Democratic Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]100meters wrote:

Barely a bad mention? uh? She will be serially abused by the pundits all the way to election day, while Rudy who lies like other people breathe will surely be treated with kid gloves.

For example:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, �??It�??s a no.�?? I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said �??no.�??

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, �??I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.�?? You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position

She of course, NEVER SAID NO! Russert just added that, why? It fits the narrative the pundits like to think is true.

He then goes on to bust her balls the rest of the night on his made up narrative, lobbing softballs to other canidates to help reinforce the idea

EDWARDS: [S]he said in our last debate that she was against any changes on Social Security�??benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on the Social Security tax. But apparently, it�??s been reported that she said privately something different than that.

And I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country�??s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won�??t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.

RUSSERT: You stand behind the word �??double-talk?�??

EDWARDS: I do.

Russert was happy to let Edwards tell an outright lie, with absolutely no correction.

I mean I can’t remember seeing a debate whose sole purpose seemed to be trashing a single canidate?[/quote]

Wait - you mean Hillary got challenged by Russert (a former Democratic staffer) on some inconsistent positions? Hillary is applying for the Leader of the Free World and a debate moderator has the audacity to force her to clarify her policy positions?

The horror! Poor baby!

Wow, if you think Russert is a big, unfair meanie, how do you think Hillary - bless her heart - will fair when staring across the table from the butchers in Iran?

Hilarious, 100meters. Apparently, Russert and Co. should be asking the following:

“Senator Clinton…why is that you are so awesome?”

“Senator Clinton…tell us again why no one is as awesome as you?”

“Senator Clinton…the New York Times just ran a headline that said you were ‘moderately awesome’. How do you respond to that slanderous mischaracterization, given that you are galactically awesome?”

42

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Wait - you mean Hillary got challenged by Russert (a former Democratic staffer) on some inconsistent positions? Hillary is applying for the Leader of the Free World and a debate moderator has the audacity to force her to clarify her policy positions?

The horror! Poor baby!

Wow, if you think Russert is a big, unfair meanie, how do you think Hillary - bless her heart - will fair when staring across the table from the butchers in Iran?
[/quote]

Whoops you missed.
Hillary didn’t actually have an inconsistent position, Russert had made them up out of thin air. That was my whole point. Odd that you missed it.

43

[quote]100meters wrote:

Whoops you missed.
Hillary didn’t actually have an inconsistent position, Russert had made them up out of thin air. That was my whole point. Odd that you missed it.[/quote]

Why would Tim Russert purposely fabricate a position? Couldn’t he just be trying to get clarity?

Why does it always have to be a persecution complex with Democrats, with someone out to get them?

Including - now - former Democratic staffer and cuddly host Tim Russert?

Always the victim. And yet, this is who we are supposed to trust with the most important job in the world?

Big meanies! sniff

44

More on 100meters’ persecution complex - conservative stronghold Harvard has determined that the media’s coverage of Democrats has been more sympathetic.

[i]Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy �?? hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy �?? found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. “Obama’s front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.”

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories “tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the ‘game,’ compared with 63% overall.”

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it’s there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program’s disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter’s groundbreaking 1986 book “The Media Elite”; “A Measure of Media Bias,” a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg’s two books, “Bias” and “Arrogance.” All underscore the media’s leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story �?? one that can’t be edited or spiked.[/i]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

And 100meters loves a naked appeal to authority, so let me reiterate that this is a Harvard product.

Poor Hillary. She is so put upon.

45

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.

One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.

Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?

JeffR

Isn’t his biggest liability uhh… he’s doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Starting with foreign policy? (See nutty advisors). And yes she will hint at it.
[/quote]

lumpy/bradley/100meters:

Were you watching the same clinton that the rest of us were subject to?

I wouldn’t be too sanguine about her chances to out-debate obama, let alone Rudy.

Foreign policy? I can’t wait until Rudy mentions her vote for the War, against funding for the Iraq War, and now taking a hardline stance against iran.

I can feel the weathervane/windmill commercials coming down the pipe.

Flip flop much?

JeffR

46

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
More on 100meters’ persecution complex - conservative stronghold Harvard has determined that the media’s coverage of Democrats has been more sympathetic.

[i]Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy �?? hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy �?? found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. “Obama’s front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.”

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories “tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the ‘game,’ compared with 63% overall.”

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it’s there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program’s disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter’s groundbreaking 1986 book “The Media Elite”; “A Measure of Media Bias,” a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg’s two books, “Bias” and “Arrogance.” All underscore the media’s leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story �?? one that can’t be edited or spiked.[/i]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

And 100meters loves a naked appeal to authority, so let me reiterate that this is a Harvard product.

Poor Hillary. She is so put upon.[/quote]

Let me amend: poor 100meters/lumpy/bradley.

That was hardcore, Thunder.

JeffR

47

[quote]100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Wait - you mean Hillary got challenged by Russert (a former Democratic staffer) on some inconsistent positions? Hillary is applying for the Leader of the Free World and a debate moderator has the audacity to force her to clarify her policy positions?

The horror! Poor baby!

Wow, if you think Russert is a big, unfair meanie, how do you think Hillary - bless her heart - will fair when staring across the table from the butchers in Iran?

Whoops you missed.
Hillary didn’t actually have an inconsistent position, Russert had made them up out of thin air. That was my whole point. Odd that you missed it.
[/quote]

bradley/100meters/lumpy:

Would you please let us know what hillary’s REAL position on illegal immigrants and drivers licenses is?

Thanks.

JeffR

48

[quote]100meters wrote:

I haven’t changed my name yet, although perhaps you can’t say the same, and with our hapless media determined to sandbag any democratic nominee I would never bet on a presidential win (as I did not before).

[/quote]

No one believes you, lumpy/bradley/100meters. We’d have more respect for you if you just admitted your string of names.

JeffR

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
More on 100meters’ persecution complex - conservative stronghold Harvard has determined that the media’s coverage of Democrats has been more sympathetic.

[i]Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy �?? hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy �?? found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. “Obama’s front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.”

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories “tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the ‘game,’ compared with 63% overall.”

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it’s there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program’s disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter’s groundbreaking 1986 book “The Media Elite”; “A Measure of Media Bias,” a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg’s two books, “Bias” and “Arrogance.” All underscore the media’s leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story �?? one that can’t be edited or spiked.[/i]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

And 100meters loves a naked appeal to authority, so let me reiterate that this is a Harvard product.

Poor Hillary. She is so put upon.[/quote]

And they complain about Fox news…If it wasn’t for Fox news, what would the political leanings towards the left look like then? A clean sweep?

50

Humorous take on the debate:

[i]BRIAN WILLIAMS: Welcome to Drexel University, the site of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. Let’s get started with Senator Barack Obama. Senator, you’ve vowed to spend this entire debate standing on Senator Clinton�??s windpipe while reducing her to a quivering mass of jelly. How do you plan on doing that?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Well, Brian, as you know the goal of my campaign is to make this country as noble as I am. But without casting aspersion or criticism in any direction, I have noticed that Senator Clinton, probably without meaning to, has not fully contextualized her discourse, which has had the effect of diffusing the national conversation we must have about the tremendous challenges we face.

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, I’m going to give you a few seconds to recover from that mauling.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (quietly weeping): Thank you, Brian.

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, let’s turn to you. Four years ago, you vowed to run an entirely positive campaign. Now you�??re running a negative one. What changed?

JOHN EDWARDS: My convictions, Tim. The American people want a president they can trust. Four years ago I went from being a centrist New Democrat to a left-wing populist because I wanted voters to be able to trust that I would stand up against the forces of opportunism in this country. Now I stand up to the megarich lawyers. I stand up to the hedge fund managers, the big spenders and the McMansion owners. Basically, I’ve been standing up to myself. And I don�??t take money from Washington lobbyists. I take money from the people who hire Washington lobbyists, which means a savings of, like, 15 percent.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: First, I want to pre-emptively agree with what everybody will say on all sides of every issue in this debate. That’s why the Republicans are so afraid of me. Second, I want to congratulate the Boston Red Sox. I’ve been a Red Sox fan my whole life …

WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, a different topic. If the Iranians vaporize Tel Aviv with a nuclear weapon, should Democrats ask them to apologize?

SENATOR JOE BIDEN: Well, I …

WILLIAMS: Sorry, your time has expired. Senator Obama, same question.

OBAMA: Absolutely not, Brian. If you look at this administration�??s record on Iran, you see a lot of pejorative words, some of them very hurtful. We Democrats need to have the courage to counter the politics of fear by using the word “diplomacy” six and seven times in one sentence �?? eight, if necessary.

EDWARDS: I worry about the two Irans. For while the corporate Jihadis are building nuclear weapons, the working-class extremists are shivering in doorways and making do with sharp sticks.

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, at the end of your husband’s administration, you placed your authentic self in a cryogenic vault in the National Archives. Will you allow the archives to release your authentic self during this campaign?

CLINTON: It’s kind of embarrassing Brian, but my authentic self was misfiled sometime in 2003, and we can’t find it.

RUSSERT: Another question for Senator Clinton. You support giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. How many times should they be able to retake the little photos until they get one they like?

CLINTON: To be clear, I said that licenses for illegals was a smart idea that I oppose. There are also many dumb ideas I support and mediocre ideas I’m lukewarm about. I keep track on my iPhone.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (arriving): Sorry I’m late everybody. My U.F.O. got held up in traffic behind Shirley MacLaine’s house.

WILLIAMS: Now we turn to our lightning round in which each of the candidates will have 3.75 seconds to spout pandering clichés that demonstrate how the campaigning process has reduced their minds to pabulum. Senator Clinton, which issue would you like to obfuscate next?

CLINTON: Obfuscate? Son, let me tell you the truth, because you can�??t handle the truth. We live in a world with enemies. We fight elections where people play rough. Who’s going to do it? These two pretty boys? The left-wing nutjobs in our party who sit around watching Bill Maher?

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, leads to victory. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about in Santa Monica dinner parties, you want me at that podium. You need me at that podium. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the self-righteous liberals who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very victory I provide! I wish you’d just said thanks and went on your way. In any case, I don’t give a damn what answers you think you’re entitled to!

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: That was beautiful, Hillary. I love you. [/i]

54

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

You know as well as I that the lead candadate is always attacked during the primaries. She’ll quickly turn out to be their darling during the general election.
[/quote]

Seems unlikely considering the last 2 elections.

And again the issue is attacked over madeup shit designed to fit a narrative invented by the media.

I would prefer attacked over actual issues that might educate the voters (me), something that doesn’t often happen in “Lightning Rounds”

55

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

And one more thing that I forgot to mention: The liberal press will be all over Rudy from the beginning to the end. They want Hillary so bad that they can taste it.

No…it’s not a pretty scene.
[/quote]

Rudy told lies all week
Hillary rode the fence on a question.
Media’s attention on Hillary (Pundits swearing(hoping) that this would hurt her, whilst polls showing the EXACT opposite)

Shorter:
Pundits: Rudy is America’s mayor
Hillary has cankles.

56

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Wait - you mean Hillary got challenged by Russert (a former Democratic staffer) on some inconsistent positions? Hillary is applying for the Leader of the Free World and a debate moderator has the audacity to force her to clarify her policy positions?

The horror! Poor baby!

Wow, if you think Russert is a big, unfair meanie, how do you think Hillary - bless her heart - will fair when staring across the table from the butchers in Iran?

Whoops you missed.
Hillary didn’t actually have an inconsistent position, Russert had made them up out of thin air. That was my whole point. Odd that you missed it.

bradley/100meters/lumpy:

Would you please let us know what hillary’s REAL position on illegal immigrants and drivers licenses is?

Thanks.

JeffR
[/quote]

Hopefully for it.

57

[quote]100meters wrote:

Rudy told lies all week
Hillary rode the fence on a question.
Media’s attention on Hillary (Pundits swearing(hoping) that this would hurt her, whilst polls showing the EXACT opposite)

Shorter:
Pundits: Rudy is America’s mayor
Hillary has cankles.[/quote]

100meters’ dull-witted responses show the classic problem of the Left - if their candidates don’t do well, it is never their fault.

It is the conniving media, rigged voting machines, the politics of fear, Wall Street - they keep the Hillary Clintons of the world from taking their rightful places in leadership positions.

It is never unfavorable policy suggestions, bad personalities, or sorry politicians - it is a sinister outside actor making otherwise all-wise and fantastic candidates look bad.

Always, always - always. This time, it is blood-drinking neocon Tim Russert, who used to work for Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynahan.

Even though we have yet another report - this time from Harvard - confirming the media’s affections for Obama and Hillary (and Democrats generally), 100meters needs to sleep at night, so he continues his flights into uneducated fantasy.

And which part of the GOP do John Edwards and Barack Obama work for, given that they are attacking Hillary on the same grounds?

59

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Rudy told lies all week
Hillary rode the fence on a question.
Media’s attention on Hillary (Pundits swearing(hoping) that this would hurt her, whilst polls showing the EXACT opposite)

Shorter:
Pundits: Rudy is America’s mayor
Hillary has cankles.

100meters’ dull-witted responses show the classic problem of the Left - if their candidates don’t do well, it is never their fault.

It is the conniving media, rigged voting machines, the politics of fear, Wall Street - they keep the Hillary Clintons of the world from taking their rightful places in leadership positions.

It is never unfavorable policy suggestions, bad personalities, or sorry politicians - it is a sinister outside actor making otherwise all-wise and fantastic candidates look bad.

Always, always - always. This time, it is blood-drinking neocon Tim Russert, who used to work for Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynahan.

Even though we have yet another report - this time from Harvard - confirming the media’s affections for Obama and Hillary (and Democrats generally), 100meters needs to sleep at night, so he continues his flights into uneducated fantasy.

And which part of the GOP do John Edwards and Barack Obama work for, given that they are attacking Hillary on the same grounds?
[/quote]
It’s almost like your deliberately missing the point. Just say I’m glad Russert lied, or Russert shouldn’t have lied—

Also why badly mislead with this: “Harvard - confirming the media’s affections for Obama and Hillary”

Did you look at the study, or uh just pull this summary from Drudge?
Because if you didn’t pull it from Drudge then you’re making shit up.

The study shows that Hilldog and Rudy get the exact same numbers, and this is given that Rudy lies everyday so it only goes to make my point see?

And the reason Drudge will phrase democrats vs. republicans in this study is it’s obvious that Obams gets the lion shares of the media praise, when he’s removed the coverage is the same.

Hillarious that you tried though with: “confirming the media’s affections for Obama and Hillary (and Democrats generally)”

60

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The current system of political debates is close to worthless.
[/quote]
That’s because there are only a handful of candidates that actually say anything (referred to as lunatics).

Debates should be held more like a T-Nation Open debate forum.

It should be: Unmoderated and open only to the registered candidates; they can debate any topic they want and freely respond to any topic at any time, of any length, however they wish to respond. The public will have read only privileges. Could be quite historical.

(Note to T-Nation Staff – you should consider sponsoring something like this. It would cost you nothing and would get you some serious exposure for Biotest.)