[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It was terrible. I wanted to hear more about the various tax policies not about fantasy fucking football or Rubio’s personal financual choices. CNBC or MSNBC or whatever they are called sucks.[/quote]
I’m with USMC on this one.
This was SUPPOPSED to be a debate on Economics (isn’t MSMBC supposed to be a business channel? I don’t watch it). Most (if not all) of these candidates have tax plans (especially Cruz) that I wanted to hear more about.
So I relish the fact that the Moderators were Bitch-Slapped…they needed to be.
Then there was Bush.
He has been a headscatcher, for sure. He needs to save face and quietly bow out…he really does…
“Winners” in my opinion? Rubio, Cruz and Christie (even though many pundits feel that Cruz and Christie will not get enough of a “bump” to make them true contenders).
After the New Year and the first Primaries, I’m personally ready for the GOP field to become more “Lean and Mean”. We need to start sifting the proverbial “Wheat from the Chaff”.
Mufasa[/quote]
Not to pick a fight with you but I have been claiming for many years that the media leans far left and you have argued with me on that very topic. I’m glad to see that you’ve had your eyes open my friend.
[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint you, Zeb…
But my issue with this debate didn’t rise to a “philosophical” level of “Right/Left” or “Liberal/Conservative” or “MSLM vs. The American People”…
Having been on Debate Teams in the past…they simply asked bad questions that didn’t facilitate debate among the candidates ONE BIT.
With debate…you are given a position…you state your case on that position…and there is rebuttal.
And for the Moderators to lose complete control?
It was a joke to call it a “debate”.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I see so you don’t think there was any liberal bias whatsoever regarding CNBC. Is that what you are telling me? You are merely stating that they were bad at their jobs. And that calling Trump a clown, interrupting candidates with left wing talking points etc. None of that was left wing…they were just bad at their jobs…is that what you are saying?
No left wing bias from CNBC, a known left wing network, its just that they did not do a good job.
I see Mufasa
[/quote]
I agree with Mufasa the whole debate was filled with loaded questions to insight conflict instead of questions being asked that would naturally cause a debate between candidates.
I watch CNBC at times I would not call them liberal by any stretch, moderate ok. Their programming for the most part is centered around stock advice and making money. When I have watched they also talk a lot about lowering corporate tax rates and side with a lot of the tax plans proposed by the candidates. I don’t hear a lot of liberal speak from the pundits on the channel. [/quote]
When speaking of CNBC as liberal, it’s their parent corporation, NBC, that correctly gets tagged with the liberal pejorative. And NBC is most certainly liberal, more than most.
[/quote]
And I love it. The RNC is threatening to cost NBC millions of dollars. Suddenly, NBC is listening. Because of the debacle that was the Republican debate, many more viewers than normal are going to be tuning in just to see if there is another circus. In the mean time, they are being introduced to a party who has lots of diverse and creative plans to tackle many of the difficult situations this country is facing. Certainly a departure from the left, who advocate more of the same except the requirement of more money from the citizenry to accomplish their tired ass goals they will never accomplish.[/quote]
One only needs to compare the democrat candidates with the republicans to see where the real talent lies. Anyone who thinks, for example, that Bernie Sanders is a legitimate Presidential candidate is smoking something nasty…As for Hillary, I’ve written volumes on why she is an illegitimate candidate. As long as she stays in front of her adoring left wing followers and a loving left wing media she will be fine. As soon as she sets one foot on the national stage as in a general election she will be torn to shreds. The general election will not be kind to her.
And when this is over I expect my detractors to step up and say that I was right months in advance!
(Hold on that is asking a lot…)
[/quote]
Hillary is a legit candidate. She may be a piece of shit, but a legit candidate. And she is the one I want to win the nomination. I don’t want a repeat of '08 where so yahoo comes out of the woodwork, that is actually worse than her and wins.
Hillary is about a lovable as a buzzard. She’s arrogant, terse, mean, condescending and a verifiable liar. So in other words she’s perfect. The election is the Republican’s to lose. Hillary is going to give the GOP every chance to win this election. Now they have stolen defeat from the jaws of victory before, but if they play their cards right, they should be winning this election, I hope. [/quote]
A Sanders nomination would ensure a GOP victory. The most nuanced models I’ve seen give Clinton a 50 percent chance of winning the general election, while the remaining 50 percent is allocated to every other candidate combined. You think a coin flip is good odds? The GOP is inadvertently everything it can to lay out a red carpet for HRC’s march to the White House. Look at the recent (and ninth) “investigation” of the Benghazi attack. When asked what new information had been gleaned by eleven hours of questioning, the committee chairman Gowdy state “I’d have to go back and look at the transcript.” The circus made Clinton appear as a victim of Republican partisanship aimed at corroding her campaign. In addition, she conducted herself well; her demeanor was presidential even. It can’t be characterized as anything but a failure on the part of the GOP.[/quote]
Sure. She was caught in a lie and the media spun it as a win. It sure is great to have the media on your side. She could have ordered the Benghazi attack and the media would applaud her.
And nobody feels for Hillary as a victim. She’s about as much of a victim is Tawana Brawley.