Elections GOP 2016 Primary Thread V3: More God and Guns Edition

[Adamant]

It's funny because there's been times Hannity would post sound bytes from the debates of Obama and say "he lied there, the moderator should stepped in!" and then after the Crowley/rose garden, moderators are simply meant to be the person who asks a question and shuts up.

I agree with this. They shouldn't be there to fact check. The person who needs to fact check is the person who is being debated against.

 

[Diamond Jim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c1d3f5c_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

Carson's campaign chairman, national finance chairman, deputy campaign manager, and general council have all resigned.

 

[Makani]

I agree with this. They shouldn't be there to fact check. The person who needs to fact check is the person who is being debated against.

By definition, a moderator is supposed to keep things within reasonable limits. Romney tried to use a Fox News talking point that was obviously and provably false, it's not like Crowley was correcting him on the long term effects of his tax plan. All he had to do was check youtube for 5 seconds and he wouldn't have looked like an idiot.

 

[Makani]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c1d3f5c_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

Carson's campaign chairman, national finance chairman, deputy campaign manager, and general council have all resigned.

Yikes, that escalated quickly. It's weird that before reading that article I never really thought that a Super PAC could be independent, or even a detriment, to a candidate. I think it's pretty hilarious that now PACs can just open with a candidate's name on them to try collect the spoils of war. I mean, what are they going to say, "Hey, they aren't associated with us!"

 

[speakhandsforme]

Donald Trump does not have an exemplary business record: especially as pertains to running a country. He has merely reaffirmed that, if you inherit large sums of money, you can sustain fuck ups that other business minds could not.

Also, lol @ LS being biased. He's done a great job as a moderate conservative.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree with this. They shouldn't be there to fact check. The person who needs to fact check is the person who is being debated against.

Why? It totally drags a debate down if people are arguing about factual matters. A moderator should not allow anyone to say anything that is factually inaccurate, and if debaters go in knowing that they can't get away with that, they probably won't try it anyway. Generally, one of the major failings of the media is the failure to just tell the damned truth even if it's a matter of political controversy. The non-ideological media is just as bad as Fox when they pull that "opinions differ on the shape of the Earth" shit.

 

[Lead]

Marco Rubio Is Now Channeling JFK

 

[Makani]

Marco Rubio Is Now Channeling JFK

 

[Adamant]

By definition, a moderator is supposed to keep things within reasonable limits. Romney tried to use a Fox News talking point that was obviously and provably false, it's not like Crowley was correcting him on the long term effects of his tax plan. All he had to do was check youtube for 5 seconds and he wouldn't have looked like an idiot.

What point was "outright false" from Romney?

I remember seeing the debate, but I only watched it when it was on live. I'll look it up.

 

[Adamant]

Why? It totally drags a debate down if people are arguing about factual matters. A moderator should not allow anyone to say anything that is factually inaccurate, and if debaters go in knowing that they can't get away with that, they probably won't try it anyway. Generally, one of the major failings of the media is the failure to just tell the damned truth even if it's a matter of political controversy. The non-ideological media is just as bad as Fox when they pull that "opinions differ on the shape of the Earth" shit.

I would be comfortable if the mod kept things on track and focused on the question at hand, but fact checking should be left to the debators. That's the whole point of a debate. The moderator is not the referee.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would be comfortable if the mod kept things on track and focused on the question at hand, but fact checking should be left to the debators. That's the whole point of a debate. The moderator is not the referee.

I guess it comes down to preferences. I see debaters arguing about factual matters (especially simple ones) to be an utter waste of precious time rather than the point of the debate. The point should be to argue about analysis of facts and to reveal values.

 

[Makani]

What point was "outright false" from Romney?

I remember seeing the debate, but I only watched it when it was on live.

Romney was attacking him on the steps he took to prevent Benghazi, and then said that Obama took 14 days to call Benghazi an "act of terror," which had been a storyline Fox was peddling for a while. Obama let him dig his grave, then said "Get the transcript," and Crowley stated that indeed he had called it an act of terror the very next day. It was something that anyone who had heard the accusation on Fox and searched "Obama Benghazi terror" on youtube could verify. But Romney trusted a Fox News slander story, and he paid for it. If you can simply lie about your opponent, I don't know why we have debates.

 

[Adamant]

Donald Trump does not have an exemplary business record: especially as pertains to running a country. He has merely reaffirmed that, if you inherit large sums of money, you can sustain fuck ups that other business minds could not.

Well, he's done a good job inheriting large sums of money and keeping his company afloat and thriving. By becoming POTUS, he would inherit large sums of money and power, so perhaps he could then sustain fuck-ups that other POTUS' left in their wake.

 

[Adamant]

Romney was attacking him on the steps he took to prevent Benghazi, and then said that Obama took 14 days to call Benghazi an "act of terror," which had been a storyline Fox was peddling for a while. Obama let him dig his grave, then said "Get the transcript," and Crowley stated that indeed he had called it an act of terror the very next day. It was something that anyone who had heard the accusation on Fox and searched "Obama Benghazi terror" on youtube could verify. But Romney trusted a Fox News slander story, and he paid for it. If you can simply lie about your opponent, I don't know why we have debates.

I do recall looking at that. Obama never directly stated "Benghazi was an act of terrorism" right after. He kept saying stuff like: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" and "no act of terror will go unpunished" but then later said:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

And then he blamed the outrage of the people there on some silly "video" about Mohammed.


So, I don't know if Romney was really 100% false. It doesn't sound like it.

 

[Makani]

I do recall looking at that. Obama never directly stated "Benghazi was an act of terrorism" right after. He kept saying stuff like: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" and "no act of terror will go unpunished" but then later said:



And then he blamed the outrage of the people there on some silly "video" about Mohammed.


So, I don't know if Romney was really 100% false. It doesn't sound like it.

I'll give Romney that, but you have to be in for a semantic argument that at least 50% of the people watching aren't going to buy. Fact is, he said "acts of terror" the next day, and when talking about who was responsible he was more reserved and pragmatic, because they really didn't know. At best Romney's accusation was ambiguous, at worst clearly false. The fact is he was still borrowing his talking points from a cable news channel, and he got burned for it. The idea that Benghazi was some sort of scandal should be embarrassing for the right, but it still comes up all the time.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Well, he's done a good job inheriting large sums of money and keeping his company afloat and thriving. By becoming POTUS, he would inherit large sums of money and power, so perhaps he could then sustain fuck-ups that other POTUS' left in their wake.

He sustained bankrupting multiple companies. The collateral damage of bankrupting a country won't be so easy to parlay into future gains.

 

[Adamant]

I'll give Romney that, but you have to be in for a semantic argument that at least 50% of the people watching aren't going to buy. Fact is, he said "acts of terror" the next day, and when talking about who was responsible he was more reserved and pragmatic, because they really didn't know. At best Romney's accusation was ambiguous, at worst clearly false. The fact is he was still borrowing his talking points from a cable news channel, and he got burned for it. The idea that Benghazi was some sort of scandal should be embarrassing for the right, but it still comes up all the time.

Did Hillary or Obama or anyone ever give a reason as to why fighter jets, or Apache gunships, or SpecOps wasn't scrambled the moment news reached the White House that shit was going down in Benghazi? I recall hearing about there being possible support within a relative short distance (could be there within the hour) but being told to stand down, or not even told. One or the other.

 

[Adamant]

He sustained bankrupting multiple companies. The collateral damage of bankrupting a country won't be so easy to parlay into future gains.

From what I've read, he only has 4 bankruptcies, and I believe all were in Atlantic City. And it was properties that went bankrupt. (Such as Trump Taj Mahal)

I know people always go back to the bankruptcies like they're a stain on him, but it would appear he's had many many more successes than failures.

 

[Madmick]

I sympathize with so many facets of the conservative platform, then I look over the list of potential candidates, and I realize why I never end up voting for this party. I wish this party could elevate the true moralists in their ranks, but they always fail to do so. As vehemently as I disagree with him on abortion, which is the most important issue to him (not nearly so much to me), I could envision myself electing someone like Cao. Yet Republicans couldn't even keep him in office.

But Cruz? Rubio? Perry? Huckabee? Santorum?

GTFO. I'd vote for a corpse before I'd vote for any of those people.

 

[Adamant]

I sympathize with so many facets of the conservative platform, then I look over the list of potential candidates, and I realize why I never end up voting for this party. I wish this party could elevate the true moralists in their ranks, but they always fail to do so. As vehemently as I disagree with him on abortion, which is the most important issue to him (not nearly so much to me), I could envision myself electing someone like Cao. Yet Republicans couldn't even keep him in office.

But Cruz? Rubio? Perry? Huckabee? Santorum?

GTFO. I'd vote for a corpse before I'd vote for any of those people.

What about Paul?