Debate Now Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

[Sun Devil 92]

Why not let the lesser candidates get together and buy their own hour. They would only have to stop some of the mailings to save some money. This would also weed out the pretenders. Have an Internet debate. Or persuade someone like Hannity to have one hour a week for any candidate to be questioned by one of his famous panels. He should get an Emmy for some of his panel conversations. Never happen. Or better yet have each candidate have a mock debate against a Hilary Clinton clone, now that would shake things up. Be creative and stop whining.

I'd like to see them debate people like Michael Moore or Al Sharpton. The internet would be fine.

 

[2aguy]

Carly Fiorina takes questions outside of hilary event...if only more Republicans would fight these democrats like that....

Fiorina v. Clinton Carly Takes Media Questions Outside Hillary Event - Breitbart

 

[Shrimpbox]

Amen 2aguy. I'm so tired of these hapless republicans who can't rise up against the Clinton machine. This is how you do it.

You ask Hilary how much money the Clinton foundation has spent in ferguson, or Baltimore, or Detroit. You ask them what have they done for store owners who have lost everything. What have they done for Americans period?

Bill Clinton just said anyone who challenges his pass through Delaware corporation is just playing politics. Yes they are just like you bill. Republicans need to ask Americans aren't you tired of these politics as usual. Aren't you ready to rid yourself of the slime merchants, the con artists, the scams that all come with the Clintons. Doesn't the country deserve the highest form of integrity instead of politicians who are for sale to,the highest bidder? Let the Clintons keep their criminals, we'll keep the country.

 

[Shrimpbox]

You go Rubio. Stand fast and tell it like it is. The left will have to crucify him before he wakes up all,those sleeping Christians. Americans are hungering for someone to talk like this and confront the anti-Christian progressives. He is finally defining who the real haters are.

 

[Foxfyre]

George Pataki has officially announced his candidacy for President today. I don't think he was on anybody's radar screen--he certainly wasn't included on any list of hopefuls I've seen so far. He did win three terms as a Republican governor of heavily Democratic New York, but can he win in a general election?

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Are these going to be debates or the same crapp we have to put up with now ?

The way it is currently scheduled it will be the same old same old scripted Q&A. The way I am suggesting, it would be real debates. The candidates would be given topics to debate or would agree on the topics and would flip a coin to see who went first. They could ask each other questions or ask each other for clarification on this or that, but there would be no moderator with the usual 'gotcha' questions and who avoids anything that would allow the candidates to shine. There would only be a panel of objective judges to judge the debate and rule on a winner and a referee who would not participate or ask questions but would be the time keeper to ensure each candidate got equal time. Maybe each candidate in the debate could choose a couple of topics to address to make sure each candidate could choose the issue in his/her platform that s/he cared the most about.

I am guessing that CSpan would jump at the chance to host the debates and could probably furnish the objective judges to judge them.

Still a terrible idea in terms of doing it during election season. Where your idea would work is in an off-year. Intelligence Squared often does this on NPR already come to think of it.

But if you have 16 candidates, you're scheduling 15 debates to determine a "winner" who may or may not be the leading delegate winner on the ground.

The error you are making--and it's a pretty serious one--is that you are equating success in debates to success on the ground. Winning an election is much more complex. All politics are local. If you like Candidate X's answer on immigration vs. the "winner", Candidate X will probably do well in Texas where immigration is a bigger issue than it is in Florida or North Carolina. There is also the favorite son vote, soft money ads, etc...

If you can find anywhere in my posts that equated success in debates to success on the ground, go for it. I can assure you that you won't be able to do that. Perhaps you might like to represent my argument and reasons for it accurately?

 

[Ernie S.]

George Pataki has officially announced his candidacy for President today. I don't think he was on anybody's radar screen--he certainly wasn't included on any list of hopefuls I've seen so far. He did win three terms as a Republican governor of heavily Democratic New York, but can he win in a general election?

I see Pataki as a John McCain/Mitt Romney. Liberal enough so that the MSM will push him in the primaries and crucify him in the General.

I'm quite done with allowing the MSM and the Washington elite choose the GOP candidate.

 

[Shrimpbox]

What does Pataki get out of this. Name rec to run for senate? Money he can turn into personal assets? A cabinet position? He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell and I really think he does republicans a disservice. Think about the party boys and girls not personal,gain. Pataki is full of hockey.

 

[Foxfyre]

What does Pataki get out of this. Name rec to run for senate? Money he can turn into personal assets? A cabinet position? He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell and I really think he does republicans a disservice. Think about the party boys and girls not personal,gain. Pataki is full of hockey.

Well according to what he said this morning, he thinks he'll make a great President.

 

[Shrimpbox]

What does Pataki get out of this. Name rec to run for senate? Money he can turn into personal assets? A cabinet position? He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell and I really think he does republicans a disservice. Think about the party boys and girls not personal,gain. Pataki is full of hockey.

Well according to what he said this morning, he thinks he'll make a great President.

Well I guess when anyone compares themselves to,Obama they all know,they could do a better job. The bar is very low.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Fox, what are your thoughts on the penny plan? I think it has so much potential, is easy to understand, and can have the most impact. No one can argue that you can't find waste in one percent of your budget, in any department.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Are these going to be debates or the same crapp we have to put up with now ?

The way it is currently scheduled it will be the same old same old scripted Q&A. The way I am suggesting, it would be real debates. The candidates would be given topics to debate or would agree on the topics and would flip a coin to see who went first. They could ask each other questions or ask each other for clarification on this or that, but there would be no moderator with the usual 'gotcha' questions and who avoids anything that would allow the candidates to shine. There would only be a panel of objective judges to judge the debate and rule on a winner and a referee who would not participate or ask questions but would be the time keeper to ensure each candidate got equal time. Maybe each candidate in the debate could choose a couple of topics to address to make sure each candidate could choose the issue in his/her platform that s/he cared the most about.

I am guessing that CSpan would jump at the chance to host the debates and could probably furnish the objective judges to judge them.

Still a terrible idea in terms of doing it during election season. Where your idea would work is in an off-year. Intelligence Squared often does this on NPR already come to think of it.

But if you have 16 candidates, you're scheduling 15 debates to determine a "winner" who may or may not be the leading delegate winner on the ground.

The error you are making--and it's a pretty serious one--is that you are equating success in debates to success on the ground. Winning an election is much more complex. All politics are local. If you like Candidate X's answer on immigration vs. the "winner", Candidate X will probably do well in Texas where immigration is a bigger issue than it is in Florida or North Carolina. There is also the favorite son vote, soft money ads, etc...

If you can find anywhere in my posts that equated success in debates to success on the ground, go for it. I can assure you that you won't be able to do that. Perhaps you might like to represent my argument and reasons for it accurately?

I never said you did. I'm pointing out that while you're having this tourntament of whovever wins a debate moves on to the next one while the person he beat goes home and is no longer in the debate may not jive with the reality of the election.

For example, lets say Cruz and Paul win their brackets and move on to the finals but Paul Walker has the most delegates and Cruz and Paul are not winning any...does anyone really care about a debate between two people who are not in the contest?

Once again, it would be stupid to hold such a debate competition after the primaries start. By then, the debates (as described) should be over.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox, what are your thoughts on the penny plan? I think it has so much potential, is easy to understand, and can have the most impact. No one can argue that you can't find waste in one percent of your budget, in any department.

I think its a great idea but it will only be a gimmick on paper unless we change the power that government has to use our money. And I see no will from anybody in Congress to give up that power.

 

[Foxfyre]

One suggestion I saw recently that I like a lot is have something like a NCAA tournament for the debates seeding the candidates according to their poll ratings at the time of each 30-minute debate. The winner of each 30-minute debate (determined by a panel of objective judges) moves on to take on another candidate until the last two debate determining who won overall. That would be entertaining, would likely generate a lot of interest, and everybody would have a chance to be heard and gain name recognition and every candidate would have considerably more time to make his/her case than will be possible in a huge crowded field for an hour debate.

Are these going to be debates or the same crapp we have to put up with now ?

The way it is currently scheduled it will be the same old same old scripted Q&A. The way I am suggesting, it would be real debates. The candidates would be given topics to debate or would agree on the topics and would flip a coin to see who went first. They could ask each other questions or ask each other for clarification on this or that, but there would be no moderator with the usual 'gotcha' questions and who avoids anything that would allow the candidates to shine. There would only be a panel of objective judges to judge the debate and rule on a winner and a referee who would not participate or ask questions but would be the time keeper to ensure each candidate got equal time. Maybe each candidate in the debate could choose a couple of topics to address to make sure each candidate could choose the issue in his/her platform that s/he cared the most about.

I am guessing that CSpan would jump at the chance to host the debates and could probably furnish the objective judges to judge them.

Still a terrible idea in terms of doing it during election season. Where your idea would work is in an off-year. Intelligence Squared often does this on NPR already come to think of it.

But if you have 16 candidates, you're scheduling 15 debates to determine a "winner" who may or may not be the leading delegate winner on the ground.

The error you are making--and it's a pretty serious one--is that you are equating success in debates to success on the ground. Winning an election is much more complex. All politics are local. If you like Candidate X's answer on immigration vs. the "winner", Candidate X will probably do well in Texas where immigration is a bigger issue than it is in Florida or North Carolina. There is also the favorite son vote, soft money ads, etc...

If you can find anywhere in my posts that equated success in debates to success on the ground, go for it. I can assure you that you won't be able to do that. Perhaps you might like to represent my argument and reasons for it accurately?

I never said you did. I'm pointing out that while you're having this tourntament of whovever wins a debate moves on to the next one while the person he beat goes home and is no longer in the debate may not jive with the reality of the election.

For example, lets say Cruz and Paul win their brackets and move on to the finals but Paul Walker has the most delegates and Cruz and Paul are not winning any...does anyone really care about a debate between two people who are not in the contest?

I don't see any purpose of having debates after the nominee has been selected. The debates would be for the purpose of allowing all candidates to be heard at least once when they get enough time to actually be heard. . Getting one or two questions in a debate with ten other people doesn't give everybody a shot at really being heard.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The way it is currently scheduled it will be the same old same old scripted Q&A. The way I am suggesting, it would be real debates. The candidates would be given topics to debate or would agree on the topics and would flip a coin to see who went first. They could ask each other questions or ask each other for clarification on this or that, but there would be no moderator with the usual 'gotcha' questions and who avoids anything that would allow the candidates to shine. There would only be a panel of objective judges to judge the debate and rule on a winner and a referee who would not participate or ask questions but would be the time keeper to ensure each candidate got equal time. Maybe each candidate in the debate could choose a couple of topics to address to make sure each candidate could choose the issue in his/her platform that s/he cared the most about.

I am guessing that CSpan would jump at the chance to host the debates and could probably furnish the objective judges to judge them.

Still a terrible idea in terms of doing it during election season. Where your idea would work is in an off-year. Intelligence Squared often does this on NPR already come to think of it.

But if you have 16 candidates, you're scheduling 15 debates to determine a "winner" who may or may not be the leading delegate winner on the ground.

The error you are making--and it's a pretty serious one--is that you are equating success in debates to success on the ground. Winning an election is much more complex. All politics are local. If you like Candidate X's answer on immigration vs. the "winner", Candidate X will probably do well in Texas where immigration is a bigger issue than it is in Florida or North Carolina. There is also the favorite son vote, soft money ads, etc...

If you can find anywhere in my posts that equated success in debates to success on the ground, go for it. I can assure you that you won't be able to do that. Perhaps you might like to represent my argument and reasons for it accurately?

I never said you did. I'm pointing out that while you're having this tourntament of whovever wins a debate moves on to the next one while the person he beat goes home and is no longer in the debate may not jive with the reality of the election.

For example, lets say Cruz and Paul win their brackets and move on to the finals but Paul Walker has the most delegates and Cruz and Paul are not winning any...does anyone really care about a debate between two people who are not in the contest?

Once again, it would be stupid to hold such a debate competition after the primaries start. By then, the debates (as described) should be over.

And you feel that having 15 debates before voting starts is "smart"?

If they were real debates...great.

15 after the voting starts would be stupid. The front runners would never put themselves in a position where they could lose.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still a terrible idea in terms of doing it during election season. Where your idea would work is in an off-year. Intelligence Squared often does this on NPR already come to think of it.

But if you have 16 candidates, you're scheduling 15 debates to determine a "winner" who may or may not be the leading delegate winner on the ground.

The error you are making--and it's a pretty serious one--is that you are equating success in debates to success on the ground. Winning an election is much more complex. All politics are local. If you like Candidate X's answer on immigration vs. the "winner", Candidate X will probably do well in Texas where immigration is a bigger issue than it is in Florida or North Carolina. There is also the favorite son vote, soft money ads, etc...

If you can find anywhere in my posts that equated success in debates to success on the ground, go for it. I can assure you that you won't be able to do that. Perhaps you might like to represent my argument and reasons for it accurately?

I never said you did. I'm pointing out that while you're having this tourntament of whovever wins a debate moves on to the next one while the person he beat goes home and is no longer in the debate may not jive with the reality of the election.

For example, lets say Cruz and Paul win their brackets and move on to the finals but Paul Walker has the most delegates and Cruz and Paul are not winning any...does anyone really care about a debate between two people who are not in the contest?

Once again, it would be stupid to hold such a debate competition after the primaries start. By then, the debates (as described) should be over.

And you feel that having 15 debates before voting starts is "smart"?

If they were real debates...great.

15 after the voting starts would be stupid. The front runners would never put themselves in a position where they could lose.

The debates should be for no other purpose than allowing the candidates to be heard. Nobody would want tobe left out of a tourney style debate so of course they would all participate. The only thing accomplished by winning would be bragging rights. The debates would not befor the purpose of deciding the nomination. But if the front runners did opt out, so much the better. The lesser well knowns would have just have more opportunity to state their case and making themselves more attractive.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said you did. I'm pointing out that while you're having this tourntament of whovever wins a debate moves on to the next one while the person he beat goes home and is no longer in the debate may not jive with the reality of the election.

For example, lets say Cruz and Paul win their brackets and move on to the finals but Paul Walker has the most delegates and Cruz and Paul are not winning any...does anyone really care about a debate between two people who are not in the contest?

Once again, it would be stupid to hold such a debate competition after the primaries start. By then, the debates (as described) should be over.

And you feel that having 15 debates before voting starts is "smart"?

If they were real debates...great.

15 after the voting starts would be stupid. The front runners would never put themselves in a position where they could lose.

The debates should be for no other purpose than allowing the candidates to be heard. Nobody would want tobe left out of a tourney style debate so of course they would all participate. The only thing accomplished by winning would be bragging rights. The debates would not befor the purpose of deciding the nomination. But if the front runners did opt out, so much the better. The lesser well knowns would have just have more opportunity to state their case and making themselves more attractive.

Well, while we're at it, the only way a bracket works is if the number of teams remaining after each round is divisible by two--i.e. the number has a prime factorization of two. If you have 16 candidates, it works; it goes from 16-8-4-2-1. What happens if you end up with an odd number of candidates? Hmm?

One person gets a bye just like he would in any other bracket competition--probably the person polling the strongest at the time. Why make this harder than it has to be? It is a theoretical concept anyway--I have no power to make it happen. I just see it as far superior to the essentially useless 'gotcha question' Q & A fiasco that is what passes for the 'debates' that we usually see. I don't think those accomplish a damn thing other than unfairly tarnish the candidates and the party because of the sour taste they leave in most people's mouths. They certainly are not helpful to those who don't have a lot of name recognition to begin with.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We are talking about exposure to candidates positions.

This is in the context of getting information on selecting a candidate.

And yet, the other side utilizes this information to defame their opposition.

What a great system we have.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are talking about exposure to candidates positions.

This is in the context of getting information on selecting a candidate.

And yet, the other side utilizes this information to defame their opposition.

What a great system we have.

Exactly which is why the GOP are damn fools for allowing the media to run the debates when they have a wonderful avenue like Cspan that would allow them to control their own agenda for the debates. But. . .there is the problem that the alphabet networks are on free TV and Cspan would require cable to watch. So the media sort of has everybody over a barrel. But I sure wish the GOP would demand that some competent person from the Heritage Foundation or CATO or some such would moderate the debates. We would get a much better product if they would. There would be no 'gotcha' questions and it would be strictly focused on policy and point of view.

 

[Foxfyre]

But in the world of 'gotcha' for real, Fox News early this morning broke the news that former speaker Dennis Hastert has been indicted for lying to the FBI about money withdrawals to allegedly paying for a cover up of sexual misconduct with a former aide. That should keep the media busy for a few days and no doubt the yellow journalism investigators are scouring the landscape to try to link Hastert with any of the GOP hopefuls.