Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fiorina came across angry the last debate. Someone obviously told her to tone it down, and she did. Likability is just as important as other qualities when running for president.
Fiorina is probably the most unlikable candidate on either side, apart from Ted Cruz. They both make me want to hurl. If both her and Cruz were in Harry Potter they would be selected for Slitherin in a heartbeat!
I'm guessing you self-identify as a liberal. The comments on this board are very interesting compared to comments I myself made (conservative) and my wife (avowed independent who voted for Obama *shudder*, then voted against him because he was so bad) and the liberal watchers of the debate.
From the start the moderators were less interested in the ideas a candidate had then character assassination, liberal talking points, and trying to get the R candidates to fight each other. Same thing that was said in the last 2 debates by myself (I was surprised that Fox did that TBH, I was expecting much more soft ball questions). My wife and I agreed with many of the talking points, we also groaned at deflections. But I think on the whole the republican debate was several times more interesting then the Democratic debate and the R's had actual plans (whether you agree or not is another story) vs. the D side which was summed up as "big banks and rich people bad, everyone gets free stuff" without ANY (so far as I remember) requirement by the Moderators to back up, show numbers, or look at a plan they have proposed.
I also liked how the Republican candidates actually came together on the stage after Cruz' speech.
The 3rd debate ended in a huge win for the R's because when I (conservative) and my wife (independent) are talking about the level of questions then both find ourselves agreeing with Cruz (she dislikes him, but agreed with him).
In all honesty they are both on Youtube. Play question by question and tell me which debate had more information on candidate positions and plans.
Yah, how anyone could possibly agree with Ted Cruz is beyond comprehension. I'll remind you that he firstly banged on about how the democratic debate questions were "soft" (he couldn't possibly have watched it to think that), but then said "we should be talking about the things that matter to America" - from a guy who's party has led 8 investigations into Benghazi, another e-mail investigation, and voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 50 times.
Then he has the audacity to ignore the question about the debt ceiling (having led the inconceivable charge to push America to default), then talk about inequality while simultaneously offering a 10% flat tax (which would raise taxes on the poorest Americans and lower them on the wealthiest). Even conservative estimates are that a flat tax of 10% would add $1tn EVERY YEAR to the deficit. No wonder he wouldn't answer the debt ceiling question. Oh, and he wants to abolish the IRS and file taxes on a postcard.
Everything he said at the debate was nothing short of ludicrous. I agree that the moderation was terrible - any decent moderator would have called him out on his economic lah lah land bullsh@t.
The republican debate was not anything remotely resembling a bunch of "actual plans". What you heard was "lets cut taxes to impossible revels, reduce regulation, the government is evil, and the MSM is even more evil than that". At least the democrats discussed a plethora of issues and how they would approach each. Hillary Clinton (even though I'm no big fan) would absolutely destroy any of them, except for maybe Marco Rubio who would certainly present a challenge, although he would still get a beating.
After the allotted time ran out, he was cut off....
They let others go over time. What happened was that Harwood got butthurt from the takedown that he and CNBC just received so he was gonna be petty and cut him off.
Either way, you can't say that Cruz went off on them to avoid the question when he was prepared and actually started answering it before they cut him off.
You really can't spin this, I don't care how much you may not like the republicans. I really don't like any of them either. I can't imagine ANY of them being my president. With that said, CNBC richly deserves all of the vitriol and contempt they are receiving and Cruz was absolutely justified in taking them to task for it.
Any pretense of decorum, civility or conducting a serious debate flew out of the window with the moderator's first questions. Why should they sit there and listen to another question phrased in some variation of "when did you stop beating your wife?", without speaking out against it?
When were they supposed to speak up? It isn't like they were allotted time for feedback on the debate.
I thought the mods were hard-hitting but at times they also dis not use proper decorum -- such as when one used "comic book character" to Trump.
I also thought the mods were good at fact-checking, like when Trump said he never did something that was actually listed on his website.
Rubio's tax-plan does tilt toward the rich, even though he denied it.
Ben Carson lied. He has indeed been deeply involved with Mannatech.
Rubio did more than just "deny it" -- he said that Harwood had actually reported this before, and then had to retract it. Harwood did his correction on October 14 and then LIED about it in front of 14 Million people.
I haven't studied all these Tax Plans - the only totally hones person on stage Wed night about "tax plans" was Fiorina. She said candidates and politicians ALWAYS have "plans" and they never get accomplished. She is correct about that. All the candidates appear to forget that it's not the President that can "decree" a Tax Plan ...... CongressCritters have to do it and they won't.
I'm pretty sure that if ANY of the GOP Candidates on stage Wednesday evening had said - today is "Wednesday" ....... the Leftist headline and posting would be "They Lied".
Ideology & Blind Puppet Partisanship trump (no pun intended) litteraly everything.
That's true for the Left and the Right ...... Sad situation.
Rubio did more than just "deny it" -- he said that Harwood had actually reported this before, and then had to retract it. Harwood did his correction on October 14 and then LIED about it in front of 14 Million people.
I haven't studied all these Tax Plans - the only totally hones person on stage Wed night about "tax plans" was Fiorina. She said candidates and politicians ALWAYS have "plans" and they never get accomplished. She is correct about that. All the candidates appear to forget that it's not the President that can "decree" a Tax Plan ...... CongressCritters have to do it and they won't.
I'm pretty sure that if ANY of the GOP Candidates on stage Wednesday evening had said - today is "Wednesday" ....... the Leftist headline and posting would be "They Lied".
Ideology & Blind Puppet Partisanship trump (no pun intended) litteraly everything.
That's true for the Left and the Right ...... Sad situation.
And then our resident leftists come in and continue to repeat the lie as if it's the truth. Is there one single honest liberal left in America?
I saw some conservative pundits theorizing that these moderators are trying to make it about THEM; by asking attention=getting questions, etc.
I wonder. Thinking that now they might actually get a good viewership that night.
I thought Anderson Cooper asked Hillary some tough questions about her email, etc but nothing like the disrespectful 'flapping your arms' that was said to Trump.
That was the worst thing I heard though - that night and I think it got everything off on the wrong foot. Aside from that - I think asking Rubo about his finances was fair game; asking Trump about his comments on his OWN website was fair game; and asking Carson about his affiliation with the supplement company was also fair game.
People are trying to decide to vote for; they need to hear the good and the bad.
Another thing - TOO many people on the stage.
Confrontational is ok but flat out disrespect is not.
I would agree to this if the issues were stated the same way. Take Hillary's question ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo056EFi-f4) which had no substance behind it, no discussion on the servers being "wiped", no discussion on the stonewalling between her and the DOJ towards the investigative committee vs. the question posed to Rubio "It raises questions on your maturity..." digging into personal finances. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1KXo15pVdI)
I don't mind big debates. The answers to the questions that weren't meant to pit one against another were very intriguing and I find a lot of appeal in many of the flat-tax based plans vs our current insane version of a graduated tax and 40,000+ pages of tax law and deductions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
Yah, how anyone could possibly agree with Ted Cruz is beyond comprehension. I'll remind you that he firstly banged on about how the democratic debate questions were "soft" (he couldn't possibly have watched it to think that), but then said "we should be talking about the things that matter to America" - from a guy who's party has led 8 investigations into Benghazi, another e-mail investigation, and voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 50 times.
Then he has the audacity to ignore the question about the debt ceiling (having led the inconceivable charge to push America to default), then talk about inequality while simultaneously offering a 10% flat tax (which would raise taxes on the poorest Americans and lower them on the wealthiest). Even conservative estimates are that a flat tax of 10% would add $1tn EVERY YEAR to the deficit. No wonder he wouldn't answer the debt ceiling question. Oh, and he wants to abolish the IRS and file taxes on a postcard.
Everything he said at the debate was nothing short of ludicrous. I agree that the moderation was terrible - any decent moderator would have called him out on his economic lah lah land bullsh@t.
The republican debate was not anything remotely resembling a bunch of "actual plans". What you heard was "lets cut taxes to impossible revels, reduce regulation, the government is evil, and the MSM is even more evil than that". At least the democrats discussed a plethora of issues and how they would approach each. Hillary Clinton (even though I'm no big fan) would absolutely destroy any of them, except for maybe Marco Rubio who would certainly present a challenge, although he would still get a beating.
I care about Benghazi. Standing down a General and an Admiral then lying to the American public is disturbing enough. Stonewalling federal investigations is even worse. To think that you are OK with that is troubling.
Cruz' tax plan won't be 10%, sorry Mr. Cruz. Last time I crunched numbers we were looking at around 15%. Figure ~17% if you put in a low-income deduction.
I would agree to this if the issues were stated the same way. Take Hillary's question ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo056EFi-f4) which had no substance behind it, no discussion on the servers being "wiped", no discussion on the stonewalling between her and the DOJ towards the investigative committee vs. the question posed to Rubio "It raises questions on your maturity..." digging into personal finances. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1KXo15pVdI)
I don't mind big debates. The answers to the questions that weren't meant to pit one against another were very intriguing and I find a lot of appeal in many of the flat-tax based plans vs our current insane version of a graduated tax and 40,000+ pages of tax law and deductions.
I care about Benghazi. Standing down a General and an Admiral then lying to the American public is disturbing enough. Stonewalling federal investigations is even worse. To think that you are OK with that is troubling.
Cruz' tax plan won't be 10%, sorry Mr. Cruz. Last time I crunched numbers we were looking at around 15%. Figure ~17% if you put in a low-income deduction.
There WAS no "stand down" order given to the general or admiral - none, nada, zip.
That's all made up bullsh*t that NEVER happened.
Of course the fact that it's a lie doesn't stop folks like yourself from both believing it and repeating it.
General Ham himself made the decision to "not go in" because he didn't want to send troops in without sufficient intel about what was going on. He testified to that fact HIMSELF - to the GOP-led Armed Services Committee, so the GOP leadership is WELL aware of that fact. They simply choose to IGNORE that fact because there is no political gain in blaming the military (rather than Hillary) for the delay in arrival. The simple truth is that the Secretary of State does NOT give orders to the military so there is NO WAY that Hillary could EVER have given the military ANY "stand down" order.
I would agree to this if the issues were stated the same way. Take Hillary's question ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo056EFi-f4) which had no substance behind it, no discussion on the servers being "wiped", no discussion on the stonewalling between her and the DOJ towards the investigative committee vs. the question posed to Rubio "It raises questions on your maturity..." digging into personal finances. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1KXo15pVdI)
I don't mind big debates. The answers to the questions that weren't meant to pit one against another were very intriguing and I find a lot of appeal in many of the flat-tax based plans vs our current insane version of a graduated tax and 40,000+ pages of tax law and deductions.
I care about Benghazi. Standing down a General and an Admiral then lying to the American public is disturbing enough. Stonewalling federal investigations is even worse. To think that you are OK with that is troubling.
Cruz' tax plan won't be 10%, sorry Mr. Cruz. Last time I crunched numbers we were looking at around 15%. Figure ~17% if you put in a low-income deduction.
You might, but the vast majority of the "American people" don't want any more of this circus investigation(s)- and that is the point. He said, and I quote "let's start talking about the things the American people want to hear about". Its more than two thirds that are fed up with these BS Benghazi hearings. And Rubio was on extremely thin ice accusing Hillary of "lying". Could he fairly point out some contradictions in her testimony - sure, but lying he could not. Hillary never once ever blamed the video for the attack, and she is right in that this is completely off the reservation in terms of embassy attacks have been treated in the past (plus, you know, certain members of the committee have even admitted using it to just attack her!).
Cruz's tax plan doesn't add up, and proposing a flat 10% has about as much chance of becoming reality as finding a snow flake in hell. Not one the republicans have a realistic economic plan. Not one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
