The precedent has been set

[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.

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?

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?
.

Sure. I posted this idea just a few minutes ago (the question was about why candidates just don't go off and do their own debate)....

I personally would love to see this type of questioning...

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....

Now, do we deserve it? We get the government we deserve. Always have, always will. We have allowed two parties to become the surrogates by which we elect folks pretty much. We shouldn't be surprised that these multi-million dollar entities have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The best way to do that is to keep on doing what you're doing as long as the consumers (i.e. electorate) continue to buy it. By the same token, however, in HRC you have one of the best credentialed candidates to come along in quite some time. There are several well qualified people who are not running on the GOP side in lieu of some real lightweights. Jon Huntsmann from 2012 has a superior resume to anyone on that stage especially given China's ascendancy. Just to name one.

It would be great if the media got out of the way and let the candidates answer questions. Would anyone watch the first time? Yes. Would anyone want to watch this happen 10-12 times? Doubtful. Perhaps we can hope for better in 2020.

 

[candycorn]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did.

 

[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.

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

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

 

[eagle1462010]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did.

psst.......keep it up.......maybe they'll forget the video did it stuff. keep it quiet.

 

[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.

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.
.

I think that this nails this debacle.

" Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted, “Ted Cruz’s focus group dials hits 98 with his attack on media bias. That’s the highest score we’ve ever measured. EVER."

Media-bashing Ted Cruz is right

 

[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?

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?
.

Sure. I posted this idea just a few minutes ago (the question was about why candidates just don't go off and do their own debate)....

I personally would love to see this type of questioning...

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....

Now, do we deserve it? We get the government we deserve. Always have, always will. We have allowed two parties to become the surrogates by which we elect folks pretty much. We shouldn't be surprised that these multi-million dollar entities have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The best way to do that is to keep on doing what you're doing as long as the consumers (i.e. electorate) continue to buy it. By the same token, however, in HRC you have one of the best credentialed candidates to come along in quite some time. There are several well qualified people who are not running on the GOP side in lieu of some real lightweights. Jon Huntsmann from 2012 has a superior resume to anyone on that stage especially given China's ascendancy. Just to name one.

It would be great if the media got out of the way and let the candidates answer questions. Would anyone watch the first time? Yes. Would anyone want to watch this happen 10-12 times? Doubtful. Perhaps we can hope for better in 2020.

Excellent.

I wish this were happening.
.

 

[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..............

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

 

[candycorn]

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?

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?
.

Sure. I posted this idea just a few minutes ago (the question was about why candidates just don't go off and do their own debate)....

I personally would love to see this type of questioning...

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....

Now, do we deserve it? We get the government we deserve. Always have, always will. We have allowed two parties to become the surrogates by which we elect folks pretty much. We shouldn't be surprised that these multi-million dollar entities have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The best way to do that is to keep on doing what you're doing as long as the consumers (i.e. electorate) continue to buy it. By the same token, however, in HRC you have one of the best credentialed candidates to come along in quite some time. There are several well qualified people who are not running on the GOP side in lieu of some real lightweights. Jon Huntsmann from 2012 has a superior resume to anyone on that stage especially given China's ascendancy. Just to name one.

It would be great if the media got out of the way and let the candidates answer questions. Would anyone watch the first time? Yes. Would anyone want to watch this happen 10-12 times? Doubtful. Perhaps we can hope for better in 2020.

Excellent.

I wish this were happening.
.

My turn:

1st Question: Do you really think Rubio, Bush, Carson, etc... want those hardballs?

2nd. How do we get there from here? Who do we see about that?

 

[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.

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

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

Whatever your point was, I'm sure they make special hats for that.

 

[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..............

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

Whatever your point was, I'm sure they make special hats for that.

Tried to get one but they were sold out............Seems the liberals bought them all.

 

[candycorn]

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.
.

I think that this nails this debacle.

" Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted, “Ted Cruz’s focus group dials hits 98 with his attack on media bias. That’s the highest score we’ve ever measured. EVER."

Media-bashing Ted Cruz is right

Gee, a candidate's focus group agreed with the candidate. Shocking

 

[candycorn]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

Whatever your point was, I'm sure they make special hats for that.

Tried to get one but they were sold out............Seems the liberals bought them all.

Well, the blue states do have all the money. I heard Alabama and Mississippi were having telethons. Is that true?

 

[eagle1462010]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did.

I guess he had a small employee problem then didn't he...................as they kept pushing the video..........

poor thing......................tsk tsk.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

Whatever your point was, I'm sure they make special hats for that.

Tried to get one but they were sold out............Seems the liberals bought them all.

Well, the blue states do have all the money. I heard Alabama and Mississippi were having telethons. Is that true?

We are selling Hillary targets for bow season................Practicing up on how to feed ourselves when the liberals destroy the country.......................Of course no one would eat a hillary................That is like poison................Deer meat for dinner...............

What are the city folks gonna eat when it goes down..........Sewer rats..................

 

[Mac1958]

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?

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?
.

Sure. I posted this idea just a few minutes ago (the question was about why candidates just don't go off and do their own debate)....

I personally would love to see this type of questioning...

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....

Now, do we deserve it? We get the government we deserve. Always have, always will. We have allowed two parties to become the surrogates by which we elect folks pretty much. We shouldn't be surprised that these multi-million dollar entities have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The best way to do that is to keep on doing what you're doing as long as the consumers (i.e. electorate) continue to buy it. By the same token, however, in HRC you have one of the best credentialed candidates to come along in quite some time. There are several well qualified people who are not running on the GOP side in lieu of some real lightweights. Jon Huntsmann from 2012 has a superior resume to anyone on that stage especially given China's ascendancy. Just to name one.

It would be great if the media got out of the way and let the candidates answer questions. Would anyone watch the first time? Yes. Would anyone want to watch this happen 10-12 times? Doubtful. Perhaps we can hope for better in 2020.

Excellent.

I wish this were happening.
.

My turn:

1st Question: Do you really think Rubio, Bush, Carson, etc... want those hardballs?

2nd. How do we get there from here? Who do we see about that?

Well, I don't give a shit if they want them. The priority would be to ask them in current issues-based context, i.e., in such a way that they can't just provide canned answers. Or have follow-up questions ready that force them to answer with far better detail. Dig down past the shallow stuff.

How do we get there? We won't get there with the way things are now. Here's the thing; They're very proud of their stances, they think they have the country behind them on all of them. Great. So this could theoretically happen if fellow conservatives were the moderators. Let them crow about their stances for all to see.
.

 

[candycorn]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did.

I guess he had a small employee problem then didn't he...................as they kept pushing the video..........

poor thing......................tsk tsk.

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did. And won the election 332-206.

 

[Wildman]

It's the law,

please cite the "law", reading it would be interesting.

 

[eagle1462010]

The truth needed no amplification.

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

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did.

I guess he had a small employee problem then didn't he...................as they kept pushing the video..........

poor thing......................tsk tsk.

When asked if Obama called it a terrorist attack, he did. And won the election 332-206.

Liberal Enclaves did that, along with the illegal vote................

BTW you left your shovel at the graveyard digging up votes again...............

 

[candycorn]

That Mitt said something that wasn't correct and was corrected? Didn't miss that.

Ignoring the point still I see..............Can't see it with the blinders on can you..................

Whatever your point was, I'm sure they make special hats for that.

Tried to get one but they were sold out............Seems the liberals bought them all.

Well, the blue states do have all the money. I heard Alabama and Mississippi were having telethons. Is that true?

We are selling Hillary targets for bow season................Practicing up on how to feed ourselves when the liberals destroy the country.......................Of course no one would eat a hillary................That is like poison................Deer meat for dinner...............

What are the city folks gonna eat when it goes down..........Sewer rats..................

"We are selling Hillary targets for bow season......"

Ahh, those peace-loving conservatives; using another human being for target practice....

 

[Wildman]

...DNC shouldn't even exist