The precedent has been set

[LoneLaugher]

I can't blame the GOP for telling the media to shove it with debate after debate of stupid questions, but now the danger would be that it goes too far in the opposite direction.

I want to know precisely what each candidate would do if faced with specific situations and issues, and why their ideas are better than those of the other candidates.

Is this really so ******* tough?

All this other "gotcha" bullshit is a waste of time.
.

They were asked questions of that nature. They failed to answer them. Then whined about it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this.............where in the law does it state that they can't get together and have their own debate.....................If they pay for it, who is the FEC to stop them for doing so..................Private funding and their own debate...............

They can simply refuse to debate on a network if they believe that network is biased...........Boycott them and let the moderators debate themselves............

CNBC and it's moderators are left leaning hacks................They were there to get the candidates into a fight, and sling mud at them...........They were unprofessional and a disgrace to their profession.............................

No need to give more who lean left the same opportunity...................

This is a Republican Primary..................not the Dems primary...................no need to debate in basically enemy territory.

 

[imawhosure]

They just canceled all NBC debates. Sounds like some control to me. You saw them eat themselves at the last debate? They agree more than they disagreed. That's what happens when you become united under a common enemy.

The RNC can cancel debates, but they don't have any control over the debates themselves. It's the law, actually.

They also set the schedules and things don't they?

They can suggest a schedule, but by law the debates themselves have to be run by either a media organization, or a 501c3 organization.

Here is exactly what you said DOC. It insinuates clearly that the outside 4 have no control, which is clearly false. On down the line, you then changed your tune in other responses, to attempt to prove that the media could NOT be questioned, or sued. (that is my take anyway)

I am no longer going to respond because you are a mod, and clearly wrong. Arguing with a mod is dumb, as maybe not in this thread, but some thread down the road, you will be repaid for showing the mods error. But, I will plainly say that you attempted to suggest in the post I noted, that the 4 were NOT in control because of laws. You were plainly trying to convince people that they had no control, and the feds (a liberal liking fed control, who woulda thunk it) would stop them because of rules.

Now you as a leftist are going to insist, "no, oh no, I never meant that," lol. Yeah, and the moderators of the debate, never really meant it either. Seems that everyone agrees they went waaaay over the line in the media, but of course, you as a leftist know better, now don't you. You implied laws were going to stop the republican debates from being spirited away from leftist moderators.

Let me give you a heads up! You leftists are in the fight of your life, and haven't even figured it out yet. If it comes to pass that that a republican wins the whitehouse, holds the senate, and certainly will hold the house. You know what! Every liberal department will be summarily dismantled, and it is over!

Doubt me? If it comes to pass they hold all 3, come ask me for a bet, then prepare to tell your wife I cleaned you out-)

Tl;dr.

Your "interpretation" of what you think I meant is between you and your imagination, and has nothing to do with me, and your hollow claims of victory are more than a little bit pathetic - as is using the moderator excuse to weasel out of responding.

My claims of victory are more than reasonable. My use of moderator as a reason not to respond is easily explainable. Have we seen or not seen what happens to people who are blamed for things they did not do? (oh yes, conservative tax returns? How about that poor bast+++ film maker that got blamed for the Benghazi problem? How about Illinois being held hostage by Super Mike Madigan? What about Rahm (Mr Wonderful) hosing Chicago for 450 million in new property taxes, meaning he has a captive audience?)

What it all boils down to is you libs need power to control people, period! Being a mod as you are, why would a lowly person like me try and stand up to your lies? Look what happened when people tried to. Why Lois Lerner clamped down on them. The media distorts debates to favor Hillary. Your guys promise to let me keep my doctor, then take him away. You promise not to allow illegals in because you are not king, then your guy decides he is king, and does it anyway.

Trust you as a mod? Sure I would, but you are lib; and 75% of everything libs in power have said over the last 7 years, have been falsehoods.

And so, while you are a weak lib, just having power on here, I still pointed out you are full of shit as a Christmas turkey at worst, or a propagandist at best. This means, my odds are not good, but at least everyone knows who you are, a leftist, who tries to pretend they know something, which means everyone else should back down, but you ARE full of shi** as a CHRISTMAS turkey, and I proved it-)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The RNC can cancel debates, but they don't have any control over the debates themselves. It's the law, actually.

They also set the schedules and things don't they?

They can suggest a schedule, but by law the debates themselves have to be run by either a media organization, or a 501c3 organization.

Here is exactly what you said DOC. It insinuates clearly that the outside 4 have no control, which is clearly false. On down the line, you then changed your tune in other responses, to attempt to prove that the media could NOT be questioned, or sued. (that is my take anyway)

I am no longer going to respond because you are a mod, and clearly wrong. Arguing with a mod is dumb, as maybe not in this thread, but some thread down the road, you will be repaid for showing the mods error. But, I will plainly say that you attempted to suggest in the post I noted, that the 4 were NOT in control because of laws. You were plainly trying to convince people that they had no control, and the feds (a liberal liking fed control, who woulda thunk it) would stop them because of rules.

Now you as a leftist are going to insist, "no, oh no, I never meant that," lol. Yeah, and the moderators of the debate, never really meant it either. Seems that everyone agrees they went waaaay over the line in the media, but of course, you as a leftist know better, now don't you. You implied laws were going to stop the republican debates from being spirited away from leftist moderators.

Let me give you a heads up! You leftists are in the fight of your life, and haven't even figured it out yet. If it comes to pass that that a republican wins the whitehouse, holds the senate, and certainly will hold the house. You know what! Every liberal department will be summarily dismantled, and it is over!

Doubt me? If it comes to pass they hold all 3, come ask me for a bet, then prepare to tell your wife I cleaned you out-)

Tl;dr.

Your "interpretation" of what you think I meant is between you and your imagination, and has nothing to do with me, and your hollow claims of victory are more than a little bit pathetic - as is using the moderator excuse to weasel out of responding.

My claims of victory are more than reasonable. My use of moderator as a reason not to respond is easily explainable. Have we seen or not seen what happens to people who are blamed for things they did not do? (oh yes, conservative tax returns? How about that poor bast+++ film maker that got blamed for the Benghazi problem? How about Illinois being held hostage by Super Mike Madigan? What about Rahm (Mr Wonderful) hosing Chicago for 450 million in new property taxes, meaning he has a captive audience?)

What it all boils down to is you libs need power to control people, period! Being a mod as you are, why would a lowly person like me try and stand up to your lies? Look what happened when people tried to. Why Lois Lerner clamped down on them. The media distorts debates to favor Hillary. Your guys promise to let me keep my doctor, then take him away. You promise not to allow illegals in because you are not king, then your guy decides he is king, and does it anyway.

Trust you as a mod? Sure I would, but you are lib; and 75% of everything libs in power have said over the last 7 years, have been falsehoods.

And so, while you are a weak lib, just having power on here, I still pointed out you are full of shit as a Christmas turkey at worst, or a propagandist at best. This means, my odds are not good, but at least everyone knows who you are, a leftist, who tries to pretend they know something, which means everyone else should back down, but you ARE full of shi** as a CHRISTMAS turkey, and I proved it-)

Again, tl;dr.

If you expect anyone to read your whining, you should work on being more concise.

 

[tinydancer]

GOP candidates plot debate revolt against RNC

Several Republican presidential campaigns are planning to hold a meeting in Washington, D.C., this Sunday to discuss plans for wresting more control of the debates from the Republican National Committee, CNN has confirmed.

**** the establishment

Good for them. Will they be holding their breaths too? Flopping down and pounding the floor with their fists and heels?

Whether one likes their politics or not the so called moderators don't get to play "let's **** them up".

 

[tinydancer]

Sigh. This is not a game of whack a conservative mole. These are supposed to be pros in the media who can conduct a fair debate between republicans.

Obviously the bloody idiotic left wingers think this is their chance to take out a R candidate and get the biggest gift from the Clintons.

This is bullshit. I'm really so proud that every one nailed the little bastards back. YAY!

 

[LeftofLeft]

My favorite precedent is that you can pass legislation and find out later what it is all about. A close second is the precedent of the Executive Order to bypass Congress.

 

[Iceweasel]

The RNC doesn't have any control over the debates.

But it is fun to watch the GOP eat itself.

They just canceled all NBC debates. Sounds like some control to me. You saw them eat themselves at the last debate? They agree more than they disagreed. That's what happens when you become united under a common enemy.

The RNC can cancel debates, but they don't have any control over the debates themselves. It's the law, actually.

Well you did say they didn't have any control, correct? Exempting a known hostile source is a form of control. I wouldn't want them controlling the questions but I am not familiar with the law you speak of.

 

[tinydancer]

One would have thought that after the Candy Crowley debacle where she jumped to Obama's defense against Romney would have found the RNC laying down firm ground rules for independent moderation.

That was outrageous. Romney should have walked right off the stage when Obama said "get the transcript Candy". And lo and behold Crowley had the transcript right there with her. The White House and Crowley had obviously consulted each other on how the debate was going to be played out.

 

[Mac1958]

One would have thought that after the Candy Crowley debacle where she jumped to Obama's defense against Romney would have found the RNC laying down firm ground rules for independent moderation.

That was outrageous. Romney should have walked right off the stage when Obama said "get the transcript Candy". And lo and behold Crowley had the transcript right there with her. The White House and Crowley had obviously consulted each other on how the debate was going to be played out.

I get a different feel from this fiasco. Both the candidates and the crowd called them out on their questions. When the "moderator" asks a ridiculous question and the crowd boos before the answer begins, you know something is going on.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

When the "moderator" asks a ridiculous question and the crowd boos before the answer begins, you know something is going on.

Absolutely. It means the crowd knows it's a cheap shot.

 

[eagle1462010]

One would have thought that after the Candy Crowley debacle where she jumped to Obama's defense against Romney would have found the RNC laying down firm ground rules for independent moderation.

That was outrageous. Romney should have walked right off the stage when Obama said "get the transcript Candy". And lo and behold Crowley had the transcript right there with her. The White House and Crowley had obviously consulted each other on how the debate was going to be played out.

I wouldn't have walked off the stage..........I'd have told Crowley to go join his buddy on the stage because that was where he belonged...................

Then I would have refused to answer the biased questions and would have pounded Obama on questions that would have made it a slug fest...............when the moderators told me I violated the rules of engagement I would have stated..............

I have only begun to violate them.............and your biased assed questions............

aka I'd have made the debate implode and gave them a taste.

 

[Mac1958]

When the "moderator" asks a ridiculous question and the crowd boos before the answer begins, you know something is going on.

Absolutely. It means the crowd knows it's a cheap shot.

The party better get its shit together pretty quickly on this.

The hardcore lefties are thrilled by this (winning is more important than anything else), but those of us who'd like a serious discussion of the issues aren't getting it.
.

 

[candycorn]

GOP candidates plot debate revolt against RNC

Several Republican presidential campaigns are planning to hold a meeting in Washington, D.C., this Sunday to discuss plans for wresting more control of the debates from the Republican National Committee, CNN has confirmed.

**** the establishment

Good for them. Will they be holding their breaths too? Flopping down and pounding the floor with their fists and heels?

For once, the Candidates (who really knows how many are in the bag on this thing) may have a point. The RNC has been comical in the way they mis-handled the panels. Who ever heard of the "under card" or "happy hour" preliminary? How humiliating is it to be put at the kid's table when you are trying to portray yourself as a serious candidate??? Agreeing to a CNBC debate isn't exactly something that would help their brand--why not have it on Nickelodeon while you're at it????

 

[tinydancer]

Found it. Here's where you would have thought the RNC would have got their shit together to lay down hard core rules. Because this was blatant.

Over the top. Obama demands she get the transcript and to agree with him a little louder.

"Obama said he had called the attack an "act of terror" during remarks the next day in the Rose Garden, and Crowley agreed with him. Suddenly, Romney found himself debating two people, Obama and Crowley, who had no business correcting either candidate.

Romney looked surprised and asked Obama:

“You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama replied, "Get the transcript."

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

“He — he did call it an act of terror," Crowley said, complying with Obama's request."

Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate

 

[candycorn]

When the "moderator" asks a ridiculous question and the crowd boos before the answer begins, you know something is going on.

Absolutely. It means the crowd knows it's a cheap shot.

The party better get its shit together pretty quickly on this.

The hardcore lefties are thrilled by this (winning is more important than anything else), but those of us who'd like a serious discussion of the issues aren't getting it.
.

Thrilled? We passed thrilled weeks ago when there was a "kids table", a front runner who is a liberal, a division between the republicans and their mouthpiece--Fox News, a new front runner who is an empty suit, and now a trantrum by the candidates who supposedly don't like the questions.

I'm glad that charade is working on the conservatives. Do you guys really think that Donald Trump or Marco Rubio want to be asked to go into details about what programs they would cut to balance the budget or what so-called entitlements the voters would be losing by voting for them or what tax loopholes will be closing? They are delighted to get the questions about campaign theatrics and "fantasy football". Their answers mean nothing and they get to shake their heads afterword and speak forlornly about "missed opportunities".

As for winning is important...you betcha. You can't govern if you don't win. Having the best credentialed candidate on either side is a plus for the Dems.

 

[candycorn]

Found it. Here's where you would have thought the RNC would have got their shit together to lay down hard core rules. Because this was blatant.

Over the top. Obama demands she get the transcript and to agree with him a little louder.

"Obama said he had called the attack an "act of terror" during remarks the next day in the Rose Garden, and Crowley agreed with him. Suddenly, Romney found himself debating two people, Obama and Crowley, who had no business correcting either candidate.

Romney looked surprised and asked Obama:

“You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama replied, "Get the transcript."

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

“He — he did call it an act of terror," Crowley said, complying with Obama's request."

Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate

The truth needed no amplification.

 

[Mac1958]

When the "moderator" asks a ridiculous question and the crowd boos before the answer begins, you know something is going on.

Absolutely. It means the crowd knows it's a cheap shot.

The party better get its shit together pretty quickly on this.

The hardcore lefties are thrilled by this (winning is more important than anything else), but those of us who'd like a serious discussion of the issues aren't getting it.
.

Thrilled? We passed thrilled weeks ago when there was a "kids table", a front runner who is a liberal, a division between the republicans and their mouthpiece--Fox News, a new front runner who is an empty suit, and now a trantrum by the candidates who supposedly don't like the questions.

I'm glad that charade is working on the conservatives. Do you guys really think that Donald Trump or Marco Rubio want to be asked to go into details about what programs they would cut to balance the budget or what so-called entitlements the voters would be losing by voting for them or what tax loopholes will be closing? They are delighted to get the questions about campaign theatrics and "fantasy football". Their answers mean nothing and they get to shake their heads afterword and speak forlornly about "missed opportunities".

As for winning is important...you betcha. You can't govern if you don't win. Having the best credentialed candidate on either side is a plus for the Dems.

Let's try to turn off the partisan ideology for just a moment, seriously.

Even though you won't be voting for a Republican (and I'm in same boat), don't you think it would be constructive and interesting to hear exactly what each of their candidates would do on the issues? Just out of curiosity, don't you think that would be interesting? Maybe an idea or two that you'd actually like?

Don't you think the electorate deserves to hear a serious discussion of the issues and proposed strategies from that party's perspective, as compared to what we're getting?
.

 

[eagle1462010]

Found it. Here's where you would have thought the RNC would have got their shit together to lay down hard core rules. Because this was blatant.

Over the top. Obama demands she get the transcript and to agree with him a little louder.

"Obama said he had called the attack an "act of terror" during remarks the next day in the Rose Garden, and Crowley agreed with him. Suddenly, Romney found himself debating two people, Obama and Crowley, who had no business correcting either candidate.

Romney looked surprised and asked Obama:

“You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama replied, "Get the transcript."

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

“He — he did call it an act of terror," Crowley said, complying with Obama's request."

Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate

The truth needed no amplification.

As you ignore the point..............

 

[Iceweasel]

The truth needed no amplification.

They went around for weeks calling it a spontaneous reaction to the youtube video. So which is it?