CNN GOP Debate

Started by Bardock4227 pages

Originally posted by Q99
Ooh, Here's a good one about the moderation

"The main moderators—John Harwood, Becky Quick, and Carl Quintinilla—appeared to be in a different time zone from Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, who pitched in with a few questions. Although come to think of it, Quintanilla may have been in a different zone from everyone. Were there tough questions? Sure. In fact, there were more than a few. There were hard queries about H-1B visas, and the candidates’ tax plans. Quintanilla even managed to push Ben Carson on his involvement with Mannatech, the shady multilevel company whose vitamins and other supplements it allowed sales reps to claim cured autism and cancer.

But mostly CNBC’s debate was mess—and to regular CNBC viewers, a familiar one."

Ok, so they sounded disorganized going into a presidential debate? Not so good.

And:
"Not long after, Quintanilla allowed Ted Cruz to score major applause by attacking the moderators for pitting the candidates against one another, claiming they had gone easy on Clinton, Sanders, and all the rest during the Democratic debate. No one pointed out that the Democratic show was on CNN, not CNBC. "

So basically they ate a shot they could've easily deflected back. Which... kinda shows how CNBC isn't up to CNN standards.

Sounds like they need better management and planning.

Yeah, definitely, the candidates walked all over them. Didn't stop speaking, and the moderators caved in every time. It was a real shitshow (on both sides, but the moderation was blatantly awful).

Ironically, I hear in the junior debate, the moderates were really strict on time- where with only 4 people, it wasn't needed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So lets see here, what about what Hilary said in her awful debate trumps what Trump or Rubio or Christie said?

I bet you cant even name two things. You are not a critical thinker and you just want Hilary to win, but you don't know why. Its kind of sad actually.

Be your own man.

Two things? I'm not Robtard but I'll toss three.
"I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. "

Her talk on college affordability.

On how her plan would've held bankers responsible for the financial crash.

Ironically, your criticisms work better if turned back on you- you don't want Hillary to win, but you don't seem to know why, you're just convinced she's horrible, and convinced everything she does is horrible, even when her performance gets a widely positive response and her campaign numbers then proceeds to turn around significantly.

If you insist everything someone does is bad regardless of what it is, it mostly shows your lack of interest in actually examining things rather than tarring them with the same responses you'll give no matter what.

Funny you glossed over the mediocre and abysmal performance of the mods. They were rude, argumentative and straight unprofessional.

Also your no you argument on Hilary does not work.

Her **** ups:

White Water
Benghazzi
Emails
The Clinton Foundation
Foreign Donations
Paying Women less then men while claiming sexism for herself

Her Husbands:

White Water
Lying
Cheating
Selling secrets to China
Being Impeached
Friendships with known pedophiles.
Orgy Island

Should I keep going?

Not a supporter of Hillary but the gif she tweeted during the gop debate made me lol.

Oh yea and she still cant get around this cause the Obama administration is the ones who said it.

She's a disgusting human being.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/veterans-group-va-hillary-clinton/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
[B]Funny you glossed over the mediocre and abysmal performance of the mods. They were rude, argumentative and straight unprofessional.

Uh, I made a whole separate post on how the mods sucked.

I mean, I haven't seen their horribleness, but even second-hand they sound the worst of the four.

Should I keep going?

No, you illustrated your point 'Time will repeat anything that's anti-Clinton no matter how ridiculous.'

Orgy Island? Really? The 'random website makes something obviously fictional up and Time buys into it because he's an idiot' bait one? That;s the kind of one I'd add to a list to point out the kind of ridiculous stuff you've bought into before.

And the pedophile one, lesse, what was that? Ah yea, they went to parties of someone who invited tons of influential people to parties- including, Iirc, Trump- were not close to the guy, had no idea what he did, and then something like a decade later the truth came out. But 'had casual contact with a pedo unbeknownst to them, a decade before the facts came out' just doesn't sound as damning, does it?

Some of 'em are real but exaggerated and not career-sinking big to state the obvious, some of 'em are obvious lies that you are knowingly spreading because you like lying about Hillary, but none of 'em are what you want them to be.

Now, since we were talking debates, there's only two that came up in 'em:

Benghazi: Republican-lead panel found squat, tried 11 hours of grilling and admitted they failed to find wrongdoing after that, and multiple high-rank Republican people have admitted it's a hatchet job., including a major who quit the panel for that reason. Also? Hillary was never in charge of security, received no requests for more security, and a number of people trying to accuse her of such have been caught out in lying. In the debate, Hillary brushed it off, and then soon after, came out of a full-day live hearing looking good. Because the Republicans, launching investigations that cost tens of millions of dollars, spent all their effort trying to find this horrible thing she did involve Benghazi, and failed to do so.

So, when you've got Republicans both in charge of investigations that fail to find anything, and admitting it's a hatchet job... yea, it's a hatchet job.

E-mails: Not actually near the security breach claimed, not actually made classified or illegal til *after* she quit, messages were to authorized people anyway, and even going through the e-mails, the Republicans have found no smoking gun. The point it came up in the debate was Bernie, pointing out that the e-mails don't matter in comparison to the issues.

So, debate wise, also came out fine.

Look, end of the day, if you have to lie to attack someone's reputation? Then it's your reputation that comes out damaged.

I don't know why you keep on insisting every exaggeration, misrepresentation, and flat-out entirely made up story (Heh, orgy island), must be true. It'd be one thing if you believed some but admitted others were false, but no matter the actual level of evidence, every *has* to be real, true, and horrible and the only reason for not thinking so is liberal bias, even if the Republican party itself can't prove it.

It's like an admission that you don't think the facts are damning.

Though, I guess that really is the reason: You don't trust in the truth to get what you want, so you embrace lie.

You can keep going if you really want, but considering my point was, "Time will pass anything negative against Hillary even if it's known false, he won't admit to anything that doesn't make her look bad," adding more spin-jobs and made up stories just adds to the point, don't you think.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh yea and she still cant get around this cause the Obama administration is the ones who said it.

She's a disgusting human being.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/veterans-group-va-hillary-clinton/

Ok, so she downplayed the problems with the VA. Agreed, bad, then... supported the reforms to it, wants them to work, and wants to do more. While also saying others are trying to undermine the efforts for ideological reason. Significantly less bad.

Funny thing: She seems a lot more honest than you.

He did go to orgy island and he also had a sex slave, Im sorry you are hearing this for the first time.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-secret-service-records-of-costs-for-bill-clintons-trips-to-caribbean-island-owned-by-registered-sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein/

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/01/24/sex-slave-claims-bill-clinton-visited-epstein-s-orgy-island

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-sex-slave-makes-disturbing-accusations-bill-clinton/

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, so she downplayed the problems with the VA. Agreed, bad, then... supported the reforms to it, wants them to work, and wants to do more. While also saying others are trying to undermine the efforts for ideological reason. Significantly less bad.

Funny thing: She seems a lot more honest than you.

Your saying Hilary is more honest then me?

Are you taking these discussions a little to far, is your brain that far gone you think this is real life?

Catching up, oh wow, Carson really said he doesn't pay attention to what he endorses? Did multiple speeches for a company without knowing about them?

That's gonna play well ^^ I expect Trump to take advantage there. I may not like the guy, but I'm pretty sure he puts in more research than that!

Originally posted by Q99
Catching up, oh wow, Carson really said he doesn't pay attention to what he endorses? Did multiple speeches for a company without knowing about them?

That's gonna play well ^^ I expect Trump to take advantage there. I may not like the guy, but I'm pretty sure he puts in more research than that!

Yes I am sure supplements are of more national concern then classified emails and getting 4 people killed in Benghazi, also nice dodging the proof above, backtracker.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your saying Hilary is more honest then me?

Yep. You pass on lies, like, a lot. If you don't like something, you pass on everything negative about them without caring that you know stuff is false. That's called lying, and, yea, Hillary is a good deal more accurate than you.

...

I should amend, not *just* Hillary, like, most of the people at both debates. Fiorina, Rubio, Hillary, Chafee, Webb, Bush, whoever.

You do know there's actual non-partisan fact-checking places where one can check politician's honesty statement by statement, right? And I've linked you to such places multiple times?


Are you taking these discussions a little to far, is your brain that far gone you think this is real life?

Oh, you're a fictional character now? ^^

Or do you think the politicians are?

Hm.... if you think the candidates are fictional, it'd explain a lot... it's not that canon-Hillary fits with your description, but you have your own personal head-canon....

Yea, I can totally see you as the type who'd *insist* that Harry Potter didn't really end up with Ginny, it's Harry/Hermoine all the way!

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes I am sure supplements are of more national concern then classified emails and getting 4 people killed in Benghazi,

Yeeea, the thing is? She didn't. She didn't make any security calls in Benghazi. The Republicans proved it over the course of 8 investigations.

And classified e-mails? No, I *don't* think retroactively classified e-mails (not classified at the time mind you) sent to other people *in the government who were authorized to read them* is a major security concern. Having it on her own server was a bit dumb, but there was no leak, there was nothing illegal, and there's zero future danger there.

That's the thing. You're insisting it's true even though the facts say it's false, because you want it to be true.

Thus, you're the liar here.

also nice dodging the proof above, backtracker.

Did you just call be a backtracker for saying something in a post before you complained about me not addressing something?

You must think I have time powers!

Originally posted by Q99
Yep. You pass on lies, like, a lot. If you don't like something, you pass on everything negative about them without caring that you know stuff is false. That's called lying, and, yea, Hillary is a good deal more accurate than you.

...

I should amend, not *just* Hillary, like, most of the people at both debates. Fiorina, Rubio, Hillary, Chafee, Webb, Bush, whoever.

You do know there's actual non-partisan fact-checking places where one can check politician's honesty statement by statement, right? And I've linked you to such places multiple times?

Oh, you're a fictional character now? ^^

Or do you think the politicians are?

Hm.... if you think the candidates are fictional, it'd explain a lot... it's not that canon-Hillary fits with your description, but you have your own personal head-canon....

Yea, I can totally see you as the type who'd *insist* that Harry Potter didn't really end up with Ginny, it's Harry/Hermoine all the way!

The fact that you can even compare me to Hilary is baffling, drops the mic, and I feel embarrassed for you right now😂

Yeah, that's out of line, Hillary is much more honest and consistent.

*Checks what Q99 actually said*....oh...nvm

Originally posted by Q99
Yeeea, the thing is? She didn't. She didn't make any security calls in Benghazi. The Republicans proved it over the course of 8 investigations.

That's the thing. You're insisting it's true even though the facts say it's false, because you want it to be true.

Thus, you're the liar here.

Did you just call be a backtracker for saying something before you complained about me not addressing something?

You must think I have time powers!

Oh no, look your in trouble, here comes the "your a liar!"

She is the reason Benghazi happened, so you are the liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh no, look your in trouble, here comes the "your a liar!"

She is the reason Benghazi happened, so you are the liar.

Even though all the committee's that looked into it have found that it is not her fault at all?

Originally posted by Q99
Yep. You pass on lies, like, a lot. If you don't like something, you pass on everything negative about them without caring that you know stuff is false. That's called lying, and, yea, Hillary is a good deal more accurate than you.

...

I should amend, not *just* Hillary, like, most of the people at both debates. Fiorina, Rubio, Hillary, Chafee, Webb, Bush, whoever.

You do know there's actual non-partisan fact-checking places where one can check politician's honesty statement by statement, right? And I've linked you to such places multiple times?

Oh, you're a fictional character now? ^^

Or do you think the politicians are?

Hm.... if you think the candidates are fictional, it'd explain a lot... it's not that canon-Hillary fits with your description, but you have your own personal head-canon....

Yea, I can totally see you as the type who'd *insist* that Harry Potter didn't really end up with Ginny, it's Harry/Hermoine all the way!

I think you have lost it along the way. The fact that you can even call Hilary honest shows how small your brain is and how easy you can be manipulated, but you are a sheep, not a pig.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He did go to orgy island and he also had a sex slave, Im sorry you are hearing this for the first time.

Oh, I heard it. From you.

I just think it's great evidence how you're a gullible fool who'll pass on anything negative no matter how obvious made-up clickbait it is.

You know, if someone accuses you of buying into everything without checking, then perhaps posting, "Oh yea? Well look at this ridiculous thing posted by partisan sites, that amounts to 'one person said this with no confirmation at all'!" is not the best defense.

You're really supporting my point here, you know?

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, I heard it. From you.

I just think it's great evidence how you're a gullible fool who'll pass on anything negative no matter how obvious made-up clickbait it is.

You know, if someone accuses you of buying into everything without checking, then perhaps posting, "Oh yea? Well look at this ridiculous thing posted by partisan sites, that amounts to 'one person said this with no confirmation at all'!" is not the best defense.

You're really supporting my point here, you know?

Aw too bad for you

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...effrey-epstein/

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/01/2...n-s-orgy-island

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...s-bill-clinton/