Team Trump and Team Carson Organize Non-RNC Debate Meeting…

[Kondor3]

I hope they arrange their own debates...

...so they can whine about the lack of viewership. Good!

Last time they threatened not to show up at the third debate, then showed up anyway. They'll do the same this time, too.

Classic example of "You guys suck! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

Except they literally don't have the balls...

One of the more naive contributions to the thread to date...

 

[bripat9643]

I hope they arrange their own debates...

...so they can whine about the lack of viewership. Good!

Last time they threatened not to show up at the third debate, then showed up anyway. They'll do the same this time, too.

Classic example of "You guys suck! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

Except they literally don't have the balls...

CNBC complied with Trump's demands, so why wouldn't he show up?

Typical liberal who mentions only half the facts.

You're all liars. Every last one of you.

 

[konradv]

Splitting the vote with a third party normally succeeds in electing the real enemy. It's something Republicans should know, but it'll be interesting to see if they insist on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Arianrhod]

I hope they arrange their own debates...

...so they can whine about the lack of viewership. Good!

Last time they threatened not to show up at the third debate, then showed up anyway. They'll do the same this time, too.

Classic example of "You guys suck! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

Except they literally don't have the balls...

One of the more naive contributions to the thread to date...

Because I think this is a good thing? If you say so.

 

[depotoo]

I hope they arrange their own debates...

...so they can whine about the lack of viewership. Good!

Last time they threatened not to show up at the third debate, then showed up anyway. They'll do the same this time, too.

Classic example of "You guys suck! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

Except they literally don't have the balls...

They threatened to not show up if they made it a 3 hour debate. CNBC conceded, and returned tit to 2 hours, so no, it wasn't them showing up anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you guys are vastly overestimating the percentage of Americans who will fall for populist bullshit.

 

[Lakhota]

It's good to see the GOP presidential candidates embracing socialism by collectively overrunning the RNC. Reminds me of Benghazi.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Splitting the vote with a third party normally succeeds in electing the real enemy. It's something Republicans should know, but it'll be interesting to see if they insist on shooting themselves in the foot.

Who's talking about a third party?

 

[candycorn]

...Total nonsense...

Yes. I understand that someone who has voiced support for a professional political class would take exception to the more visceral label of 'Ruling Class', although that exception does nothing to negate the practical effect and sensibly construed meaning of your words. But, you get the benefit of a doubt, I suppose.

Support? No.

Recognition? Yes.

Assessment: in a complex world where every decision is important, you want someone who has the intellectual bandwidth to do the job.

QUOTE="Kondor3, post: 12697580, member: 20204"]

...And if those they appoint do not have the nation's best interest at hand?...

A chance that we take with every newly-installed leadership team, is it not? The Daddy-and-Baby-Bush bought-and-sold Team come to mind as such an example.
[/quote]

Much better to have a technocrat than charismatic leader.
QUOTE="Kondor3, post: 12697580, member: 20204"]

...Its sort of funny. I lied. It's ******* hilarious. Here you are deriding me for simply stating that politics is a profession and your constrewing that into my believing that first there is a ruling class and, secondly, that decisions are best left to them...

I cannot protect you from your own words, nor the common-sense conclusions that an average person would draw from such words.

...Then, in the next breath, you're willing to trust these 1%ers who are all decades removed from ever having to make a paycheck stretch to "hire the necessary Subject Matter Expertise" to decide policy while they are busy "leading". ..

Are you trying to tell us that The Clintons are not 'decades removed from ever having to make a paycheck stretch' and that they have not 'hired the necessary Subject Matter Expertise' to formulate and execute policy?

Do you want to stick with that, trying to pretend that that is not what all Leaders do, to extent A or B, depending upon their background and talents and energies?

[/quote]

Listening to others is different than letting them (or relying on them to) guide you as you stated. This is why Carson and Trump will not keep their leads.

PS. Never said the clintons were salt of the earth.

QUOTE="Kondor3, post: 12697580, member: 20204"]

...So which is it?

It's both.

I (a) think you favor a Liberally-inclined Ruling Class and (b) I think that all Leaders gather S(ubject) M(atter) E(xpert)s about them, to carry-out their macro-level designs, in detail.[/QUOTE]

The past hasn't been much of an indictment of the supposed ruling class. Neither is the present if you compare us to most other places.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can someone show CandyCorn how to quote ?

Please.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you guys are vastly overestimating the percentage of Americans who will fall for populist bullshit.

Fall for what populist bullshit?

Fist you have to tell me why kicking the side show hosts to the curb is somehow bullshit.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would be interesting if they did. I would not mind the RNC losing a bit of their power over the candidates themselves.

Good post.

Totally agree with you. I am constantly amazed that the "under card" and those polling pathetically don't say "**** it" and have their own debate. There is a legal term called, "You can't un-ring the bell". It means that the jury cannot forget it heard something despite the judge's instructions.

Go to the University of Iowa or whatever with 5-7 candidates and say you want a real debate; one where an out of work anchor with some gravitas....lets say Charles GIbson or some author like Ann Coulter or even Presidential Staffer like Ari Fleischer to moderate. Not interrogate, not nit-pick, just enforce the time limit and control the flow.

Something like this:

1st Question: "Mr. Jindal. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" It takes about 10 seconds to ask the question and Bobby will talk for about 120 seconds. That is 130 seconds. Next. "Ms. Fiorina. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" Another 130 seconds. You repeat this for each candidate (about 5-7 of them) and you end up with about 20 minutes being used.

2nd Question: "Mr. Santorum. We are $18T in debt. Any thoughts on how we can first balance the budget and secondly pay off the debt. Please name the top 5 programs you'd cut and how much that would save us. You have 2 minutes." So that would be about another 20 minutes.

3rd Question: "Mr. Paul. Name the first 5 things you'd want to accomplish during the "honeymoon" phase of your presidency. What would be your top 5 priorities. You have 2 minutes." Next. "Mr Graham. Your top 5 priorities?"
That would take up another 20 minutes.

4th Question: Jobs.

5th Question: New Industries; not just new businesses. How can government help companies go from R & D to development quicker?

Then at the end; each participant gets 3, 4, or 5 minutes to close. Followed by the moderator's remarks limited to what was said on stage that evening....

Get 6 or 7 "big" questions on the list; let the candidates answer them and let the chips fall where they may. No "gotcha" questions; not "Senator, in 2013 you stated, blah blah blah.." or "Governor, during your tenure, your state held 30 executions... (something a President will never have to do).

In all honesty, The chances are that none of these participants ill be around in March or April anyway so why not,at least, let them take some stands. Also, while the RNC may punish participants, voters will likely reward candidates with ideas who resonate.

The upshot is this though. I seriously doubt that many really want to take stands on 6-7 big issues. The "softball" and inane questions in the past debates help as much as they supposedly hurt. Then after the debate, they get up there and shake their heads and say, "we had a lost opportunity to discuss real issues." As if there is a shortage of TV cameras around these folks....

I think that last statement is rather funny but sadly true. The reality is that the candidates usually do not take hard stances, particularly in the primaries, because it is a lot harder to spin and lie your way out of a real stance. The public also eats that shit up because they like the tag lines. Hope and change, read my lips (used twice) and on and on. Everything is based on the 5 second media clip now rather than real plans which, by the very nature and scope of the government, cannot be simple.

What you outline is EXACTLY what I want to see in a debate. The new debate style is asinine.

 

[candycorn]

Would be interesting if they did. I would not mind the RNC losing a bit of their power over the candidates themselves.

Good post.

Totally agree with you. I am constantly amazed that the "under card" and those polling pathetically don't say "**** it" and have their own debate. There is a legal term called, "You can't un-ring the bell". It means that the jury cannot forget it heard something despite the judge's instructions.

Go to the University of Iowa or whatever with 5-7 candidates and say you want a real debate; one where an out of work anchor with some gravitas....lets say Charles GIbson or some author like Ann Coulter or even Presidential Staffer like Ari Fleischer to moderate. Not interrogate, not nit-pick, just enforce the time limit and control the flow.

Something like this:

1st Question: "Mr. Jindal. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" It takes about 10 seconds to ask the question and Bobby will talk for about 120 seconds. That is 130 seconds. Next. "Ms. Fiorina. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" Another 130 seconds. You repeat this for each candidate (about 5-7 of them) and you end up with about 20 minutes being used.

2nd Question: "Mr. Santorum. We are $18T in debt. Any thoughts on how we can first balance the budget and secondly pay off the debt. Please name the top 5 programs you'd cut and how much that would save us. You have 2 minutes." So that would be about another 20 minutes.

3rd Question: "Mr. Paul. Name the first 5 things you'd want to accomplish during the "honeymoon" phase of your presidency. What would be your top 5 priorities. You have 2 minutes." Next. "Mr Graham. Your top 5 priorities?"
That would take up another 20 minutes.

4th Question: Jobs.

5th Question: New Industries; not just new businesses. How can government help companies go from R & D to development quicker?

Then at the end; each participant gets 3, 4, or 5 minutes to close. Followed by the moderator's remarks limited to what was said on stage that evening....

Get 6 or 7 "big" questions on the list; let the candidates answer them and let the chips fall where they may. No "gotcha" questions; not "Senator, in 2013 you stated, blah blah blah.." or "Governor, during your tenure, your state held 30 executions... (something a President will never have to do).

In all honesty, The chances are that none of these participants ill be around in March or April anyway so why not,at least, let them take some stands. Also, while the RNC may punish participants, voters will likely reward candidates with ideas who resonate.

The upshot is this though. I seriously doubt that many really want to take stands on 6-7 big issues. The "softball" and inane questions in the past debates help as much as they supposedly hurt. Then after the debate, they get up there and shake their heads and say, "we had a lost opportunity to discuss real issues." As if there is a shortage of TV cameras around these folks....

I think that last statement is rather funny but sadly true. The reality is that the candidates usually do not take hard stances, particularly in the primaries, because it is a lot harder to spin and lie your way out of a real stance. The public also eats that shit up because they like the tag lines. Hope and change, read my lips (used twice) and on and on. Everything is based on the 5 second media clip now rather than real plans which, by the very nature and scope of the government, cannot be simple.

What you outline is EXACTLY what I want to see in a debate. The new debate style is asinine.

If we can think of it, surely the media has thought of it. Either it was an editorial position based on how boring it would be to watch and shelved or the surrogates of the parties or candidates make sure that format is not employed.

 

[longknife]

As posted elsewhere, the RNC is in the tank for Jeb! so this is a move for the other candidates to put thins on a level basis.

One thing I haven't seen posted yet is how the RNC is setting the rules so that any candidate that participates in debates NOT supported by the RNC will be ousted from the part AND NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONVENTION!

 

[FA_Q2]

Would be interesting if they did. I would not mind the RNC losing a bit of their power over the candidates themselves.

Good post.

Totally agree with you. I am constantly amazed that the "under card" and those polling pathetically don't say "**** it" and have their own debate. There is a legal term called, "You can't un-ring the bell". It means that the jury cannot forget it heard something despite the judge's instructions.

Go to the University of Iowa or whatever with 5-7 candidates and say you want a real debate; one where an out of work anchor with some gravitas....lets say Charles GIbson or some author like Ann Coulter or even Presidential Staffer like Ari Fleischer to moderate. Not interrogate, not nit-pick, just enforce the time limit and control the flow.

Something like this:

1st Question: "Mr. Jindal. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" It takes about 10 seconds to ask the question and Bobby will talk for about 120 seconds. That is 130 seconds. Next. "Ms. Fiorina. In 90 Seconds, can you tell us what you would do specifically to combat ISIS?" Another 130 seconds. You repeat this for each candidate (about 5-7 of them) and you end up with about 20 minutes being used.

2nd Question: "Mr. Santorum. We are $18T in debt. Any thoughts on how we can first balance the budget and secondly pay off the debt. Please name the top 5 programs you'd cut and how much that would save us. You have 2 minutes." So that would be about another 20 minutes.

3rd Question: "Mr. Paul. Name the first 5 things you'd want to accomplish during the "honeymoon" phase of your presidency. What would be your top 5 priorities. You have 2 minutes." Next. "Mr Graham. Your top 5 priorities?"
That would take up another 20 minutes.

4th Question: Jobs.

5th Question: New Industries; not just new businesses. How can government help companies go from R & D to development quicker?

Then at the end; each participant gets 3, 4, or 5 minutes to close. Followed by the moderator's remarks limited to what was said on stage that evening....

Get 6 or 7 "big" questions on the list; let the candidates answer them and let the chips fall where they may. No "gotcha" questions; not "Senator, in 2013 you stated, blah blah blah.." or "Governor, during your tenure, your state held 30 executions... (something a President will never have to do).

In all honesty, The chances are that none of these participants ill be around in March or April anyway so why not,at least, let them take some stands. Also, while the RNC may punish participants, voters will likely reward candidates with ideas who resonate.

The upshot is this though. I seriously doubt that many really want to take stands on 6-7 big issues. The "softball" and inane questions in the past debates help as much as they supposedly hurt. Then after the debate, they get up there and shake their heads and say, "we had a lost opportunity to discuss real issues." As if there is a shortage of TV cameras around these folks....

I think that last statement is rather funny but sadly true. The reality is that the candidates usually do not take hard stances, particularly in the primaries, because it is a lot harder to spin and lie your way out of a real stance. The public also eats that shit up because they like the tag lines. Hope and change, read my lips (used twice) and on and on. Everything is based on the 5 second media clip now rather than real plans which, by the very nature and scope of the government, cannot be simple.

What you outline is EXACTLY what I want to see in a debate. The new debate style is asinine.

If we can think of it, surely the media has thought of it. Either it was an editorial position based on how boring it would be to watch and shelved or the surrogates of the parties or candidates make sure that format is not employed.

I don't think that anyone thinks the media is ignorant of the available options nor do I think that your either/or situation is viable. The sad reality is that neither entity could force this to occur - the candidates/parties can run their own if the media did not want real debates or the media could demand real debates and make anyone not participating in them clearly looking for a scapegoat.

Everyone is complicit in this and they are because this is what the American people want. Those that take a solid stand are torn to pieces by campaign slogans that cant be nailed down and debate antics are watched and re watched.

It all comes back to the electorate. An electorate that gives congress an 8% approval rating yet gets over 80% reelection.

 

[longknife]

Whatever happened to the days when there were only 3 debates hosted by The League of Women Voters?