I'm really glad that they cancelled the next debate that was scheduled.
The moderators have their own agenda and it shows.
The moderators have their own agenda and it shows.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I agree. Look at the moderators' face when Ted Cruz crushes them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQLfaXzgE-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQLfaXzgE-0
It's kinda sad though how they believe asking a candidate to explain the math behind his tax plan is seen as a "gotcha question". I mean, we're talking about running the United States of America! If you see math as a "gotcha question", maybe you should seek other employment? :blink:
RJ, that's a bit of an understatement. There was a ton of sniping designed more to draw candidates into shouting matches with one another or play off of media oversimplifications.
The question I think you're referencing went to Senator Rubio and it wasn't a question about the math, it was an incorrect assertion about the characterization of how it treated certain economic classes. It would have been nice to have a relevant and targeted question about the plan/policy, but it was effectively an opinion based on an incorrect assertion from a third party of which the third party came out and said was a wrong conclusion. -_-
In addition to this, one reporter did not even have her source for a quote attributed to Mr. Trump. Even though she was correct about the quote, she didn't have the material to assert that he indeed did make the comment and had to back down.
It was just bad all around, and like the vast majority of conclusions from the debate, the only person who did worse than Jeb Bush were those CNBC employees. I'd always thought CNBC comprised the sort of moderate adults in the room, but the debate clearly suggested otherwise.
The question I think you're referencing went to Senator Rubio and it wasn't a question about the math, it was an incorrect assertion about the characterization of how it treated certain economic classes. It would have been nice to have a relevant and targeted question about the plan/policy, but it was effectively an opinion based on an incorrect assertion from a third party of which the third party came out and said was a wrong conclusion. -_-
In addition to this, one reporter did not even have her source for a quote attributed to Mr. Trump. Even though she was correct about the quote, she didn't have the material to assert that he indeed did make the comment and had to back down.
It was just bad all around, and like the vast majority of conclusions from the debate, the only person who did worse than Jeb Bush were those CNBC employees. I'd always thought CNBC comprised the sort of moderate adults in the room, but the debate clearly suggested otherwise.
I don't necessarily fully disagree with that assessment though it is notable that it comes from a left perspective; CNBC obviously thought that they'd go for ratings and fireworks over substance, but that still goes back to the point that a group of men and women who largely indeed will not vote Republican asked a bunch of questions that were shoddy at best and somewhat malicious at worst. I tend to believe the former, but I can understand a case being made for the latter.
It was in the same realm of the question Hillary received in the CNN debate "...Some opponents say that you will say anything to get elected..." Devoid of any real substance, it's basically an fastball straight down the plate meant to be knocked out of the park. It's comparable to the question posed to Rubio of which he pretty much did the same about his record. That doesn't really distinguish him from the next guy or girl in terms of policy or past choices. To me the obvious comparison is how Hillary got a single question on email but no questions on the Clinton Foundation whereas the question to Rubio was "you've done all of these things wrongly so explain." It becomes a poorly worded and thinly-veiled attack. As any person knows about the English language, tone absolutely matters in the delivery of words.
What made it so bad was that this debate was touted beforehand as dealing with specifically economic policy. I am not a fan of the flat and fair taxes myself, but very few of these questions made the candidates who propose them actually get into the math or into explaining the policy. Instead, the moderators of the debate decided to editorialize which offered distractions and chaos.
It was in the same realm of the question Hillary received in the CNN debate "...Some opponents say that you will say anything to get elected..." Devoid of any real substance, it's basically an fastball straight down the plate meant to be knocked out of the park. It's comparable to the question posed to Rubio of which he pretty much did the same about his record. That doesn't really distinguish him from the next guy or girl in terms of policy or past choices. To me the obvious comparison is how Hillary got a single question on email but no questions on the Clinton Foundation whereas the question to Rubio was "you've done all of these things wrongly so explain." It becomes a poorly worded and thinly-veiled attack. As any person knows about the English language, tone absolutely matters in the delivery of words.
What made it so bad was that this debate was touted beforehand as dealing with specifically economic policy. I am not a fan of the flat and fair taxes myself, but very few of these questions made the candidates who propose them actually get into the math or into explaining the policy. Instead, the moderators of the debate decided to editorialize which offered distractions and chaos.
HS,
I didn't watch the debate (I caught plenty of clips though), so I can't really say much except that I agree with you that it would be nice to see candidates (all candidates) be asked to "do the math" on their economic/tax proposals, and provide details on their promises (seriously Trump, just how are you going to make Mexico pay for your wall).
Regarding the GOP field, the criticisms are coming from all over, including from inside the tent. Remember the dust up over Megan Kelly's handling of the first debate? Or this latest from Gov. Kasich?
I didn't watch the debate (I caught plenty of clips though), so I can't really say much except that I agree with you that it would be nice to see candidates (all candidates) be asked to "do the math" on their economic/tax proposals, and provide details on their promises (seriously Trump, just how are you going to make Mexico pay for your wall).
Regarding the GOP field, the criticisms are coming from all over, including from inside the tent. Remember the dust up over Megan Kelly's handling of the first debate? Or this latest from Gov. Kasich?
Maybe the CNBC moderators picked up on the sentiment from within the GOP?
Kasich (whom I happened to support early on) was just doing the obvious tactic to generate debate minutes for his campaign - which I will remark that it worked quite well yet he still seemed unable to "break through" and get to the serious contender level. (I'll add that I've actually watched all four major debates at this point, including the first Democratic debate.)
As much as Trump is indeed Trump, I think he poses a problem for those of the liberal persuasion because the sort of default response is to mock his supporters. Unfortunately, it's clear proof of the example of epidemic epistemological closure that American political discourse has these days because the left wants to shout and mock it without realizing that the GOP/Tea Party/white males don't own a monopoly on closed thinking. Confirmation bias at work.
For instance, you cite Kasich comments on Medicare/Medicaid, but Trump has pretty much said the same thing actually prior to Kasich saying it, drawing the ire of some well-regarded Conservative with-a-capital-C groups. This is something a really good debate question (looking at you, CNBC) could have teased out and made Trump (or the other candidates) support or rebuke.
Hint: A great Trump question could have been "Mr. Trump, you maintain that you want to preserve existing SSA benefits and that you don't believe that these benefits should be touched. Candidate ______ says that we must privatize SSA while Candidate ______________ says that we need to cut SSA altogether. Could you, Mr. Trump, both explain why you think SSA benefits need to be retained at current levels and how exactly you plan to pay for this given that many reliable sources seem to show that SSA is unsustainable at current spending and tax rates?"
So to pretend that the Trump phenomenon is only about an attitude or pure anger is a shallow analysis and would demonstrate a lack of understanding of the dynamics. To do this feeds the guy who knows how to manipulate a situation to his advantage.
If anything, Trump's success somewhat points to someone who is actually moderate in his or her beliefs would have a splendid chance at the Presidency, but that would buck the trends of both parties to sort of retrench. Unfortunately, it is all about money, and it oscillates between the book and TV/radio deals on the right and the foundations and speaking events on the left. Some are just wiser than others at getting to their there.
Of course there is a proliferation of opinions about everything in the age of blogging. It's just intriguing that so many want their illogical cake and meal too in that many of the voices supposedly critique the establishment for the usual Republican foibles, but then side against those very opinions in attacking Trump who largely shares at least some views with Democrats and voices of the left on some issues.
It's also much like the hyper simplification of immigration opinions to mean that the poor whites (and blacks) who feel threatened by the illegal Hispanic immigrants threatening them for what limited job prospects they have is irrevocably reducible to racism. Instead, those people might be more worried about their jobs rather than the specific skin pigmentation of the men and women replacing them. However, this involves listening to events and looking deeper than simple confirmation-biased analysis.
As much as Trump is indeed Trump, I think he poses a problem for those of the liberal persuasion because the sort of default response is to mock his supporters. Unfortunately, it's clear proof of the example of epidemic epistemological closure that American political discourse has these days because the left wants to shout and mock it without realizing that the GOP/Tea Party/white males don't own a monopoly on closed thinking. Confirmation bias at work.
For instance, you cite Kasich comments on Medicare/Medicaid, but Trump has pretty much said the same thing actually prior to Kasich saying it, drawing the ire of some well-regarded Conservative with-a-capital-C groups. This is something a really good debate question (looking at you, CNBC) could have teased out and made Trump (or the other candidates) support or rebuke.
Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-economic-plan-gets-a-clubbing/article/2575633
Hint: A great Trump question could have been "Mr. Trump, you maintain that you want to preserve existing SSA benefits and that you don't believe that these benefits should be touched. Candidate ______ says that we must privatize SSA while Candidate ______________ says that we need to cut SSA altogether. Could you, Mr. Trump, both explain why you think SSA benefits need to be retained at current levels and how exactly you plan to pay for this given that many reliable sources seem to show that SSA is unsustainable at current spending and tax rates?"
So to pretend that the Trump phenomenon is only about an attitude or pure anger is a shallow analysis and would demonstrate a lack of understanding of the dynamics. To do this feeds the guy who knows how to manipulate a situation to his advantage.
If anything, Trump's success somewhat points to someone who is actually moderate in his or her beliefs would have a splendid chance at the Presidency, but that would buck the trends of both parties to sort of retrench. Unfortunately, it is all about money, and it oscillates between the book and TV/radio deals on the right and the foundations and speaking events on the left. Some are just wiser than others at getting to their there.
Of course there is a proliferation of opinions about everything in the age of blogging. It's just intriguing that so many want their illogical cake and meal too in that many of the voices supposedly critique the establishment for the usual Republican foibles, but then side against those very opinions in attacking Trump who largely shares at least some views with Democrats and voices of the left on some issues.
It's also much like the hyper simplification of immigration opinions to mean that the poor whites (and blacks) who feel threatened by the illegal Hispanic immigrants threatening them for what limited job prospects they have is irrevocably reducible to racism. Instead, those people might be more worried about their jobs rather than the specific skin pigmentation of the men and women replacing them. However, this involves listening to events and looking deeper than simple confirmation-biased analysis.
HS,
That was a very interesting post. I get the feeling you basically used my post as a convenient jumping off point to post what you were wanting to say anyways. Not that it's a bad post, or that I disagree with what you said though.
That was a very interesting post. I get the feeling you basically used my post as a convenient jumping off point to post what you were wanting to say anyways. Not that it's a bad post, or that I disagree with what you said though.
The two issues (the debate theatrics and the Trump phenomenon) are inexorably intertwined. It's all part of the kindergarten binary narrative posed as pseudo-intellectualism in that the other side doesn't really have a valid opinion merely because it differs from mine or my (supposedly larger) tribe's consensus. The attempt is always to characterize any blow-back as sophomoric, even to the point that the sitting President condescends from decorum to get in on the action. Thus with the CNBC debate, any truly shoddy journalism is overshadowed by too much complaining by those poor ignorant or stupid Republicans. Let alone we begin to discuss whether CNBC had a motive (viewership and profits) that may have given the shoddy journalism an opportunity.
This is the sort of left triumphalism that "we have all it figured out and those dolts just don't know any better" that breeds dangerous events for any group. Again, it's easy to dismiss as petty, but what's going on in the bigger picture is that once you repeat lies and thoughts enough, then the other side really does begin to look something other than human. Just because it's being masked with the late 20th century through 21st century chosen tool of humor does not blunt the edge of the logic nor the consequences that follow. I admit that some Christians and the right absolutely do have a persecution complex, but the same could be said of the left. Having its share of kooks does not invalidate the good things that have come from either camp, though.
Thus, you get the logic that people for Trump can't be serious and that the Republican candidates themselves can't be serious about running for President and not taking questions be they great or closer to terrible like this CNBC debate. Neither assertion departs from the same strand of logic, and I would submit that the logic is moving past us versus them playfulness to something decidedly more pernicious.
This is the sort of left triumphalism that "we have all it figured out and those dolts just don't know any better" that breeds dangerous events for any group. Again, it's easy to dismiss as petty, but what's going on in the bigger picture is that once you repeat lies and thoughts enough, then the other side really does begin to look something other than human. Just because it's being masked with the late 20th century through 21st century chosen tool of humor does not blunt the edge of the logic nor the consequences that follow. I admit that some Christians and the right absolutely do have a persecution complex, but the same could be said of the left. Having its share of kooks does not invalidate the good things that have come from either camp, though.
Thus, you get the logic that people for Trump can't be serious and that the Republican candidates themselves can't be serious about running for President and not taking questions be they great or closer to terrible like this CNBC debate. Neither assertion departs from the same strand of logic, and I would submit that the logic is moving past us versus them playfulness to something decidedly more pernicious.
Well, regardless of the Democratic reaction to Trump's campaign, I do have a tough time understanding how anyone can take it seriously. His ridiculous rhetoric coupled with laughably simplistic, vague, and arrogant proposals have a lot of people like me shaking their heads in dismay. He started off by referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers, followed that up with the claim that he'll build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it, and has since basically ran on "I'm the smartest winner, and everyone else is a loser".
That was the GOP front-runner for most of 2015. Wow.
And now the front-runner is a guy who has a "tithe-based" tax plan, which is essentially a 15% flat tax. But if he's asked to explain the math of how that would work without exploding the deficit, he claims it's a "gotcha question". Then yesterday it comes out that he thinks the Egyptian pyramids were Joseph's grain storage silos? Seriously? And today it's revealed that he's been lying about a key part of his inspirational life story.
Those are your GOP front-runners. IMO, it's a sad reflection on the state of conservatism in this country and just how crazy it's become. And you can't get mad at folks like me for reacting to stupidity like that. If you're the GOP and those are your party's leaders, you'd better own it. If you don't like how they make you look, then do something about it. Don't just lash out at everyone else for shaking their heads at you.
That was the GOP front-runner for most of 2015. Wow.
And now the front-runner is a guy who has a "tithe-based" tax plan, which is essentially a 15% flat tax. But if he's asked to explain the math of how that would work without exploding the deficit, he claims it's a "gotcha question". Then yesterday it comes out that he thinks the Egyptian pyramids were Joseph's grain storage silos? Seriously? And today it's revealed that he's been lying about a key part of his inspirational life story.
Those are your GOP front-runners. IMO, it's a sad reflection on the state of conservatism in this country and just how crazy it's become. And you can't get mad at folks like me for reacting to stupidity like that. If you're the GOP and those are your party's leaders, you'd better own it. If you don't like how they make you look, then do something about it. Don't just lash out at everyone else for shaking their heads at you.
I think that the general public has started to "wake up and smell the coffee"... They are tired of the political games and lies from some politicians. They want someone who can stand up for this country and do what is right instead of being politically correct. I think that Mr. Trump said some things that he shouldn't have, but he is still popular for a reason. He will not be bought by anyone. He is using his own funds for his campaign and will not let China have an totally unfair advantage over us. That being said, I don't know if he will be the leader down the road, but it sure is fun to watch the established republican's scratch their heads not knowing how to beat the non-politicians.
Politics has become like the Pro "Rassling" on Tv....both parties, and candidates are on the same team...they either follow the globalist agenda or they do not get close to being part of the political process...if someone should sneak past them into office, well they seem to not be very successful, or their tenure is shortened.
The media is VERY unfair to Ted Cruz. They hardly ever show much of his rallies, just bits and pieces. On the other hand, the one who acts the least Christian gets all the attention. We'd expect this of the liberal media, but ironically, it is the liberal media, CNN, who tells us the scary truth about Trump, about how he has, according to the accusations, refused to pay some of his workers, about he supported Democrats for the last 40 years, about how he was convicted in court of "conspiracy to hire" foreigners (i believe they were illegals), which means he NEGLECTED to hire many Americans. The hypocrite! Yes, CNN will tell you this kind of stuff you need to know. Fox.. i dont know about them. You'd think some of those folks want T to win. But they should realize that if T wins, Hillary wins. I haven't been watching FNC lately..
sigh
LOL Sanders said T was a pathological liar..
I'm glad someone has the cajones to tell the truth
sigh
LOL Sanders said T was a pathological liar..
I'm glad someone has the cajones to tell the truth
Some people such as yourself would not recognize the truth if it stared them in the face...too brainwashed by the MSM and their NWO agenda.
I heard Dt refuses to debate Cruz
figures
There's no substance there.. gotta have substance if you are going 2 debate & he knows he doesn't have it, whereas Cruz
Cruz is better than Reagan in a lot of ways
figures
There's no substance there.. gotta have substance if you are going 2 debate & he knows he doesn't have it, whereas Cruz
Cruz is better than Reagan in a lot of ways
Similar threads
- Poll
