I can understand people saying the candidates in debates should not be expecting people to go easy on them. On the other hand I don't think Ted Cruz "embarrassed" himself. Or at least I don't think in that specific instance he embarrassed himself. He made a legitimate point.
So it's a weird situation because some try to portray those in the debate as whining over this, but on the other hand the debate just wasn't handled well. It's more to do with the way they phrased certain things as opposed to things being too "tough" or "easy".
So yes they should be challenging them and asking the tough questions, but don't do it in a way where the entire thing comes off like a bad re-enactment of how kids behave in high school. I was expecting the theme song to Dawson's Creek to begin playing any minute.
It is just strange to me for anyone to act like the moderators were completely professional about this...even if you think the candidates also played their part. Why the moderators acted that way is hard to say. Maybe just for ratings, I don't know. Maybe they legitimately thought they were doing things professionally.
Originally posted by Surtur
It is just strange to me for anyone to act like the moderators were completely professional about this...even if you think the candidates also played their part.
Who thinks the moderators conducted the debate professionally?
The CNBC debate was amateur hour on both sides of the equation.
The point is that no one who holds elected office is exempt from harsh, sometimes caustic questioning.
Clinton endured 11 hours of it during the Select Committee on Benghazi and did not break a sweat.
Conversely, Ted Cruz could not endure the 7 minutes and 34 seconds of total speaking time he had in the CNBC debate without railing against the people questioning him.
You think the CNBC moderators are unfair? What do you think is going to happen in the general election? Do you think the Democrats are going to be more or less hard on the Republican nominee?
If the Republican candidates cannot handle it now, they are doomed in the general election when the gloves really come off.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The point is that no one who holds elected office is exempt from harsh, sometimes caustic questioning.Clinton endured 11 hours of it during the Select Committee on Benghazi and did not break a sweat.
That's the double-standard that these puddlesplashers like to employ in here, it's become a running gag.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Um do you? There are like 15 republicans and 2 liberals.It's like you don't understand what's going to happen when they all drop out but and trump/Carson/rubio are left.
Do you even math?
32% of registered voters are Democrats
23% of registered voters are Republicans
39% of registered voters are Independents
Of registered voters who are Independents:
48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic
39% identify as Republicans or lean Republican
Democrats have a 12-point advantage in national elections.
Winnowing down the field of candidates does nothing to net support for the Republican nominee from the general electorate, it only rearranges the support for the remaining candidates from among Republican voters.
🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who thinks the moderators conducted the debate professionally?The CNBC debate was amateur hour on both sides of the equation.
The point is that no one who holds elected office is exempt from harsh, sometimes caustic questioning.
Clinton endured 11 hours of it during the Select Committee on Benghazi and did not break a sweat.
Conversely, Ted Cruz could not endure the 7 minutes and 34 seconds of total speaking time he had in the CNBC debate without railing against the people questioning him.
You think the CNBC moderators are unfair? What do you think is going to happen in the general election? Do you think the Democrats are going to be more or less hard on the Republican nominee?
If the Republican candidates cannot handle it now, they are doomed in the general election when the gloves really come off.
But nobody is saying they are exempt from harsh questioning. That is the thing. But mere harsh questioning isn't what took place.
You also say things like Cruz couldn't "endure" ? Sounds like he just pointed out the behavior of the shitty mods. You act like he was about to have a nervous breakdown.
This hasn't told me anything in terms of how they will handle the general election since I'm hoping they won't have people like before asking the questions then.
I also surely didn't catch Clinton's 11 hours of Benghazi stuff, so maybe they tossed asinine ass backwards questions at her for the entire thing as well. If she was cool as a cucumber for it awesome. Though it's not especially something that would cause me to think she is the right person for President.
Originally posted by Surtur
It was good, though I wonder if Obama feels the places he mentioned are worried about him.
That's beside the point though since he's not simultaneously putting himself over. It's no different than what Trump has been doing. It was just a really good zinger, nothing more nothing else.
Originally posted by Surtur
You also say things like Cruz couldn't "endure" ? Sounds like he just pointed out the behavior of the shitty mods. You act like he was about to have a nervous breakdown.
Obviously there's different opinion on Cruz's move, some thing it was "bold truth-saying", others think it was an embarrassing diatribe. But another way to look at it, if you have 90 seconds to respond to a legitimate question concerning a very real issue like the US Deficit, do you:
A) Spend those 90 seconds responding on topic and do so eloquently that you could possibly pull some undecided over to your camp
or
B) Completely ignore the topic and make an attack-speech that only caters to the voters you already have in your pocket
or
C) *Feel free to add your own idea here*
Yes, but how about if we have a chance to get these candidates to speak about the issues we just make just all the questions are legit, yeah? Give them no excuses to dodge something.
If you wanted to say he wasted a chance to answer, sure. It's not exactly bold what he said. Nor is it..unbold. It was just the reality of the situation. If I was him would I of called attention to it? I don't know, though I'd be crossing my fingers someone sure as hell did.
Plus hell, the way the mods behaved? They owed the man another 90 seconds for saying shit that needed to be said.
Now maybe some disagree and think people should of just voiced opinions after the debate, but for me..these mods needed a reality check just as much as any of the candidates.
This entire thing was just one epic wasted opportunity. I wonder how much money was wasted on the sad excuse for what that was supposed to be.
The majority of the questions were legit. Some were worded meanly in some manner, but these are supposed to be professional adults in politics, politicians need to have a thick skin (one of Trump's shortcomings, imo). Rubio's adept at deflecting the "mean" aspects without coming off like a diaperbaby most of the time.
As pointed out by Adam POE, what's going to happen in the general election when it's deadly serious.
edit: you edited in a lot more, I don't think Cruz should have been allotted another 90seconds. He had his chance; he blew it. If all the nominees were allowed to go off topic first for as long as they want and then respond on topic if they're able, we would have 6hr debates. Though personally I feel Cruz went off topic because he didn't have a solid answer to the deficit question and did a "blame the media" deflection, which is popular.
Originally posted by draxx_tOfU
Lol!I think the CNBC moderators were dumb*sses, but this was a pretty good zinger from Obama. He made the collective GOP candidates look petty and weak imo.
*YAWN*. Obama shouldn't be calling ANYBODY weak. Our enemies laugh at us with him in charge. HE's such a disgrace. Putin and Russian citizens have mocked him so many times I lost count. I still laugh when I think about how Russia mocked Obama on his birthday. I guess the Republicans must've really struck a nerve with him. LOL. 👆
Regardless, his childish joke doesn't change a damn thing. What the Republicans said is still the truth and he can't change that no matter how many jokes he tells.
Originally posted by Star428
*YAWN*. Obama shouldn't be calling ANYBODY weak. Our enemies laugh at us with him in charge. HE's such a disgrace. Putin and Russian citizens have mocked him so many times I lost count. I still laugh when I think about how Russia mocked Obama on his birthday. I guess the Republicans must've really struck a nerve with him. LOL. 👆
Same way I chuckle everytime I see the video of that dude throwing a shoe at Bush. 👆
Originally posted by Robtard
The majority of the questions were legit. Some were worded meanly in some manner, but these are supposed to be professional adults in politics, politicians need to have a thick skin (one of Trump's shortcomings, imo). Rubio's adept at deflecting the "mean" aspects without coming off like a diaperbaby most of the time.As pointed out by Adam POE, what's going to happen in the general election when it's deadly serious.
There is quite the difference between having thick skin and putting up with bullshit.
Here is the thing about the general election, note your words "deadly serious". Keyword is serious. As in, not a debate where it has to be clarified "well not all the questions were horrible". I've quite literally had high school debates where that couldn't be said. Hell I've had debates over friggin fictional characters that were better.
Unless you think what is going to happen in the general election is going to be just as unprofessional. Which if it is..we kind of failed. As in, everyone in the country. If we can't put together a proper debate for one of the most important jobs in the country then what *can* we do?
Originally posted by Surtur
There is quite the difference between having thick skin and putting up with bullshit.Here is the thing about the general election, note your words "deadly serious". Keyword is serious. As in, not a debate where it has to be clarified "well not all the questions were horrible". I've quite literally had high school debates where that couldn't be said. Hell I've had debates over friggin fictional characters that were better.
Unless you think what is going to happen in the general election is going to be just as unprofessional. Which if it is..we kind of failed. As in, everyone in the country. If we can't put together a proper debate for one of the most important jobs in the country then what *can* we do?
You seem to be under the impression that the majority of the questions were poor or poorly worded; they weren't.
The debate being a debacle was due to the infighting between the nominees and the lack of control the moderators had over those they were supposed to be moderating. The Noms basically ran that debate how they wanted.