Republicans now whining debate questions are too hard

[Michchamp]

Link.

I don't see why they even bother anymore... when you don't like a question, just call the debate moderator a "goddamn smart-ass lib" or if he or she is a racial minority, hurl a racial slur at him or her, then pull out a Glock and start shooting.

Watch your support among GOP primary voters surge.

 

[byco42]

Think Progress Agrees with the GOP candidates

And it was not the difficulty of the questions; it was the content of them.

 

[Michchamp]

Think Progress Agrees with the GOP candidates

And it was not the difficulty of the questions; it was the content of them.

Who cares what thinkprogress says? I have a hard time thinking the debate format has gotten any dumber since 2008, when e.g. Sarah Palin was basically allowed to just read "Drill baby drill" from her cue cards, regardless of the question, and the moderators said nothing.

all this recent ado about nothing is the passengers in the clown car elbowing eachother for more space:

"Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz recommended that Telemundo be reinstated after being dropped along with NBC. But the campaign of businessman Donald Trump, represented by manager Corey Lewandowski, threatened to boycott a debate if the Spanish-language network that Trump has clashed with was granted one."
​

LOL

 

[byco42]

Who cares what thinkprogress says?

I guess when a source does not align with your narrative, you don't.

 

[tinselwolverine]

"Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz recommended that Telemundo be reinstated after being dropped along with NBC. But the campaign of businessman Donald Trump, represented by manager Corey Lewandowski, threatened to boycott a debate if the Spanish-language network that Trump has clashed with was granted one."
​

LOL

Are the moderators going to ask the questions in Spanish? Because that would definitely give Bush an advantage over Trump.

I would imagine both Rubio and Cruz speak Spanish also.

Christie probably knows a few curse words.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Think Progress Agrees with the GOP candidates

And it was not the difficulty of the questions; it was the content of them.

As far as the last debate went, I think criticisms of the moderators being exemplary of "mainstream media liberal bias" are a little far-fetched inasmuch as it's hard to accept CNBC as being either liberal or mainstream.

It seems to me the moderators were being, as the saying goes "too clever by half."

It seemed that because they arr financial specialist journalists they were trying to prove that they know more shit than the shit that the other cable journalists know; and they didn't come off really well in that attempt.

CNBC itself had claimed that the debate was going to focus on economic policy, and the moderators themselves got off that topic fairly frequently.

 

[TheVictors]

I've always said these aren't debates anyways, they're just podium talking points



The first time I can recall such tactics was with George Bush, Sr. There were times he would make mention of Saddam Hussein and then catch himself and backtrack ...

"Madman!" Saddam Hussein ...

like he'd forgotten to refer to him as a 'Madman' the first time as coached by some political advisor and wasn't as smooth as today's politician in terms how easily they dodge questions and resort to their handful of talking points and buzz words.

john oliver and/or jon stewart did a bit on certain buzzwords and show clip after clip of politician after politician using the same phrases..

Drill baby, drill! and so forth

 

[Michchamp]

Even libs think the questions were stupid and out of line. I don't watch debates but the one thing I get from them is that michchamp is an idiot. Lol.

Who resister's for a sports forum and spends more time in the political forum? Lol.

Joke, meet champ. Champ, joke.

You get that about me from debates?

FWIW I'm not the only one around here who is arguing politics... it takes two.

 

[Spartanmack]

As far as the last debate went, I think criticisms of the moderators being exemplary of "mainstream media liberal bias" are a little far-fetched inasmuch as it's hard to accept CNBC as being either liberal or mainstream.

It seems to me the moderators were being, as the saying goes "too clever by half."

It seemed that because they arr financial specialist journalists they were trying to prove that they know more shit than the shit that the other cable journalists know; and they didn't come off really well in that attempt.

CNBC itself had claimed that the debate was going to focus on economic policy, and the moderators themselves got off that topic fairly frequently.

CNBC is quite liberal - it doesn't come out as much or as obvious as with other networks because their content is less political in general but they're definitely liberal.

The moderators were a joke. They weren't asking questions - they were clearly trying to make a big splash by embarrassing the candidates with what they thought were the big "gotcha" statements. They only embarrassed themselves. The whole thing was a waste of time.

 

[Spartanmack]

Link.

I don't see why they even bother anymore... when you don't like a question, just call the debate moderator a "goddamn smart-ass lib" or if he or she is a racial minority, hurl a racial slur at him or her, then pull out a Glock and start shooting.

Watch your support among GOP primary voters surge.

Think Progress Agrees with the GOP candidates

And it was not the difficulty of the questions; it was the content of them.

The Washington Post, Mic.com, Slate, and the Daily Mail all list CNBC as one of if not the biggest loser of the night...

 

[Sbee]

They never should have caved to trump when he said he wouldn't show up for s 2.5 hour debate. If he's not going to show up, fine, have it without him. They opened the door to the candidates calling the shots.

 

[Thumb]

They never should have caved to trump when he said he wouldn't show up for s 2.5 hour debate. If he's not going to show up, fine, have it without him. They opened the door to the candidates calling the shots.

Ratings.