So,The Republican Klown Kar Only Wants Republicans Moderators

[hunarcy]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

The democrats already have democrats asking them questions…it is only fair that Republicans get the same treatment…..

Provide your proof of that statement. This exactly what I expected. Prove what you just wrote.

Name a Republican who has served as a moderator at a debate. If you fail, his statement is proven.

 

[guno]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question

 

[2aguy]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question
View attachment 53753

You do realize that the Alaskan democrat Rep who was on the debate committee was uninvited to the first democrat debate because she wanted more debates on the democrat side…right?

 

[2aguy]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question
View attachment 53753

The democrats hate debate and free speech….the Republicans have had two debates each time……

Democratic debate 2015: Gabbard says DNC disinvited her - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she was disinvited from Tuesday night's first Democratic debate after voicing a call for more of them.

Gabbard, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday on "The Situation Room" she was told her vocal support for more debates had made her "no longer welcome to come to the debate."

Gabbard said the message was conveyed to her chief-of-staff from the chief-of-staff of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

"The prevailing message of that was that because I continued to call for more debates, that I should not go to the debate in Las Vegas," the Hawaii congresswoman said. "The issue here is not about me saying, 'Boo hoo, I'm going to miss the party.' The issue here is one of democracy and freedom of speech."

The New York Times reported earlier Monday that Gabbard had received a message through her staff about her attendance at the event one day after she appeared on television calling for more Democratic debates. Bernie Sanders campaign then offered her a ticket later on Monday.

Facts and truth are really the enemies of the left…...

 

[Rustic]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

What about the up-and-coming dem debate, MSNBC and Rachel mad cow??

 

[ClosedCaption]

They need to make the debate three hours then in order to fit the foreplay in for these vaginas

That's a clown post, bro

They are acting like pussies and think that by making accusations over and over like "Dems debates are hosted by Dems" then its the truth. Sorry, they have no leverage. What are they going to do? Declare they WONT do any debates? Host their own or their own channel?

Do all of them on Fox and show how much back rubbing this "debate" is going to have?

 

[guno]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question
View attachment 53753

The democrats hate debate and free speech….the Republicans have had two debates each time……

Democratic debate 2015: Gabbard says DNC disinvited her - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she was disinvited from Tuesday night's first Democratic debate after voicing a call for more of them.

Gabbard, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday on "The Situation Room" she was told her vocal support for more debates had made her "no longer welcome to come to the debate."

Gabbard said the message was conveyed to her chief-of-staff from the chief-of-staff of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

"The prevailing message of that was that because I continued to call for more debates, that I should not go to the debate in Las Vegas," the Hawaii congresswoman said. "The issue here is not about me saying, 'Boo hoo, I'm going to miss the party.' The issue here is one of democracy and freedom of speech."

The New York Times reported earlier Monday that Gabbard had received a message through her staff about her attendance at the event one day after she appeared on television calling for more Democratic debates. Bernie Sanders campaign then offered her a ticket later on Monday.

Facts and truth are really the enemies of the left…...

The democrats hate debate and free speech

More insane talking points, Why do the Republicans want to choose and filter the questions?

 

[2aguy]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question
View attachment 53753

The democrats hate debate and free speech….the Republicans have had two debates each time……

Democratic debate 2015: Gabbard says DNC disinvited her - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she was disinvited from Tuesday night's first Democratic debate after voicing a call for more of them.

Gabbard, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday on "The Situation Room" she was told her vocal support for more debates had made her "no longer welcome to come to the debate."

Gabbard said the message was conveyed to her chief-of-staff from the chief-of-staff of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

"The prevailing message of that was that because I continued to call for more debates, that I should not go to the debate in Las Vegas," the Hawaii congresswoman said. "The issue here is not about me saying, 'Boo hoo, I'm going to miss the party.' The issue here is one of democracy and freedom of speech."

The New York Times reported earlier Monday that Gabbard had received a message through her staff about her attendance at the event one day after she appeared on television calling for more Democratic debates. Bernie Sanders campaign then offered her a ticket later on Monday.

Facts and truth are really the enemies of the left…...

The democrats hate debate and free speech

More insane talking points, Why do the Republicans want to choose and filter the questions?

How many debates are the democrats having again? Why was Gabbard told not to show up at the debate? How many pro-life democrats are allowed to speak at their Presidential conventions?

 

[auditor0007]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

I really don't see how this is much of a problem. These are debates to help people decide on their party nominee. It's not the general election. BTW, I'd really love to give Ben Carson five minutes to explain to us all how his tax plan will work, with specifics. We all know he is full of shit when he says a 15% flat tax would be enough.

 

[2aguy]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

I really don't see how this is much of a problem. These are debates to help people decide on their party nominee. It's not the general election. BTW, I'd really love to give Ben Carson five minutes to explain to us all how his tax plan will work, with specifics. We all know he is full of shit when he says a 15% flat tax would be enough.

15% is enough…..the government needs to cut…a lot…..and the more you give the more and more they will spend….

 

[auditor0007]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

I really don't see how this is much of a problem. These are debates to help people decide on their party nominee. It's not the general election. BTW, I'd really love to give Ben Carson five minutes to explain to us all how his tax plan will work, with specifics. We all know he is full of shit when he says a 15% flat tax would be enough.

15% is enough…..the government needs to cut…a lot…..and the more you give the more and more they will spend….

You're obviously correct. We will now cut out all welfare, SS, Medicare, and cut our military in half. Go for it. It's a great plan to run on. I'm sure most Americans will agree with this absolutely nutty idea. You really do not understand how taxation works, do you?

 

[Arizona Willie]

What are they going to do? Refuse and stream it online lol.

========
The networks should refuse to carry any Republican events or commercials. But they won't ... not about to turn down a dime in revenue now matter how filthy the money.

Republicans only want to be asked questions they have given the moderators to ask them. Questions theY have canned answers to that they can repeat in their sleep --- as they appear to have been doing in the previous " debates ".

The Republicans have one policy and one policy only that is supposed to fit every situation and solve every problem.

MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS.

 

[2aguy]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

I really don't see how this is much of a problem. These are debates to help people decide on their party nominee. It's not the general election. BTW, I'd really love to give Ben Carson five minutes to explain to us all how his tax plan will work, with specifics. We all know he is full of shit when he says a 15% flat tax would be enough.

15% is enough…..the government needs to cut…a lot…..and the more you give the more and more they will spend….

You're obviously correct. We will now cut out all welfare, SS, Medicare, and cut our military in half. Go for it. It's a great plan to run on. I'm sure most Americans will agree with this absolutely nutty idea. You really do not understand how taxation works, do you?

I think we can start with shrimp on treadmill funding……

I understand how taxation works…the politicians promise free stuff to everyone and then use that addiction to give them the power to take as much money as they want to buy votes and power……

And there will never be enough money to pay for everything the politicians promise….

 

[bedowin62]

a charge of being thin-skinned from the same retards that fall apart if you say ALL lives matter should not be laughed at WHY left-wing nutjob???

They sound like Palin with everything is a got ya question
View attachment 53753

The democrats hate debate and free speech….the Republicans have had two debates each time……

Democratic debate 2015: Gabbard says DNC disinvited her - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she was disinvited from Tuesday night's first Democratic debate after voicing a call for more of them.

Gabbard, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday on "The Situation Room" she was told her vocal support for more debates had made her "no longer welcome to come to the debate."

Gabbard said the message was conveyed to her chief-of-staff from the chief-of-staff of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

"The prevailing message of that was that because I continued to call for more debates, that I should not go to the debate in Las Vegas," the Hawaii congresswoman said. "The issue here is not about me saying, 'Boo hoo, I'm going to miss the party.' The issue here is one of democracy and freedom of speech."

The New York Times reported earlier Monday that Gabbard had received a message through her staff about her attendance at the event one day after she appeared on television calling for more Democratic debates. Bernie Sanders campaign then offered her a ticket later on Monday.

Facts and truth are really the enemies of the left…...

The democrats hate debate and free speech

More insane talking points, Why do the Republicans want to choose and filter the questions?

because left-wingers cant be trusted
but you already knew this leftard

 

[bedowin62]

What are they going to do? Refuse and stream it online lol.

========
The networks should refuse to carry any Republican events or commercials. But they won't ... not about to turn down a dime in revenue now matter how filthy the money.

Republicans only want to be asked questions they have given the moderators to ask them. Questions theY have canned answers to that they can repeat in their sleep --- as they appear to have been doing in the previous " debates ".

The Republicans have one policy and one policy only that is supposed to fit every situation and solve every problem.

MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS.

the wealthy and corporations have gotten MUCH richer on the Progressive Democrat's watch

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Pogo]

THIS JUST IN (and by "just" I mean 25 years ago): Presidential debates have been a dog-and-pony show orchestrated by collusion between the two (read: one) party through the last SEVEN campaign seasons. Before that they were genuinely organized by a nonpartisan outside entity, the League of Women Voters:

The League continued to sponsor the presidential and vice presidential debates every four years through the 1984 elections. Following that election cycle, the Democratic and Republican national parties came together in a decision to move sponsorship of the debates under the purview of the parties.

Between 1985 and 1987 the League challenged this move and sparked widespread public debate on the matter. The LWVEF argued that a change in sponsorship that put control of the debate format in the hands of the two dominant parties would deprive voters of one of the only chances they have to see the candidates outside of their controlled campaign environment.

In 1987 the parties announced the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission chose LWVEF to sponsor the last presidential debate of 1988, but placed so many rules and restrictions on the possible format of the debate that the LWVEF was finally unable to agree to participate. In a press release at the time, Nancy Neuman, then LWVUS President, stated that the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

The nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988 (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012). << --- LWV

​

--- so in effect the Republican Party will get the moderators, format and questions it wants to deal with, and the Democratic Party will get the moderators, formats and questions it wants to deal with, and when they finally appear together those will be negotiated to mutual agreement, and both of them will be able to shut out inconvenient voices, formats and questions they don't want.

But that needn't affect us here at USMB where we'll continue to pretend these are two different parties.

 

[bedowin62]

THIS JUST IN (and by "just" I mean 25 years ago): Presidential debates have been a dog-and-pony show orchestrated by collusion between the two (read: one) party through the last SEVEN campaign seasons. Before that they were genuinely organized by a nonpartisan outside entity, the League of Women Voters:

The League continued to sponsor the presidential and vice presidential debates every four years through the 1984 elections. Following that election cycle, the Democratic and Republican national parties came together in a decision to move sponsorship of the debates under the purview of the parties.

Between 1985 and 1987 the League challenged this move and sparked widespread public debate on the matter. The LWVEF argued that a change in sponsorship that put control of the debate format in the hands of the two dominant parties would deprive voters of one of the only chances they have to see the candidates outside of their controlled campaign environment.

In 1987 the parties announced the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission chose LWVEF to sponsor the last presidential debate of 1988, but placed so many rules and restrictions on the possible format of the debate that the LWVEF was finally unable to agree to participate. In a press release at the time, Nancy Neuman, then LWVUS President, stated that the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

The nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988 (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012). << --- LWV

​

--- so in effect the Republican Party will get the moderators, format and questions it wants, and the Democratic Party will get the moderators, forums and questions it wants, and when they appear together those will be negotiated to mutual agreement, and both of them will be able to shut out inconvenient voices they don't want.

But that needn't affect us here at USMB where we'll continue to pretend these are two different parties.

you just gotta love the "this is the way it was done 25 years ago so dont bother saying or doing anything about it" thingy

 

[hortysir]

IF the Republican Candidate's want only Republicans to ask them questions at their debates, does that mean that Democrats can only have Dems ask them questions at the Democratic Debates?

You really should check your ThinkProgress emails more regularly.

Or, at least, use the SEARCH function.
More chance of an original topic that way

 

[Pogo]

THIS JUST IN (and by "just" I mean 25 years ago): Presidential debates have been a dog-and-pony show orchestrated by collusion between the two (read: one) party through the last SEVEN campaign seasons. Before that they were genuinely organized by a nonpartisan outside entity, the League of Women Voters:

The League continued to sponsor the presidential and vice presidential debates every four years through the 1984 elections. Following that election cycle, the Democratic and Republican national parties came together in a decision to move sponsorship of the debates under the purview of the parties.

Between 1985 and 1987 the League challenged this move and sparked widespread public debate on the matter. The LWVEF argued that a change in sponsorship that put control of the debate format in the hands of the two dominant parties would deprive voters of one of the only chances they have to see the candidates outside of their controlled campaign environment.

In 1987 the parties announced the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission chose LWVEF to sponsor the last presidential debate of 1988, but placed so many rules and restrictions on the possible format of the debate that the LWVEF was finally unable to agree to participate. In a press release at the time, Nancy Neuman, then LWVUS President, stated that the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

The nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988 (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012). << --- LWV

​

--- so in effect the Republican Party will get the moderators, format and questions it wants, and the Democratic Party will get the moderators, forums and questions it wants, and when they appear together those will be negotiated to mutual agreement, and both of them will be able to shut out inconvenient voices they don't want.

But that needn't affect us here at USMB where we'll continue to pretend these are two different parties.

you just gotta love the "this is the way it was done 25 years ago so dont bother saying or doing anything about it" thingy

You seriously expect us to believe THAT is what you think that post means?

::::::::::wwhhhhooooosssssssshhhhh:::::::::::::

 

[bedowin62]

THIS JUST IN (and by "just" I mean 25 years ago): Presidential debates have been a dog-and-pony show orchestrated by collusion between the two (read: one) party through the last SEVEN campaign seasons. Before that they were genuinely organized by a nonpartisan outside entity, the League of Women Voters:

The League continued to sponsor the presidential and vice presidential debates every four years through the 1984 elections. Following that election cycle, the Democratic and Republican national parties came together in a decision to move sponsorship of the debates under the purview of the parties.

Between 1985 and 1987 the League challenged this move and sparked widespread public debate on the matter. The LWVEF argued that a change in sponsorship that put control of the debate format in the hands of the two dominant parties would deprive voters of one of the only chances they have to see the candidates outside of their controlled campaign environment.

In 1987 the parties announced the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission chose LWVEF to sponsor the last presidential debate of 1988, but placed so many rules and restrictions on the possible format of the debate that the LWVEF was finally unable to agree to participate. In a press release at the time, Nancy Neuman, then LWVUS President, stated that the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

The nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988 (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012). << --- LWV

​

--- so in effect the Republican Party will get the moderators, format and questions it wants, and the Democratic Party will get the moderators, forums and questions it wants, and when they appear together those will be negotiated to mutual agreement, and both of them will be able to shut out inconvenient voices they don't want.

But that needn't affect us here at USMB where we'll continue to pretend these are two different parties.

you just gotta love the "this is the way it was done 25 years ago so dont bother saying or doing anything about it" thingy

::::::::::wwhhhhooooosssssssshhhhh:::::::::::::

exactly leftard!!

the future is just went by you while you're whining about 25 year old shit