Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » R. Debate (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: R. Debate
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because of demographics, the Republicans don't stand a chance under amnesty and open borders.
Illegals don't vote, so what exactly is it about them that you think is so important to Democrats? Their stealing jobs from real Americans (who don't want them) is a Republican issue, so fight it out with them.

FWIW, the population of illegals in the US grew steadily and peaked in 2007 and has stabilized at about 10% below that every year since Obama took office, so why blame Obama and the Democrats? Also, they make up a bit over 5% of the labor force, so why not blame employers for hiring them and undercutting wages instead of blaming the government for not chartering 1000's of buses, trains and planes to carry them back to where they came from? Since Mexicans only make up about 50% of the illegals, you'll have to find a way to return the other half to Asia, Africa and South America.
quote:
I'm sure all Democrats realize this as well which is why they are hell bent on amnesty and open borders and hate Trump's guts with a fuming vengeance.
No, that's not it [Smile] .
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- posted September 18, 2015 01:23 PM Profile for cherrypoptart Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote If you believe that illegals and other non-citizens don't vote then whatever. I'm not here to persuade anyone. Just to chip in my opinion is all.

Here's an article though as I said I'm sure it won't persuade anyone who has their mind set.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty

"How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

The article goes on to mention that there wasn't a distinction between legal residents and illegals. But any amnesty obviously makes this point irrelevant. And keeping the borders open while letting the illegals stay here and the anchor babies keep dropping will skew the vote over the next twenty years anyway. Obama knows all of this which is why he is encouraging all legal residents to try to become American citizens if they possibly can so they can legally vote. That's fine as far as it goes. At least he is proposing something that his legal this time. But the purpose is obvious, to help Democrats gain power with which they will continue to use immigrants, legal and illegal, to keep it and force their liberal agenda through. I mean, I feel like Captain Obvious here because these crude plans are so transparent.

What's confusing is why anyone would be surprised about Trump getting so much traction because he is taking on the issue of illegals in the only way that makes sense. As I said, I won't expect to persuade anyone but at least now a few people don't have to act so surprised and confused.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The attitude that immigrants are permanent supporters of the Democrats probably says more about Republicans than Democrats. Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping them from voting for the GOP except the GOP itself.

For example, our Conservative Party found it relatively straightforward to appeal to immigrant and minorities communities in and around Toronto. It was a major factor in getting them a majority government last time.

ETA: There's a theory: marginalized (actual or self-perceived) groups are not attracted to a party but rather driven away from an opposing party. It's not about what the apparently welcoming party does for the group but what the opposing party is believed to be threatening to do to it.

[ September 18, 2015, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that applies to more than marginalized groups. It would take me awhile with some scorecards to determine if I'm more "for" Liberals/Democrats than I am "against" Conservatives/Republicans.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hard for me to tell. I've spent a lot of elections voting against the homophobic ******* party. I've two real choices this year and I just don't know how I'm going to handle it.

I mean it helps that homophobic ******** tends to correlate with other problematic ideas about government. The Liberals did deliver on SSM, so I'm not necessarily the best example for my theory in that sense either.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Illegals don't vote, so what exactly is it about them that you think is so important to Democrats?

Is the same true of their citizen children? Or do they somehow get magically excluded from voting? If your parents are illegally in the country are you more or less likely to be a single issue voter on amnesty and the right to stay in the country?

He was absolutely correct, being soft on illegal immigration is a fundamental part of the Democratic strategy to enact a permanent voting block keeping them in office (they really miss the 70's).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He was absolutely correct, being soft on illegal immigration is a fundamental part of the Democratic strategy to enact a permanent voting block keeping them in office (they really miss the 70's).
In the same way that Republicans are very hard on voter registration as a fundamental part of their electoral strategy?

I'm suspicious of Cherry's supposedly authoritative article. A sampling of critical pushback:
quote:
Experts Agree That Voter Impersonation is "Virtually Non-Existent." The New Yorker reported that experts agree that actual incidents of in-person voter fraud -- the type of voter fraud that strict voter ID laws can prevent -- are "virtually non-existent," and fears of voter fraud have been largely invented as a way to "excite the base." [The New Yorker, 10/29/12]

Brennan Center For Justice: Allegations Of Widespread Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out." The New York University School of Law's Brennan Center has repeatedly explained that in-person voter fraud is not a justification for strict voter ID laws, because voter impersonation is "more rare than getting struck by lightning," and allegations of widespread fraud typically "amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire" and "simply do not pan out." [Brennan Center For Justice, 2007]

Loyola University Professor: Only 31 Out Of 1 Billion Ballots Subject To In-Person Voter Fraud. Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt, who investigated "any specific, credible allegation" of voter impersonation fraud, found a total of "about 31 different incidents" since 2000 of in-person voter fraud out of over 1 billion ballots cast. [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 8/6/14]

Experts Raised Doubts About The Study's Methodology And Conclusion. Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler questioned the study's "methodological challenges," noting the possibility that non-citizens may have misreported their citizenship status. He pointed out that many self-reported non-citizens in 2012 reported being citizens in 2010, indicating a high rate of response error "which raises important doubts about their conclusions" Tesler also noted that a "number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about that paper's assumptions and conclusions" which seem to be "tenuous at best." [The Washington Post, Monkey Cage, 10/27/14]

I'd like to see that study's findings verified somewhere other than in the right-wing blogosphere.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's a theory: marginalized (actual or self-perceived) groups are not attracted to a party but rather driven away from an opposing party. It's not about what the apparently welcoming party does for the group but what the opposing party is believed to be threatening to do to it.
I can sort of believe this (without really knowing if it's true) by considering what voters think they're voting for (and against). No candidate for President can tell you exactly what they will do. Obama lost the support of many people who voted for him because his pre-election promises were perhaps too specific and he simply couldn't carry through on some of them. OTOH, Romney was clear that he wanted illegals to be removed from the US, even though he never said specifically how his ideas would make it happen.

If I were an illegal, I would clearly vote against a candidate who wanted to harm me. Same with the "47%" from whom he wanted to take away "handouts" they depended on. Overall, I think more people voted against Romney and more people voted for Obama.

I don't think the polls in the 2012 election reflected the anti-vote as much as it did the pro-vote, which is why Rove still doesn't believe that Romney lost and the Republicans think they will win next time, too. Given all the "special interests"** they have spoken out against, I think they are on track to lose the next election in a landslide.

** Immigrants, pro-abortion, black voters, unions, teachers, health care recipients, non-Christian fundamentalists.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

If I were an illegal, I would clearly vote against a candidate who wanted to harm me.

No. You wouldn't. Because undocumented aliens cannot vote.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if the theory could be applied to electing the President. Too much variance in what people believe the President can do versus what the Persident actually does or can do.

In the american context I was thinking more of how ineffective the Democrats tend to be at improving things for minority voters and the GOP's lock on pro-life and certain religious groups despite an equal lack of results.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No. You wouldn't. Because undocumented aliens cannot vote.
True, if I couldn't vote, my vote wouldn't have much impact. But, imagine you're the legal relative of an illegal immigrant and you can vote. You're not going to vote for somebody who would deport Juan or Xi.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> kmbboots

"... undocumented aliens cannot vote."

"...illegal aliens cannot legally vote."

There. Fixed that for you.

Saying they can't vote is like saying they can't drive and they can't work.

Of course they can. They just do it illegally. That's why they are called ILLEGAL aliens instead of "undocumented" immigrants. Plenty of them have documents. They are just fraudulent documents.

Whatever though. You're saying that no illegal alien has ever voted in an American election and had their vote counted. If someone wants to believe that I suppose it's their prerogative.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's one illegal alien that was caught:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/canadian-the-only-illegal-alien-caught-in-us-fake-voter-dragnet/article4531032/

"Josef Sever, 52, won’t be voting in Florida this November, though. He pleaded guilty on Aug. 30 in federal court in Miami to multiple felony charges of falsely attesting to be a U.S. citizen and illegally voting. Three days after the Nov. 6 election, when Americans will choose between giving Barack Obama a second term or sending Republican challenger Mitt Romney to the White House, Mr. Sever will be sentenced.

He faces up to five years in prison before his long-running scam passing as a U.S. citizen ends with deportation back to Canada.

No one, save Mr. Sever, knows how he voted. But he did admit as part of the facts agreed in his guilty plea that he voted in presidential elections in both 2004 and 2008. He had registered to vote with “no party affiliation,” according to court documents."


Illegals can't vote, eh?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yes I read the whole article and understand that he was the only one who was caught in a massive sting operation and the kicker is that he was Canadian. That's what makes it extra hilarious.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Congratulations, Cherry, you found one. FWIW, Sever also bought a lot of guns illegally, so we need to do a better job of preventing that from happening, since illegal guns contribute more harm to society than illegal voting.

But, go find a few hundred thousand or millions of illegal voters and let's talk. We already know there are millions of illegal guns on the streets and you don't want to talk about that.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Be fair Al. Cherry I perfectly willing to discuss illegal guns. It provides the perfect justification to support more legal guns sales.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose that argument would apply to voting as well. States that have illegal voting should do a lot more to make sure everybody who is eligible should register and vote...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The general consensus is in: Looks like Jeb Bush didn't do well enough at last night's debate. He very well may be on the way out.

So who does that leave us with? Rubio? Trump? Carson? Cruz? [Eek!]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can someone explain to me why people like Carson? In the first debate he seemed slow of speech, as if sedated or drugged, and overall devoid of any specifics to offer in his ideas. Maybe it's the folksy thing all over again that we saw with W?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've only talked about Carson with a few people who like him, but what I'm getting is that they think he has common sense, is a nice person, and seems to offer a more grounded and sincere persona than most politicians. They agree with the moral views and ideals that Carson espouses.

So yes, it's the folksy thing.

They don't seem concerned about his anti-science views, and his oversimplification of everything and crazy policy ideas including college speech police.

I think it's basically an anti-"intellectual elites" thing.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Predictions markets are saying it's most likely going to be Rubio as the nominee. I can sorta see that - with Trump and/or Carson as runners up, mostly because the "angry" wing needs a candidate right up to the end. The rest will rally behind Rubio because Bush is, frankly, just not energized enough to compete with this field.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carson is the anti-establishment, anti-science, anti-bureaucracy flavor of the month**. He's like Herman Cain on sedatives. That puts him right in the GOP sweet spot for pre-ballot Republicans. Last month it was Trump and it looked like Fiorina was going to get tasty. I think she is toasty, instead, along with Bush, Paul, Huckabee and all the kid's table wannabe's.

Once the voting actually starts I am wondering if Rubio will be the last man standing. Such a nice boy [Smile] .
quote:
Bush is, frankly, just not energized enough to compete with this field.
Not competent enough. Politics ain't beanbag and he talks about fantasy football and giving Democrats a big wet kiss. He's in the wrong league.

ETA: ** I just saw that this morning Carson tweeted: "It is important to remember that amateurs built the Ark and it was the professionals that built the Titanic." I hear it now: Nan-nan-nan...

[ October 29, 2015, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's impressive, in a way, how much is packed into that tweet. If succinctness was a qualification unto itself...
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm 80 minutes into watching the CNBC GOP debate from 10/28/15, and I must admit I'm appalled. I'm curious to hear the thoughts of avowed liberals/Democrats on this forum on the network's handling of the debate. I firmly believe that TV networks, as private companies, all have a party affiliation that is subtly put forward at all times. This is true of FOX, CNN, and all the others to varying degrees of obviousness.

But what I'm watching now goes beyond subtle bias and honestly looks like a kangaroo court. Actually it's worse - some of these questions are almost Simpsons worthy in their silliness. The theatre being put on is quite clear, where the two central questioners are serious-looking and tend to ask what sound like straightforward questions, while the two on either side of them (I forget all their names) literally sneer and laugh as they ask the candidates preposterously insulting questions whose only purpose is to make the candidates look stupid. Some of these questions (especially from the a****** on the far right) actually begin with Troy McClure's "Isn't it true that..." in the same voice Phil Hartman used to use in the court scenes.

Damn, I knew this was no Republican TV network but I didn't expect what I'm seeing now. I'd like to hear whether the left-leaning people here see the same thing I'm seeing.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry. Can't help you. Not a chance of me watching it.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I watched part of it live and caught the high (aka low) lights and analysis online the next morning. The questions were pretty pathetic, but then again, so were the answers. Not much different than the other GOP debates so far this year.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a hard time being in agreement on something with Ted Cruz and the RNC, but there it is - this debate was shamefully moderated and the questions were beneath the candidates.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I caught the first two but don't have the energy for this one. But I thought I saw in a clip that Rick Santelli was one of the questionsers... he was the guy whose rant from a stock market floor initially called for a Tea Party revolution. He might have asked stupid questions, but I don't quite get why he counts as a part of a left-wing media conspiracy (which is the essence of the other clip I heard)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I have a hard time being in agreement on something with Ted Cruz and the RNC, but there it is - this debate was shamefully moderated and the questions were beneath the candidates.

You realize he used his little tirade to repeat all of the inappropriate questions he was so offended by [Smile] ? The next day Carson used a press conference to denounce the "gotcha" questions that caught him in lies. Trump lied but was caught about 20 minutes later. Christie would have lied more if he had had more time to interrupt. Fiorina can't seem to do anything but, but Rubio may have been the biggest liar of all by claiming verified facts about his financial mismanagement were "discredited lies". Quite a bunch of folks who only want to talk straight truths to the American People.

Don't blame CNBC for jumping into the clown car and clowning around with them; after all, it *is* a clown car.

[ October 31, 2015, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al - I expect more of debate moderators than I do of Republican presidential candidates.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I want to agree with you, but then I catch myself thinking I demand that the person who wants to be President of the US to be a cut above. Moderators will come and go with their ratings.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's just not an excuse. They've got a job to do and this group really botched it.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm torn. The moderators made several mistakes, but I don't know that failing to pay some of the candidates' proposals due respect was actually one of them. (To suggest otherwise is to say that, for example, journalists are required to pretend that Ben Carson's tax plan is not a completely impossible work of fiction.) I'd say that of their failures, the most serious was their inability to actually allocate time fairly to each candidate. That said, it was also obvious that the candidates went into the debates with some prepared scripts designed to target the moderators themselves, and the mods didn't have any decent response to that script; they wound up playing catch-up the rest of the night.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're both right (and so am I).
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ted Cruz now has called for Republican debates to be moderated Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Priebus notwithstanding, CNBC asked tough, fair-minded questions. It’s just that the candidates didn’t like them. Carl Quintanilla asked Ben Carson about his involvement with a company called Mannatech, which makes nutritional supplements. Carson has appeared in the company’s videos and ostensibly endorsed its products, which it claims can cure autism and cancer. It’s a real problem for his campaign and his image as a clean, honest figure. Yet Carson called the question “propaganda.”
Later, Quintanilla asked Rubio about his finances, from “a lack of bookkeeping skills” to concerns over his use of campaign and Florida Republican Party cash. Rubio’s response? “You just listed a litany of discredited attacks from Democrats and my political opponents, and I’m not gonna waste 60 seconds detailing them all.” But this is nonsense. These are serious questions about Rubio’s past, and they deserve an answer. The problem, put simply, is that the Florida senator doesn’t want to hear them.

You saw this again when John Harwood asked Rubio about his tax plan and its benefits for middle-class families. “The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale,” he said. “Since you’re the champion of Americans living paycheck-to- paycheck, don’t you have that backward?” This is true, and less favorable analyses find huge benefits for the rich and comparatively small ones for everyone else. Rubio, however, didn’t answer the question. Instead, he made a different point entirely—“In fact, the largest after-tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan.” And conservatives—taking Rubio’s side—accused Harwood of lying.

You can play this game for the entire debate. When Cruz went on his anti-media rant, it was following a substantive question about his rhetoric and approach: “Congressional Republicans, Democrats, and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets that fear of—another Washington-created crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?” Again, this wasn’t unfair. Cruz just didn’t want to answer it. The entire night, Republicans trafficked in half-truths and falsehoods, from Christie’s misleading claim that Social Security was bankrupt (which came directly after he promised to “be honest with the people watching at home”) to Carly Fiorina’s invented “fact” that “92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.”

web page
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Ted Cruz now has called for Republican debates to be moderated Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

That would cement the demise of the GOP as a credible party and their chances in the next election. I say, go for it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was not so much concerned about how hard-hitting the questions were, as I was with the questioners' manner. I'm talking about their literally sneering giggling faces as they asked questions they knew were meant to humiliate the candidates. I mean the fact that many of their questions were phrased in such a way as to try to show that the candidates were dishonest, rather than to give the candidates a venue to expound their beliefs about things. If people I was conversing with spoke to me how they spoke to the candidates (both facial expression and tone) I would call them rude a******s, never mind the nature of the questions themselves.

Is the purpose of these debates to show the country what the candidates are like and what they believe, or is it an opportunity for four moderators to try to trip up the candidates and convince the audience of what they already believed - which is what Al said, that the candidates are little better than clowns? If the latter, then the term "debate" is a farce and it should be called a gauntlet instead.

I have no problem with asking the candidates hard questions, and personally I don't like these candidates (the only one I respect is Rand Paul and I don't even like how he's presenting himself), but man I felt bad for them having to put up with that malarky.

I ended the program feeling that the event was quite disgraceful.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case anyone missed the last Rep debate on Nov. 10, I think it was the best debate by a long shot so far. It was a stark contrast to the CNBC debate and showed that candidates can be challenged with some tough questions but that it can be done respectfully and with fairness to each candidate. Far be it for me to compliment a Fox Business News production, but in this program at least the moderation seemed to be very well done. Not only did each candidate have a good chance to speak about things important to them without it devolving into them defending themselves against the moderators, but the mods even went out of their way to provide follow up questions to allow the candidates to clarify their thoughts in their first answer left something unclear. This was the least soundbite-ridden debate so far in my opinion.

To be fair I don't know if FBN would be as congenial and fair to Democrat candidates, but at least this debate wasn't a Republican love-in. I would enjoy it if this tone was maintained for all the debates for both parties. I'm about to get started watching the Democrat debate from yesterday so hopefully it's as good as this one was.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Dem debate Saturday night was interesting for several reasons. First, CBS went hard against the candidates histories and views. The moderator, John Dickerson, didn't ask any fluff questions, followed up on evasive answers and kept all three candidates on the clock.

The differences between the candidates' positions lacked a lot of distinction. Despite repeatedly saying that they disagreed with each other about how to deal with ISIS and other Mideast unrest, they basically all proposed the same kinds of policies and responses. Oddly, despite the GOP candidates' outrage against Obama and Clinton's handling of the Mideast and Islamist extremism, their positions are pretty much indistinguishable from each others' or from the Democratic candidates and Obama's position. Only a moron would propose to send a large fighting force to the region. I think Carson is the only one who wants to do that.

The debate content was revamped in the hours after the Paris carnage, showing that both the news media and the candidates can respond to real world events and issues with serious questions and discussion. I didn't see much posturing, but that's not to say that I agreed with everything that was said.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1