The CNN Debate......

[PeteHulbert37]

I would have thought the fox debate would have given CNN the balls to ask tougher questions.

Guess not.

But yep, could hardly watch it.

I like Carson more and more but it's irrelevant as he wont make the cut.

People need to stop saying this. Support the guy you like. Like the guy you like. Build up the guy you like.

Also, people say he comes across as weak and soft spoken. Ronald Reagan was soft spoken too.

 

[Sean]

I thought Carly Fiorina came off best last night. She landed a haymaker on Trump. Jeb got bent over and fucked up the arse. Bizarrely, I found the most reasonable people on the stage to be Paul and Rubio. Out of the two I think Rubio may be the only one with a shot at the nomination. Cruz just came across as a cunt, as usual. Carson sounded out of his depth. Christie and Kasich were pretty anonymous. And I don't think Trump did himself any favours last night.

 

[Sean]

And the right wing turning on Ann Coulter this morning and calling her a bigot is just fucking hilarious.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And the right wing turning on Ann Coulter this morning and calling her a bigot is just fucking hilarious.

Considering Trump's apparent popularity with Republicans she must have thought it safe to let her bigot colors fly.

 

[chillywilly2]

I watched about 10 minutes of it, shook my head, and said a prayer for my American friends.

 

[Sean]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://polldaddy.com/poll/9081166/?view=results

CNN's highest rated show ever.

Still working for Hillary!

 

[Eyereadtoo]

I gave my two year old a tangerine before bed. I made sure to give her the bag so she would see she was taking the last one. This avoided the typical "more more more" debate I isualy have to deal with.

She now understands economics more than Bernie does.

HA! That's brilliant!

 

[zipman]

That was the best moment of the debate. Hands down.

I don't care how tall he is, he's done.

 

[Wrong Element]

I would have thought the fox debate would have given CNN the balls to ask tougher questions.

Guess not.

But yep, could hardly watch it.

I like Carson more and more but it's irrelevant as he wont make the cut.

You have it backwards -- Fox, because it's Fox and thus trusted by the sorts of people who watch Republican debates, has much more leeway to get tough on the candidates.

I just had to look up the Margaret Thatcher reference (because hell no, I didn't watch). Holy shit.

 

[zipman]

You have it backwards -- Fox, because it's Fox and thus trusted by the sorts of people who watch Republican debates, has much more leeway to get tough on the candidates.

I just had to look up the Margaret Thatcher reference (because hell no, I didn't watch). Holy shit.

The essence of the debate (for the most part) was who could be the most outraged Christian and xenophobic candidate

 

[Pookie]

And the right wing turning on Ann Coulter this morning and calling her a bigot is just fucking hilarious.

It's been fun watching Trump totally disrupt the Republican parade. Before Trump, all the usual candidates had to do was be just a little further right and a tad bit more evangelical than the other guy. Trump has blown up the party.

Coulter thought she could ride his coattails. But Ann couldn't help being too much Ann.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's been fun watching Trump totally disrupt the Republican parade. Before Trump, all the usual candidates had to do was be just a little further right and a tad bit more evangelical than the other guy. Trump has blown up the party.

Coulter thought she could ride his coattails. But Ann couldn't help being too much Ann.

What Trump has done is to prove something that observers of the U.S. political scene have wondered about for a while, but never had the ability to test: that the things conservative elites care most about and what most animates the Republican base are very different. Since Trump is already famous and is self-financing, he hasn't had to tell the GOP money people what they want to hear.

Even if Trump himself is too much of a buffoon to make it much further -- and I'm certainly less sure of that now than I was three months ago -- that genie is never going back in the bottle. Economic populism + foreigner-bashing + white nationalism may be the future of the GOP.

 

[Pookie]

What Trump has done is to prove something that observers of the U.S. political scene have wondered about for a while, but never had the ability to test: that the things conservative elites care most about and what most animates the Republican base are very different. Since Trump is already famous and is self-financing, he hasn't had to tell the GOP money people what they want to hear.

Even if Trump himself is too much of a buffoon to make it much further -- and I'm certainly less sure of that now than I was three months ago -- that genie is never going back in the bottle. Economic populism + foreigner-bashing + white nationalism may be the future of the GOP.

I really think his support is close to being maxed out. As the number of candidates dwindle, I just don't see their supporters getting behind Trump enough for him to win the nomination. The party machine will do it's best behind the scenes to prevent it.

The Republicans biggest worry right now isn't so much Trump getting the nomination, it's pissing him off enough that he runs as an independent.

 

[snugglestruggle]

What Trump has done is to prove something that observers of the U.S. political scene have wondered about for a while, but never had the ability to test: that the things conservative elites care most about and what most animates the Republican base are very different. Since Trump is already famous and is self-financing, he hasn't had to tell the GOP money people what they want to hear.

Even if Trump himself is too much of a buffoon to make it much further -- and I'm certainly less sure of that now than I was three months ago -- that genie is never going back in the bottle. Economic populism + foreigner-bashing + white nationalism may be the future of the GOP.

That's what Rush limbaugh said the other day. OMG are you Rush?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one believes it but Trump is a wake up call for the GOP leaders.

America wants a Hitler. Maybe another George Patton. Trump isn't Hitler or Patton but he resonates with those who long for a force who can overwhelm the fops and parasites who ignore and abuse the silent majority.

If you listen to Hitler's speeches there was no hate in them, all talked of how great Germans were, how great Germany could be again, and how Germany needed to rid itself of its internationalist parasites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o

Read the subtitles. He says he was a socialist like you.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's what Rush limbaugh said the other day. OMG are you Rush?

People still listen to that drug addled blowhard Limbaugh?

That explains a few things I suppose.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Unfortunately there are a lot of ups and downs to this. First a 10 man debate is going to be a disaster looking for a place to happen no matter who the fuck runs it it. That's too many people. If you REALLY gave a shit the best answer would simply be to not have a debate in the first fucking place. Get a list of questions, present them to the candidates separately and let them speak. With multiple 24 hour news channels it's not like we couldn't have them all on a loop for the next week. Something like this inevitably gives the advantage to whomever the media is paying attention to, whomever is most willing to cut people off or has said the most shit the week prior (thanks to the "you were mentioned ruled") and hell even where you are positioned on the stage makes a difference. Still it is what it is.

The hosts were definitely (and at least partially correctly) trying to turn the candidates on each other. This is a debate. Not a monologue, not a playdate. These are your political opponents and more importantly I should know why you were right and they were wrong on any given issue. Still it was over the top.

On the bright side they had slightly better control over the candidates (or the candidates were simply better behaved) than they had been on Fox News prior. Trump in particular.

As for stand outs.

Carson's opinion on the Afghanistan War was shocking. Having hindsight he was clearly correct but nobody (apparently except him) thought that fourteen years ago. So meh.

Paul on drugs and while he was measured in his tone he clearly understands and gives a at least half a shit about race relations and the income gap and how effects our entire nation.

Kasich. . .I need to do more research on how much of what he claimed is true.

Fiorina was also a stand out.

Honestly a debate with just them and Trump or them without trump would probably be enlightening.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

I thought Rand Paul did a great job.

1) He schooled Fiorina when she said that she wouldn't talk to the Russians. They were debating in the Reagan Library & Rand had to remind her that Reagan talked to Russians during the height of the cold war.

2) He schooled Bush & Christie about the 10th amendment and letting States rights stand over Federal when it comes to Marijuana. (Paul was trending on twitter for hours after that exchange.)

3) He schooled everyone that if you want to send your sons & daughters to fight another dumb war in the Middle East that is not in our National security, then you have 14 other candidates to choose from.

4) He even schooled them on the 14th amendment when they were talking about anchor babies.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

The debates have never been fairly run. The perceived frontrunner by the media gets the most time to talk (usually by a ridiculous margin like 2-4 times as much).

In a perfect world, the 24-hour news networks should not be able to run any debates. They should be shown on PBS & allow any network news stations to simulcast it.

There should be four moderators, one moderator should be chosen from each of the big three networks (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) & there should be one moderator from an independent source like Reason Magazine for example.

If there are 11 or more candidates, the debate should be split over two nights with the candidates randomly picked so half are on the first night, & the other half on the second. Their podium order should also be randomly selected.

Each round of questioning should start with a candidate at one of the end of the stage and then work there way across to the other end (NO HOPPING AROUND). The candidate will have 60 seconds to answer the question. All of the other candidates microphones will be turned off in order to prevent one of them from forcing their way into someone else's question (one of the ways to unfairly give a candidate more time).

After the last candidate at the other end of the stage has had his/her turn, each candidate will get an additional 30 seconds to expand on their original answer, or they could use that 30 seconds to respond to something another candidate said about him/her. Again, only one candidate's microphone will be on at a time.

That will guarantee that all of the candidates get approximately the same amount of talk time.


Unfortunately, the reality of that ever happening is less than zero.

Here are some stats from the debate that proves that the debates need to be reformed:

 

[Wrong Element]

That's what Rush limbaugh said the other day. OMG are you Rush?

Nope, just one wife and one chin. Unlike Rush.

Trump is basically trying to turn the Republicans into a European-style party of the right: protecting middle class entitlements, downplaying social issues, and stoking white fear and resentment.

I really think his support is close to being maxed out. As the number of candidates dwindle, I just don't see their supporters getting behind Trump enough for him to win the nomination. The party machine will do it's best behind the scenes to prevent it.

The Republicans biggest worry right now isn't so much Trump getting the nomination, it's pissing him off enough that he runs as an independent.

I used to think this was likely, but I've also seen polling showing that Trump is not only leading the race, he's also the second choice of more people than any other candidate.

We'll see how the post-debate polling goes. I don't think it matters much what he said, but it does matter how he said it, because it's the image of strength and dominance that his supporters are responding to. My impression from reading the coverage is that he took more shots than he dished out, which is not where he wants to be.

It's possible there's going to be an independent candidate either way: either Trump or, if Trump somehow wins the nomination, the Kochs and the Club for Growth will find someone to run as a more conventional conservative. My guess for who that might be?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

That's easy. at the end of their 60 seconds or 30 second rebuttal, their microphone gets muted as well. The idea of yelling without a microphone is just stupid. Nobody except for the audience will be able to hear it.

Also, I don't think it would be difficult to get nearly all of the candidates to agree to a debate where they actually receive equal time. The only one that would balk would be the perceived frontrunner.

Here are some stats from the debate that proves that the debates need to be reformed:

There's the rub. Interruptions are a substantial part of the debate, and a candidate like Walker would certainly balk at a rule that takes away more than half his airtime.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Unfortunately there are a lot of ups and downs to this. First a 10 man debate is going to be a disaster looking for a place to happen no matter who the fuck runs it it. That's too many people. If you REALLY gave a shit the best answer would simply be to not have a debate in the first fucking place. Get a list of questions, present them to the candidates separately and let them speak. With multiple 24 hour news channels it's not like we couldn't have them all on a loop for the next week. Something like this inevitably gives the advantage to whomever the media is paying attention to, whomever is most willing to cut people off or has said the most shit the week prior (thanks to the "you were mentioned ruled") and hell even where you are positioned on the stage makes a difference. Still it is what it is.

The hosts were definitely (and at least partially correctly) trying to turn the candidates on each other. This is a debate. Not a monologue, not a playdate. These are your political opponents and more importantly I should know why you were right and they were wrong on any given issue. Still it was over the top.

On the bright side they had slightly better control over the candidates (or the candidates were simply better behaved) than they had been on Fox News prior. Trump in particular.

As for stand outs.

Carson's opinion on the Afghanistan War was shocking. Having hindsight he was clearly correct but nobody (apparently except him) thought that fourteen years ago. So meh.

Paul on drugs and while he was measured in his tone he clearly understands and gives a at least half a shit about race relations and the income gap and how effects our entire nation.

Kasich. . .I need to do more research on how much of what he claimed is true.

Fiorina was also a stand out.

Honestly a debate with just them and Trump or them without trump would probably be enlightening.

Naaah. So far few of them commit to any causes. Walker wants to battle unions, Trump wants jobs and get rid of illegals. I have no clue what the others want to accomplish. Causes hurt donations. But this is the place where they reveal their goals, and if they don't theyre gone.

The primaries is where they reveal how they plan to accomplish their goals.

The election is where each party tries to sell its platform.

Trump, Bush, Carson, and Fiorina have enough cash to go on but I look for Fiorina and Carson to run outta gas unless they spell out their goals.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't expect Jeb Bush to make ads about how much he loves illegals and wants whites to eat shit, but that's his agenda.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Naaah. So far few of them commit to any causes. Walker wants to battle unions, Trump wants jobs and get rid of illegals. I have no clue what the others want to accomplish. Causes hurt donations. But this is the place where they reveal their goals, and if they don't theyre gone.

The primaries is where they reveal how they plan to accomplish their goals.

The election is where each party tries to sell its platform.

Trump, Bush, Carson, and Fiorina have enough cash to go on but I look for Fiorina and Carson to run outta gas unless they spell out their goals.

I'm not 100% certain what you said that contradicts me. That said I think we have a fair of idea of Paul's causes. He wants to reduce our intervention in foreign laws, shrink the federal government and return powers to the states. I personally agree with the first one, the second is impossible to define and the final is rather dumb. We aren't 50 loosely aligned countries we are the United States and you can't just have everybody running their own way on things. Despite being on the "wrong" side (as I'm not a huge fan of state rights) he nailed it that state rights is only something Republicans cling to when they disagree with the fed. If they agree with the fed then those little states better fall the fuck inline. Which is something I've said for years, people only like the Constitution when it bolsters their argument otherwise it's a damned peice of paper or "not a death pact" or whatever else lets them ignore it right then.

You're possibly correct on Carson, I think Fiorina is probably going to get a nice bump and be one of the last people standing. I'm not sure I buy that Bush came out of this better than he went in but hey who knows.