the FBI target Hillary by `10 points. At least that clown Carson isn't dodging and weaving to avoid jail time. The Democrats lead candidate is facing a serious FBI investigation and some people think the republicans are the ones not serious about their candidates. Strange!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ts-clinton-10-points-tied-among-women-voters/

Who in the world is being polled?

I simply don't understand the appeal of Carson. The amount of absolutely crazy things he says and believes...

The latest one is that Joseph built the Egyptian pyramids to store grain. A vaxxer. Prison makes you gay. Straight up lying about Mannatech.

Oh and no one recalls his violent past of hitting kids in the face with a lock, stabbing a kid in his belly, hitting his mother with a hammer.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-2016-childhood-violence/index.html

Why would a guy who thinks the US government is going to team up with the Whore of Babylon (Catholic Church) and the Antichrist (the Pope) to make him go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday - which will mark the return of Jesus that started in 1844, taking his time I guess - want to be president?

Scary crazy. I'm not comfortable giving the presidency to such high levels of overall flipping crazy.

ETA: He also doesn't speak factually. Ever.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/
 
Last edited:
Who in the world is being polled?

I simply don't understand the appeal of Carson. The amount of absolutely crazy things he says and believes...

The latest one is that Joseph built the Egyptian pyramids to store grain. A vaxxer. Prison makes you gay. Straight up lying about Mannatech.

Oh and no one recalls his violent past of hitting kids in the face with a lock, stabbing a kid in his belly, hitting his mother with a hammer.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-2016-childhood-violence/index.html

Why would a guy who thinks the US government is going to team up with the Whore of Babylon (Catholic Church) and the Antichrist (the Pope) to make him go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday - which will mark the return of Jesus that started in 1844, taking his time I guess - want to be president?

Scary crazy. I'm not comfortable giving the presidency to such high levels of overall flipping crazy.

ETA: He also doesn't speak factually. Ever.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/

It's easy to understand...right now:

1. GE polling is meaningless.
2. Few are paying attention except the hardcore folks
3. Folks know very little about Carson other than a little about his background as a surgeon, that he's religious, and that his personality is the anti-Trump.

There's no way he wins the Rep nomination and if he does, then you could slap a D on a trained monkey and the Democrats would win the presidential election.

But not an untrained monkey...I think Carson could beat an untrained monkey...close, but he could do it.
 
Who in the world is being polled?

I simply don't understand the appeal of Carson. The amount of absolutely crazy things he says and believes...

The latest one is that Joseph built the Egyptian pyramids to store grain. A vaxxer. Prison makes you gay. Straight up lying about Mannatech.

Oh and no one recalls his violent past of hitting kids in the face with a lock, stabbing a kid in his belly, hitting his mother with a hammer.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-2016-childhood-violence/index.html

Why would a guy who thinks the US government is going to team up with the Whore of Babylon (Catholic Church) and the Antichrist (the Pope) to make him go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday - which will mark the return of Jesus that started in 1844, taking his time I guess - want to be president?

Scary crazy. I'm not comfortable giving the presidency to such high levels of overall flipping crazy.

ETA: He also doesn't speak factually. Ever.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/
What I find so enjoyable about Carson is that you can't categorize him. Like the Huckabees and Santorums of the world fall into a category, Trump is all shtick -- you kinda know what you're getting with them. But Carson is his own man that never ceases to amaze.
 
What I find so enjoyable about Carson is that you can't categorize him. Like the Huckabees and Santorums of the world fall into a category, Trump is all shtick -- you kinda know what you're getting with them. But Carson is his own man that never ceases to amaze.

Well, except for the part where he shucks snake oil cures, in fact signs a contract to do so, then protests when it's pointed out.

I think you can easily categorize him...he's the evangelical candidate. He's Huckabee with fewer coherent policy positions, but he's basically another version of Huckabee.
 
Well, except for the part where he shucks snake oil cures, in fact signs a contract to do so, then protests when it's pointed out.

I think you can easily categorize him...he's the evangelical candidate. He's Huckabee with fewer coherent policy positions, but he's basically another version of Huckabee.

Huckabee has a decent executive record though AND is very clear and well spoken....even if whatever comes out of his mouth is nonsense.
 
Well, except for the part where he shucks snake oil cures, in fact signs a contract to do so, then protests when it's pointed out.

I think you can easily categorize him...he's the evangelical candidate. He's Huckabee with fewer coherent policy positions, but he's basically another version of Huckabee.
Yeah I'll give ecouch his loathing re religion when politics and religion attempt to merge. It is, has been, nothing but trouble, and to go deeper into that evangelical nonsense would be misery pure and simple.
 
Well, except for the part where he shucks snake oil cures, in fact signs a contract to do so, then protests when it's pointed out.

I think you can easily categorize him...he's the evangelical candidate. He's Huckabee with fewer coherent policy positions, but he's basically another version of Huckabee.

That Manatech LIE is epic. Watch the speech that he gives at their pyramid scheme conference. Mannatech is a combination of pills and prayer. Jesus pills. He claimed that the Jesus pills cured his prostate cancer....but he was going to have the surgery anyway. He didn't want to set a a bad example to those who couldn't get their hands on his Jesus pills.





Wait. Adventists roll with evangelicals?
 
It's easy to understand...right now:

1. GE polling is meaningless.
2. Few are paying attention except the hardcore folks
3. Folks know very little about Carson other than a little about his background as a surgeon, that he's religious, and that his personality is the anti-Trump.

There's no way he wins the Rep nomination and if he does, then you could slap a D on a trained monkey and the Democrats would win the presidential election.

But not an untrained monkey...I think Carson could beat an untrained monkey...close, but he could do it.

This post is racist!


(tic . . . but we'll hear those accusations about Carson soon enough)
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qjJvclwe

Even more piling, he lied in his book about "receiving a full scholarship offer" to West Point.
A. He didn't even apply
B. There are no "scholarships" to WP.
Does anyone else think Dr Ben's campaign was started basically to peddle his book? Unfortunately for him, the Republican field blows so bad that he's skyrocketed to the top of the field,which will lead to people actually reading his book as opposed to using it as evangelical coffee table decoration, which will bring more scrutiny of his past, which will lead to his inevitable poll plunge, which might actually hurt his book sales in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
Does anyone else think Dr Ben's campaign was started basically to peddle his book? Unfortunately for him, the Republican field blows so bad that he's skyrocketed to the top of the field,which will lead to people actually reading his book as opposed to using it as evangelical coffee table decoration, which will bring more scrutiny of his past, which will lead to his inevitable poll plunge, which might actually hurt his book sales in the long run.

It might have been the initial reason, but I think up til now, he's in it because folks are massaging his ego to think he could win. Of course, EVERY presidential candidate has a massive ego...it requires a massive ego to think you can lead 300+ million people...but in his case, I think it's that ego that may have turned this from thinking he could profit a bit from a small run to thinking hey I could actually win this thing.
 
lol yes because "will you say anything to be elected" doesn't set up Hillary to be attacked, nor does calling her out for her flip-flopping or asking her about her income in a primary where income equality will be huge.

Yeah no opening for her opponents there.

The "issue" were addressed, repeatedly, but yeah I can see why Trump leads your side when you think you "owned" anyone on here. If it makes you feel more special, feel free...goodness knows I'm sure you need the validation.

I thought it hilarious that you threw out a point about ignoring a post when right in this thread 1) You ignored 95% of what I said in my first post 2) You are notorious for ignoring the main message in a post and clinging to a phrase or word that could have been written better

Anyway, Trump/Carson and others have been asked about income. And every candidate gets asked about positions that change. Hardly tough. And did her opponents call her out on anything? Nope, not only that, I seem to remember one or more of them saying who cares about emails. No?

As for Republicans laying ground rules and meeting to discuss them-have no issue with it. Like I said in my first post, some candidates received double the time as others, questions were asked in a complete unprofessional and biased manner(comic book comments, asking to resign, flapping arms to fly away, constant interuptions, etc), and even their own parent network told sister networks to move on and not pile on. Rest my case-they did a crap job..

The comment about "your side" is your projection surfacing again. I do not look at politics as your side/their side, but what is best for the USA. Again, that is your view point, do not imply it is mine.

As for validation-get real. Could give a crap about what anybody I have not met thinks. And everyone in the military knows 92Y and JAG Lawyers are the soldiers that seek validation from the 11 and 18 series MOS. So try again-there was no need for me to sit this one out.
 
It might have been the initial reason, but I think up til now, he's in it because folks are massaging his ego to think he could win. Of course, EVERY presidential candidate has a massive ego...it requires a massive ego to think you can lead 300+ million people...but in his case, I think it's that ego that may have turned this from thinking he could profit a bit from a small run to thinking hey I could actually win this thing.

Was it his ego that led him to believe he could win or the polls? Trump has a an even bigger ego, and even he has said he will continue to run only as long has he is doing well.
 
I thought it hilarious that you threw out a point about ignoring a post when right in this thread 1) You ignored 95% of what I said in my first post 2) You are notorious for ignoring the main message in a post and clinging to a phrase or word that could have been written better

Anyway, Trump/Carson and others have been asked about income. And every candidate gets asked about positions that change. Hardly tough. And did her opponents call her out on anything? Nope, not only that, I seem to remember one or more of them saying who cares about emails. No?

As for Republicans laying ground rules and meeting to discuss them-have no issue with it. Like I said in my first post, some candidates received double the time as others, questions were asked in a complete unprofessional and biased manner(comic book comments, asking to resign, flapping arms to fly away, constant interuptions, etc), and even their own parent network told sister networks to move on and not pile on. Rest my case-they did a crap job..

The comment about "your side" is your projection surfacing again. I do not look at politics as your side/their side, but what is best for the USA. Again, that is your view point, do not imply it is mine.

As for validation-get real. Could give a crap about what anybody I have not met thinks. And everyone in the military knows 92Y and JAG Lawyers are the soldiers that seek validation from the 11 and 18 series MOS. So try again-there was no need for me to sit this one out.

LMAO. This is all just priceless.

Let's run this comic relief you call a logic train down:

1. I don't think you want me paying attention to every silly thing you post. I addressed the remotely cogent things you typed. No I didn't address silly stuff like "I thought the second debate moderator with Romney vs Obama was bad when the moderator interrupted Romney and helped out Obama more than once-this last fiasco put that to shame." or "Attack Rubio on his voting record while running for President even though everyone of those moderators voted for a Democrat that has missed way more votes while running for another office." or most of the first half of your post quite frankly. Are you REALLY sure you want me to address that stuff? Like I said, you'd be smart to sit the rest of this thread out. But that's asking a lot of you I know.

2. Just so I'm clear, your "main message" wasn't Dem candidates got softballs and Reps got hard/bad questions? Clinging to a phrase you could have written better? Son, I'm clinging to entire threads you could have written better. A trained monkey could have written better.

3. What does what the opponents do or do not call her out on have to do with a subject that is supposed to be about the quality of debate questions by moderators? See, you throw out word salad, then get upset because someone addresses that the lettuce is wilted and the dressing is rancid.

4. Please tell me the last debate where the leading candidates didn't get more time with questions than the trailing ones. I mean try and have an independent thought for a moment. Please tell me the last debate where candidates didn't interrupt other candidates, where the moderators didn't interrupt the candidates for time or where candidates didn't ignore time limits.

5. LMAO at your side/what is best for the USA. Did you type that while wearing your Don't Tread on Me shirt and your tricorner hat you got from Limbaugh.com?

6. Such a sad attempt at a put-down. Seriously, sit this one out Champ. Take a knee sport.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qjJvclwe

Even more piling, he lied in his book about "receiving a full scholarship offer" to West Point.
A. He didn't even apply
B. There are no "scholarships" to WP.

Are you really sure about B?

The advertisements run In Army Times and on Govt websites up until the 90's specifically stated 'scholarship'.

Get into West Point and receive a full government scholarship, and annual salary, health and dental benefits, etc etc-paraphrased.

That is all parsing words. No tuition or scholarship-who cares? Same thing. I never applied but was told while enlisted I would have been accepted. This by a MG WP grad. Like it or not, they have that pull. So if he met Westmoreland I could see it being true. If not he has an issue. Do not think ROTC trainers in HS have that pull. Either way should have been more clear about it.
 
Are you really sure about B?

The advertisements run In Army Times and on Govt websites up until the 90's specifically stated 'scholarship'.

Get into West Point and receive a full government scholarship, and annual salary, health and dental benefits, etc etc-paraphrased.

That is all parsing words. No tuition or scholarship-who cares? Same thing. I never applied but was told while enlisted I would have been accepted. This by a MG WP grad. Like it or not, they have that pull. So if he met Westmoreland I could see it being true. If not he has an issue. Do not think ROTC trainers in HS have that pull. Either way should have been more clear about it.

There are no scholarships to WP. Everyone attends for free. Everyone. In fact, those who attend receive a stipend roughly equivalent to 2LT pay and yes they get full benefits as if on active duty. They "pay" with a time commitment. And no one ever told you "you would have been accepted." That's BS. And if someone told you that they were lying. But I can see now why someone like you would post this.
 
This stuff about Carson sounds like a bunch of BS from the MSM. This stuff about west Point is a just a minor detail. If he indeed had good enough grades to go to Yale and if he was excelling in ROTC then of course if he would get encouraged to apply to West Point in conversations with military people.
This is simply a hit piece by the MSN. It has already been discounted by those likely to vote in the republican primaries. The dirt diggers will have to keep on digging.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qjJvclwe

Even more piling, he lied in his book about "receiving a full scholarship offer" to West Point.
A. He didn't even apply
B. There are no "scholarships" to WP.
He states in his book the only school he applied to was Yale. Pretty sure he did not state he applied. Tuition is covered by a "full government scholarship" at the academies. You know this. I'm not a huge fan of Carson but this is all media BS.
 
This stuff about Carson sounds like a bunch of BS from the MSM. This stuff about west Point is a just a minor detail. If he indeed had good enough grades to go to Yale and if he was excelling in ROTC then of course if he would get encouraged to apply to West Point in conversations with military people.
This is simply a hit piece by the MSN. It has already been discounted by those likely to vote in the republican primaries. The dirt diggers will have to keep on digging.
Hahaha, "Don't pierce my bubble!!!" It the MSN screwing me again!
 
LMAO. This is all just priceless.

Let's run this comic relief you call a logic train down:

1. I don't think you want me paying attention to every silly thing you post. I addressed the remotely cogent things you typed. No I didn't address silly stuff like "I thought the second debate moderator with Romney vs Obama was bad when the moderator interrupted Romney and helped out Obama more than once-this last fiasco put that to shame." or "Attack Rubio on his voting record while running for President even though everyone of those moderators voted for a Democrat that has missed way more votes while running for another office." or most of the first half of your post quite frankly. Are you REALLY sure you want me to address that stuff? Like I said, you'd be smart to sit the rest of this thread out. But that's asking a lot of you I know.

2. Just so I'm clear, your "main message" wasn't Dem candidates got softballs and Reps got hard/bad questions? Clinging to a phrase you could have written better? Son, I'm clinging to entire threads you could have written better. A trained monkey could have written better.

3. What does what the opponents do or do not call her out on have to do with a subject that is supposed to be about the quality of debate questions by moderators? See, you throw out word salad, then get upset because someone addresses that the lettuce is wilted and the dressing is rancid.

4. Please tell me the last debate where the leading candidates didn't get more time with questions than the trailing ones. I mean try and have an independent thought for a moment. Please tell me the last debate where candidates didn't interrupt other candidates, where the moderators didn't interrupt the candidates for time or where candidates didn't ignore time limits.

5. LMAO at your side/what is best for the USA. Did you type that while wearing your Don't Tread on Me shirt and your tricorner hat you got from Limbaugh.com?

6. Such a sad attempt at a put-down. Seriously, sit this one out Champ. Take a knee sport.

1. It is just more examples of moderators at debates being very poor and letting their political bias show. That is not their job.. Republicans want it fixed and can hardly blame them. Attack Rubio on his voting record when other candidates or Presidents the moderators voted for had worse records and never brought up the issue in the past. Why? Political bias. Vote or be a democrat fine. Moderators should be fair or at least attempt it. If they cannot do it-do not moderate.

2. I looked through the thread. And I do not think I used the words softball to describe Dems questions at debates. I am sure I said they were tough bur fair, and the moderator gave them a chance to answer without interruption. I gave plenty of specific examples of bs questions and the way they were worded.

3. Just goes to show it is not a real debate and more of a love fest and promotion of her-which are words I know I used.

4. I was not aware Rubio was the leading or even a leading candidate. Best I ever saw is he is a real distant third. The moderators interrupted for more than just time. How are those independent thoughts? And I get the time will never be exactly even-but double from approximately 4:30 to 9:00 is terrible.

5. Do not listen to Limbaugh. And for the record, have voted for Democrats before. Again stop your projection.

6. No not a sad attempt. Just true. Everyone in Army knows it. And you started with the put downs about 'sitting it out, champ', 'son', 'trained monkey'. I just fired back and you seem to have issue with it. And for as much as you comment on race issues, I am real surprised you would throw the monkey phrase out there. Real poor taste and hypocritical.
 
ADVERTISEMENT