The precedent has been set

[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.

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

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

Ahh...still crying "illegal" vote....
The tears of the right are like sugar in the coffee....only much sweeter.
I thought all of those Voter ID laws you boys passed was supposed to do away with that...

 

[eagle1462010]

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....

It's Freedom of expression baby...................At least we aren't pissing on the Constitution as your pen and a phone guy is doing...............

Hillary is a Liar...........The Media is trying to defend the liar by biased questions.................and that is all it is now....................

She can't run on her record because it sucks..............so this will be a very MUDDY CAMPAIGN..............Which means the GOP is gonna have to get into the mud this hunting season.

 

[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

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.

Crowley had no business whatsoever taking sides. She injected herself into the debate. And why would she have the Rose Garden transcript right there for Obama?

And why on earth would an independent moderator grovel to Obama asking her to cheer him on more loudly and obey him?

Independent moderator? I think not.


Now fast forward to this debate season. These Republican candidates aren't going to put up with any more media firing squads. YAY!

 

[Wildman]

Come Doctor QUACK-QUACK, I called BULLSHIT on you.

......i believe he is a libertard.

 

[candycorn]

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.

See, now I'm not sure about the follow up questions. I sort of liked the idea a few years ago of having two 90 minutes sessions. In the first , you take 3 topics and spend about 30 minutes each on them. Lets just say, jobs, defense spending (we all agree we need a defense), and ending poverty. Then after the break, you spend the next 90 minute session with a second panel of moderators probing into them.

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.
.

Interesting. Although I think the moderators (whose influence is way overblown more often than not) are best when they are not given a second thought when picked and are anonymous at the end of the debate.

 

[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.

Crowley had no business whatsoever taking sides. She injected herself into the debate. And why would she have the Rose Garden transcript right there for Obama?

And why on earth would an independent moderator grovel to Obama asking her to cheer him on more loudly and obey him?

Independent moderator? I think not.


Now fast forward to this debate season. These Republican candidates aren't going to put up with any more media firing squads. YAY!

She didn't take sides. She corrected a statement. Turns out she was right.

 

[Wildman]

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.

FUCK the establishment

All they do is cry about whoever is in charge. They cry about CNN and CNBC and the RNC. They cry about the moderators. They cry about unfair questions.

It's sickening how weak they sound.

Attention Ted Cruz: if you can't handle a bunch of morons from CNBC, how in the fuck can you stand up to Iran and Russia?

Life is unfair. Stop whining and tell us how you would run the country.

(What happened to the party of Reagan? When did they become such ineffectual pussies?)

They know their base. Nothing appeals to the new movement conservatives quite like victimhood.

It's the new populism.

i really am NOT very nice to libertards, who for the most part are liberliars.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

See, now I'm not sure about the follow up questions. I sort of liked the idea a few years ago of having two 90 minutes sessions. In the first , you take 3 topics and spend about 30 minutes each on them. Lets just say, jobs, defense spending (we all agree we need a defense), and ending poverty. Then after the break, you spend the next 90 minute session with a second panel of moderators probing into them.

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.
.

Interesting. Although I think the moderators (whose influence is way overblown more often than not) are best when they are not given a second thought when picked and are anonymous at the end of the debate.

Yeah, absolutely - there's no excuse for trying to cover a lot of ground when you have several debates. Three topics over 90 minutes would allow for depth and detail.

Moderators seem like a necessary evil. On one hand, someone has to be in charge and controls have to be in place. On the other, it's easy for them to become part of the story. What I'm not seeing is any desire on the part of the press to shine a light on details and instead just go for simplistic fireworks.
.

 

[candycorn]

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....

It's Freedom of expression baby...................

Its classless and tasteless. Perfect fit for the red states.

At least we aren't pissing on the Constitution as your pen and a phone guy is doing...............

Hillary is a Liar...........The Media is trying to defend the liar by biased questions.................and that is all it is now....................

She can't run on her record because it sucks..............so this will be a very MUDDY CAMPAIGN..............Which means the GOP is gonna have to get into the mud this hunting season.

I'm sure the GOP will have no trouble about calling women sluts, whores, bitches, etc... The GOP war on women is a sustained battle that we've engaged successfully time and again. Next year's election of the first female POTUS will be a crowning achievement and another victory over the red states.

 

[eagle1462010]

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....

It's Freedom of expression baby...................

Its classless and tasteless. Perfect fit for the red states.

At least we aren't pissing on the Constitution as your pen and a phone guy is doing...............

Hillary is a Liar...........The Media is trying to defend the liar by biased questions.................and that is all it is now....................

She can't run on her record because it sucks..............so this will be a very MUDDY CAMPAIGN..............Which means the GOP is gonna have to get into the mud this hunting season.

I'm sure the GOP will have no trouble about calling women sluts, whores, bitches, etc... The GOP war on women is a sustained battle that we've engaged successfully time and again. Next year's election of the first female POTUS will be a crowning achievement and another victory over the red states.

You mean the vote for Hillary because she has a Vagina Campaign...........

We already knew you would do that................it's what you always do...........

In the meantime, have fun trying to defend her from her Lying past.........ENJOY IT.

 

[candycorn]

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....

It's Freedom of expression baby...................

Its classless and tasteless. Perfect fit for the red states.

At least we aren't pissing on the Constitution as your pen and a phone guy is doing...............

Hillary is a Liar...........The Media is trying to defend the liar by biased questions.................and that is all it is now....................

She can't run on her record because it sucks..............so this will be a very MUDDY CAMPAIGN..............Which means the GOP is gonna have to get into the mud this hunting season.

I'm sure the GOP will have no trouble about calling women sluts, whores, bitches, etc... The GOP war on women is a sustained battle that we've engaged successfully time and again. Next year's election of the first female POTUS will be a crowning achievement and another victory over the red states.

You mean the vote for Hillary because she has a Vagina Campaign...........

We already knew you would do that................it's what you always do...........

In the meantime, have fun trying to defend her from her Lying past.........ENJOY IT.

She's easily the best qualified candidate on either side in this election. Nothing you can pretend to think (all you can do) will change that. I'm quite happy with her record and she'll be a great POTUS. The fact that she survived the GOP war on women over the past 20+ years only makes the upcoming victory sweeter.

Spiking the football will be replacing Scalia and reeling in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[eagle1462010]

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....

It's Freedom of expression baby...................

Its classless and tasteless. Perfect fit for the red states.

At least we aren't pissing on the Constitution as your pen and a phone guy is doing...............

Hillary is a Liar...........The Media is trying to defend the liar by biased questions.................and that is all it is now....................

She can't run on her record because it sucks..............so this will be a very MUDDY CAMPAIGN..............Which means the GOP is gonna have to get into the mud this hunting season.

I'm sure the GOP will have no trouble about calling women sluts, whores, bitches, etc... The GOP war on women is a sustained battle that we've engaged successfully time and again. Next year's election of the first female POTUS will be a crowning achievement and another victory over the red states.

You mean the vote for Hillary because she has a Vagina Campaign...........

We already knew you would do that................it's what you always do...........

In the meantime, have fun trying to defend her from her Lying past.........ENJOY IT.

She's easily the best qualified candidate on either side in this election. Nothing you can pretend to think (all you can do) will change that. I'm quite happy with her record and she'll be a great POTUS. The fact that she survived the GOP war on women over the past 20+ years only makes the upcoming victory sweeter.

Spiking the football will be replacing Scalia and reeling in the 2nd Amendment.

aka your side will use Judicial Activism to ban guns in this country...................

 

[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

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.

Crowley had no business whatsoever taking sides. She injected herself into the debate. And why would she have the Rose Garden transcript right there for Obama?

And why on earth would an independent moderator grovel to Obama asking her to cheer him on more loudly and obey him?

Independent moderator? I think not.


Now fast forward to this debate season. These Republican candidates aren't going to put up with any more media firing squads. YAY!

She didn't take sides. She corrected a statement. Turns out she was right.

Oh give it up. The timeline and the statements are out there. And Crowley was widely criticized for her inappropriate behavior. Totally obvious that Obama not only knew that question was coming but Crowley even had the transcript from the Rose Garden where he is talking about remembering 9/11 and only briefly mentioned Benghazi.





Timeline of Libya consulate attack reveals administration contradictions

 

[Iceweasel]

She's easily the best qualified candidate on either side in this election.

Best qualified for the Democrats. She lies better than anybody and has done so at high levels of government.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Did they just figure out they were all set up?

 

[candycorn]

She's easily the best qualified candidate on either side in this election.

Best qualified for the Democrats. She lies better than anybody and has done so at high levels of government.

Feel free to trot out whom you think is better qualified and list their *giggle* qualifications for President.

 

[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.

Crowley had no business whatsoever taking sides. She injected herself into the debate. And why would she have the Rose Garden transcript right there for Obama?

And why on earth would an independent moderator grovel to Obama asking her to cheer him on more loudly and obey him?

Independent moderator? I think not.


Now fast forward to this debate season. These Republican candidates aren't going to put up with any more media firing squads. YAY!

She didn't take sides. She corrected a statement. Turns out she was right.

Oh give it up. The timeline and the statements are out there. And Crowley was widely criticized for her inappropriate behavior. Totally obvious that Obama not only knew that question was coming but Crowley even had the transcript from the Rose Garden where he is talking about remembering 9/11 and only briefly mentioned Benghazi.





Timeline of Libya consulate attack reveals administration contradictions

Link to such criticism please....

As for knowing the question was coming; yeah so did every one else. He was commenting on what Mitt said (whom I guess was struck totally unprepared). Mitt brought it up, Obama slapped him down.

Why do you have such a problem with the truth coming out on a debate.

Mitt: Obama didn't mention it.
Obama: I did mention it. Read the transcript.
Candy: He did, in fact mention it.

The only two people who are right in the exchange are Obama and Candy. Your guy was wrong. And here you are bitching about his being shown to be wrong 4 years later? Talk about "give it up".

 

[tinydancer]

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

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

Crowley had no business whatsoever taking sides. She injected herself into the debate. And why would she have the Rose Garden transcript right there for Obama?

And why on earth would an independent moderator grovel to Obama asking her to cheer him on more loudly and obey him?

Independent moderator? I think not.


Now fast forward to this debate season. These Republican candidates aren't going to put up with any more media firing squads. YAY!

She didn't take sides. She corrected a statement. Turns out she was right.

Oh give it up. The timeline and the statements are out there. And Crowley was widely criticized for her inappropriate behavior. Totally obvious that Obama not only knew that question was coming but Crowley even had the transcript from the Rose Garden where he is talking about remembering 9/11 and only briefly mentioned Benghazi.





Timeline of Libya consulate attack reveals administration contradictions

Link to such criticism please....

As for knowing the question was coming; yeah so did every one else. He was commenting on what Mitt said (whom I guess was struck totally unprepared). Mitt brought it up, Obama slapped him down.

Why do you have such a problem with the truth coming out on a debate.

Mitt: Obama didn't mention it.
Obama: I did mention it. Read the transcript.
Candy: He did, in fact mention it.

The only two people who are right in the exchange are Obama and Candy. Your guy was wrong. And here you are bitching about his being shown to be wrong 4 years later? Talk about "give it up".

Let's keep it real. And this is about a moderator who was not impartial whatsoever. And she knew she was FUBAR'D. Crowley herself admits Romney was right and here you are saying he was wrong.



Too funny!

“I did turn around and say, ‘But you’re totally correct that they did spend two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t,” Crowley said. “So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.”

AND here's a biggie. She broke the rules that both campaigns had agreed to.

"For days, both campaigns had been concerned that Crowley would play too active a role in the debate. Both campaigns had signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing that the moderator would not reinterpret audience members’ questions, or ask her own follow-up questions."

Crowley fact-checks Mitt

 

[imawhosure]

It's the law,

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

He/she, the mod known as QUACK-QUACK, already did. He/she was proven to be a propagandist, and that is all that matters; besides the fact they are a mod. Let me put it this a-way.................these leftists, along with the mod leftist, along with the paid posters, would make Joseff Goebbels proud. They can't count to 4, but they have many republicans backing down because of their propaganda.

If you are a conservative backing down, STOP IT! They are losing, lol; and the outside 4 cleaned all of their clocks in the debate, it was epic.

Who really cares what the left thinks, as long as the republican/conservative/independent vote coalesces? If that happens, the whole bunch of them are done for at least a decade like they were under Reagan, and even the mod on here, and Mr paid for post rightwinger will disappear.

Stop letting the lefties talk you into anything! Were it not for them, our country would NOT be in this position to start with! Look what they have...........a Socialist, AND a Communist actually getting votes to run YOUR country. If that is NOT enough incentive to bury these people.........including this mod, and rightwinger; then you might as well agree to put your children, and grandchildren, in chains.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's the law,

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

I did. At least twice in this thread alone.