RNC says no more debates to nbc...

[NYcarbineer]

NBC should run professional wrestling and monster truck competitions during the next GOP debate,

and decimate their audience.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't care who does them, I just wish they'd ask about what the candidates would do while in office. Wow, crazy shit, huh?.

I think we have a good idea of what they will do. Most of the republicans want to gut ssi, gut our ability to maintain our own country and give out big fucking tax breaks to the rich.

I would still rather hear it from them, in their own words, not from a lefty who has nothing but contempt for them.
.

Yesterday, Megyn Kelly said no journalist would agree to any restrictions on what he/she could or could not ask.

And while I don't think the candidates should be able to dictate the subject matter in any way, I wonder why in the world we are having journalists or television hosts moderate the debates. Why not ask competent academics or interrogators or business types, etc. to state that they will focus on the issues with an interest to generate non partisan information not widely known by the public and, if they understand and agree to that, why would they not make far better moderators than TV celebrities eager to make a name for themselves?

This is all bizarre to me. There's no excuse for just asking explosive questions, outside of being a ratings whore.

I'd like to know what candidates would do in certain situations, and it amazes me that we can't get there.
.

It no longer amazes me. I have come to expect a mentality that thinks winning at any cost is the goal and if that means treating your opponent unfairly or maliciously, then so be it. And I have come to expect that some really do believe they look smart and informed and clever when they insult some group or somebody in most of the posts they make, so why should we expect less of their surrogates in the media?

The fact is, nobody knows in minute detail what they will be able to do in the USA constitutional system, so asking them for specifics now is pretty much as pointless as the 'let's you and him fight' approach. But their basic philosophy is important. For instance I favor a flat tax system, whatever the most practical such system might actually look like, so I am especially interested in those candidates that also favor a flat tax system. Beating them up on their specific detailed plan that nobody with a brain knows will likely be voted into law is just as dumb as the 'comic book' question. I would expect the one for whom I cast my vote to have the intelligence to surround himself or herself with the best qualified and knowledgeable people ever and come up with workable policy that can work and can also receive a thumbs up from Congress and we the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let the little GOP whiners take turns moderating their own debates!

The debate moderators were rude and unprofessional, but I'm not the least bit surprised you are okay with that because you yourself are rude and unprofessional.

There's a professional standard for posting on an anonymous internet messageboard?

Don't you have to be getting paid to do something before your professionalism becomes an issue?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't care who does them, I just wish they'd ask about what the candidates would do while in office. Wow, crazy shit, huh?.

I think we have a good idea of what they will do. Most of the republicans want to gut ssi, gut our ability to maintain our own country and give out big fucking tax breaks to the rich.

I would still rather hear it from them, in their own words, not from a lefty who has nothing but contempt for them.
.

Yesterday, Megyn Kelly said no journalist would agree to any restrictions on what he/she could or could not ask.

And while I don't think the candidates should be able to dictate the subject matter in any way, I wonder why in the world we are having journalists or television hosts moderate the debates. Why not ask competent academics or interrogators or business types, etc. to state that they will focus on the issues with an interest to generate non partisan information not widely known by the public and, if they understand and agree to that, why would they not make far better moderators than TV celebrities eager to make a name for themselves?

This is all bizarre to me. There's no excuse for just asking explosive questions, outside of being a ratings whore.

I'd like to know what candidates would do in certain situations, and it amazes me that we can't get there.
.

It no longer amazes me. I have come to expect a mentality that thinks winning at any cost is the goal and if that means treating your opponent unfairly or maliciously, then so be it. And I have come to expect that some really do believe they look smart and informed and clever when they insult some group or somebody in most of the posts they make, so why should we expect less of their surrogates in the media?

The fact is, nobody knows in minute detail what they will be able to do in the USA constitutional system, so asking them for specifics now is pretty much as pointless as the 'let's you and him fight' approach. But their basic philosophy is important. For instance I favor a flat tax system, whatever the most practical such system might actually look like, so I am especially interested in those candidates that also favor a flat tax system. Beating them up on their specific detailed plan that nobody with a brain knows will likely be voted into law is just as dumb as the 'comic book' question. I would expect the one for whom I cast my vote to have the intelligence to surround himself or herself with the best qualified and knowledgeable people ever and come up with workable policy that can work and can also receive a thumbs up from Congress and we the people.

Your taxes will go up under a flat tax system, assuming it's designed to collect the same amount of revenue.

You will be paying a portion of what the rich used to pay, unless of course you're rich yourself,

which means you support the flat tax for the most common reason out there...

...self interest.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A 10% flat tax would mean that we couldn't afford to invest in our infrastructure, science institutions are the best in r&d anymore. We'd probably have to cut back on wars and defense at the same time....

While we do this idiocy, china would be investing and surpassing us.

Stupid idiocy.

 

[washamericom]

Trump clearly won
No it was Carson
Nope, Cruz won
Rubio was the winner ..

as witnessed on this board.

These dolts can't even pick a clear winner, and the mods/station/format is their BIG problem ??????

the country is laughing at the right ...

who are these dolts ? the election is to pick the winner, more than 1 year from now.

 

[washamericom]

I don't care who does them, I just wish they'd ask about what the candidates would do while in office. Wow, crazy shit, huh?.

I think we have a good idea of what they will do. Most of the republicans want to gut ssi, gut our ability to maintain our own country and give out big fucking tax breaks to the rich.

I would still rather hear it from them, in their own words, not from a lefty who has nothing but contempt for them.
.

Yesterday, Megyn Kelly said no journalist would agree to any restrictions on what he/she could or could not ask.

And while I don't think the candidates should be able to dictate the subject matter in any way, I wonder why in the world we are having journalists or television hosts moderate the debates. Why not ask competent academics or interrogators or business types, etc. to state that they will focus on the issues with an interest to generate non partisan information not widely known by the public and, if they understand and agree to that, why would they not make far better moderators than TV celebrities eager to make a name for themselves?

This is all bizarre to me. There's no excuse for just asking explosive questions, outside of being a ratings whore.

I'd like to know what candidates would do in certain situations, and it amazes me that we can't get there.
.

the campaign is young. mostly posturing for now.

 

[MarathonMike]

Are you Liberals telling me you had no problem with the questions and subsequent comments from the mediators? "Comic Book Campaign"? "Flap your arms and fly off the stage?" WTF is that? There is a difference between a tough political question and the unprofessional, antagonistic crap coming from that panel of Liberal buffoons. That might be the new low water mark set by the Mediacrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we have a good idea of what they will do. Most of the republicans want to gut ssi, gut our ability to maintain our own country and give out big fucking tax breaks to the rich.

I would still rather hear it from them, in their own words, not from a lefty who has nothing but contempt for them.
.

Yesterday, Megyn Kelly said no journalist would agree to any restrictions on what he/she could or could not ask.

And while I don't think the candidates should be able to dictate the subject matter in any way, I wonder why in the world we are having journalists or television hosts moderate the debates. Why not ask competent academics or interrogators or business types, etc. to state that they will focus on the issues with an interest to generate non partisan information not widely known by the public and, if they understand and agree to that, why would they not make far better moderators than TV celebrities eager to make a name for themselves?

This is all bizarre to me. There's no excuse for just asking explosive questions, outside of being a ratings whore.

I'd like to know what candidates would do in certain situations, and it amazes me that we can't get there.
.

It no longer amazes me. I have come to expect a mentality that thinks winning at any cost is the goal and if that means treating your opponent unfairly or maliciously, then so be it. And I have come to expect that some really do believe they look smart and informed and clever when they insult some group or somebody in most of the posts they make, so why should we expect less of their surrogates in the media?

The fact is, nobody knows in minute detail what they will be able to do in the USA constitutional system, so asking them for specifics now is pretty much as pointless as the 'let's you and him fight' approach. But their basic philosophy is important. For instance I favor a flat tax system, whatever the most practical such system might actually look like, so I am especially interested in those candidates that also favor a flat tax system. Beating them up on their specific detailed plan that nobody with a brain knows will likely be voted into law is just as dumb as the 'comic book' question. I would expect the one for whom I cast my vote to have the intelligence to surround himself or herself with the best qualified and knowledgeable people ever and come up with workable policy that can work and can also receive a thumbs up from Congress and we the people.

Your taxes will go up under a flat tax system, assuming it's designed to collect the same amount of revenue.

You will be paying a portion of what the rich used to pay, unless of course you're rich yourself,

which means you support the flat tax for the most common reason out there...

...self interest.

I just think it is wrong that almost 50% of working Americans pay no income tax or very little income tax at all. It causes several negative pressures on the economy and certainly creates a huge voting block who will favor the candidate who will see to it that they continue to pay no taxes. But if everybody earning above a reasonable base threshhold is paying the same percentage in taxes as all other working Americans, everybody feels it when the tax code changes. Everybody enjoys the blessings when taxes go down and everybody feels the pain when taxes go up. That creates a huge incentive to cast your vote for the person who has the best ideas for all the people and not a demographic who will keep that person in office where he can increase his own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

And yes, there is a good chance I would pay more in taxes under a flat tax system. But I would also expect the economy to improve so dramatically that I also would expect to have opportunity to earn more too.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Actually, there was more substance and talk of policy and issues in the Dem debate than there ever has been in the current Rep debates.

Dems aren't really interested in name calling, they want to show the differences in their policies and what direction they think the country should go.

Calling nonsense "substance" is a game approach, but like Chinese food, it leaves you feeling empty.

 

[bripat9643]

Let the little GOP whiners take turns moderating their own debates!

Yes, let's, and the Dims (mainstream media) can moderate the Dim debates.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's an idea.

Schedule another Republican debate on CNBC

to take place one week AFTER the Democratic debate held on Foxnews.

The Dims are afraid to go on FOX News.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Here's an idea.

Schedule another Republican debate on CNBC

to take place one week AFTER the Democratic debate held on Foxnews.

The Dims are afraid to go on FOX News.

Yup.

Will never happen.

 

[ninja007]

Lol does the GOP want some cheese to go along with all that whine?

The Drive-Bys Aren’t Embarrassed by the CNBC Debate - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[Papageorgio]

NBC should run professional wrestling and monster truck competitions during the next GOP debate,

and decimate their audience.

I'm sure you'd be sitting there watching.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"RNC says no more debates to nbc..."

Republicans acting like petulant children, having a temper tantrum because 'the media' were mean to them.

The GOP becomes more insular, more ridiculous, and more at odds with the Nation as a whole.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lol does the GOP want some cheese to go along with all that whine?

I'm going to bust out laughing the next debate when they mention "toughness".

 

[Andylusion]

NBC should run professional wrestling and monster truck competitions during the next GOP debate,

and decimate their audience.

Yeah, and from what I've seen, there would be more substance, and honesty in a pro-wrestling and monster truck rally, than any debate I've seen from the DNC. It would actually be a step up from anything your side ever offers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Next republican debate will give the repub questions a week in advance and let them respond in 180 characters or less lmao.

You know how they feel about gotcha questions like "what do you read?"

 

[IsaacNewton]

this is great: http://www.startribune.com/gop-suspends-partnership-with-nbc-news-for-february-debate/338846682/

JIM WILSON, NEW YORK TIMES
Donald Trump speaks during the debate of Republican presidential hopefuls at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Oct. 28, 2015. At left is Sen. Marco Rubio, at right, Ben Carson.
WASHINGTON — The Republican National Committee says it's suspending its partnership with NBC News and its properties and won't allow the network to co-host a presidential primary debate scheduled for February.

The letter from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to NBC News chief Andrew Lack comes after this week's heavily criticized debate on CNBC.

But they give Faux News a pass when their moderators argued with the candidates and had inappropriate questions.

I mean who cares, the Republican candidate won't win so it doesn't matter. Let them play the Erkel card and go off and sulk. LOL