• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comparing The Two CNN Debates

Here's another exchange from the 1st debate, hosted by FoxNews

KELLY: Alright, gentlemen, we’re gonna switch topics now and talk a bit about terror and national security.

Governor Christie. You’ve said that Senator Paul’s opposition to the NSA’s collection of phone records has made the United States weaker and more vulnerable, even going so far as to say that he should be called before Congress to answer for it if we should be hit by another terrorist attack.

Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing he bulk collection of people’s phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?

CHRISTIE: Yes, I do. And I’ll tell you why: because I’m the only person on this stage who’s actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the federal — the Foreign Intelligence Service court, who has prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after September 11th.

I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state.

This is not theoretical to me. I went to the funerals. We lost friends of ours in the Trade Center that day. My own wife was two blocks from the Trade Center that day, at her office, having gone through it that morning.

When you actually have to be responsible for doing this, you can do it, and we did it, for seven years in my office, respecting civil liberties and protecting the homeland.

And I will make no apologies, ever, for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people. We have to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way. As president, that is exactly what I’ll do.

PAUL: Megyn, may I respond?

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: May I respond?

KELLY: Go ahead, sir.

PAUL: I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans. The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over! John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence, and I’m proud of standing for the Bill of Rights, and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.

(APPLAUSE)

CHRISTIE: And — and, Megyn? Megyn, that’s a — that, you know, that’s a completely ridiculous answer. “I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from other people.” How are you supposed to know, Megyn?

PAUL: Use the Fourth Amendment!

CHRISTIE: What are you supposed to…

PAUL: Use the Fourth Amendment!

CHRISTIE: …how are you supposed to — no, I’ll tell you how you, look…

PAUL: Get a warrant!

CHRISTIE: Let me tell you something, you go…

PAUL: Get a judge to sign the warrant!

CHRISTIE: When you — you know, senator…

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Governor Christie, make your point.

CHRISTIE: Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that.

(APPLAUSE)

When you’re responsible for protecting the lives of the American people, then what you need to do is to make sure…

PAUL: See, here’s the problem.

CHRISTIE: …is to make sure that you use the system (ph) the way it’s supposed to work.

PAUL: Here’s the problem, governor. Here’s the problem, governor. You fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights.

Every time you did a case, you got a warrant from a judge. I’m talking about searches without warrants…

CHRISTIE: There is no…

PAUL: …indiscriminately, of all Americans’ records, and that’s what I fought to end.

I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.

(APPLAUSE)

KELLY: Go ahead, governor.

CHRISTIE: And you know — you know, Senator Paul? Senator Paul, you know, the hugs that I remember are the hugs that I gave to the families who lost their people on September 11th.

Those are the hugs I remember, and those had nothing to do — and those had nothing to do with politics, unlike what you’re doing by cutting speeches on the floor of the Senate, then putting them on the Internet within half an hour to raise money for your campaign…

KELLY: Alright.

CHRISTIE: …and while still putting our country at risk.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Alright, we’ve gotta cut it off there.

We have plenty more we want to get to. That was an interesting exchange, thank you for that.

The dems were asked numerous to comment on their competitors positions, or to respond to criticisms their competitors had made but none of them responded by saying things like "you're blowing hot air", "you misunderstand the constitution" or accusing their competitors of "putting our country at risk"

This shows that it wasn't CNN who caused these republicans to say what they said and behave the way they behaved.
 
Look blame the media all you want, but the Republican debates are a circus because you have total clowns as your front runners. If the 2 Republican front runners were say Kasich and Fiorina or Rubio, you would have relatively substantive debates. As long as the base is nutty enough to back guys like Trump, Carson, and Cruz, its going to be a clown show.
 
Look blame the media all you want, but the Republican debates are a circus because you have total clowns as your front runners. If the 2 Republican front runners were say Kasich and Fiorina or Rubio, you would have relatively substantive debates. As long as the base is nutty enough to back guys like Trump, Carson, and Cruz, its going to be a clown show.

I doubt your vote was within their reach anyway.
 
That was Media Matters' idea of substance? There was no substance. We didn't hear anyone's plans.

Have you ever heard anyone's detailed plans in any debates? I mean come on, its a 90 second response at best. Last night was a long ways from substantive, but its about as substantive as it gets with our modern debate formats. In terms of the Republican debates, Fiorina got about as substantive at times as you can get with that format, but its a long ways from actually being substantive due to the time constraints.
 
Look blame the media all you want, but the Republican debates are a circus because you have total clowns as your front runners. If the 2 Republican front runners were say Kasich and Fiorina or Rubio, you would have relatively substantive debates. As long as the base is nutty enough to back guys like Trump, Carson, and Cruz, its going to be a clown show.

That's not true.

The GOP also has clowns on their back bench, like Christie and Paul (see my earlier posts).

But the real reason is because there are a lot of republicans who support these clowns. Trump didn't become a frontrunner because of his thoughtful expositions on policy.
 
Look blame the media all you want, but the Republican debates are a circus because you have total clowns as your front runners. If the 2 Republican front runners were say Kasich and Fiorina or Rubio, you would have relatively substantive debates. As long as the base is nutty enough to back guys like Trump, Carson, and Cruz, its going to be a clown show.

Pretty effective clowns:

Tuesday, October 13
 
I doubt your vote was within their reach anyway.

I can assure you that it will never be within Cruz's, Carson's, or Trump's reach, but neither will the majority of Americans. The same could be said for Bernie. However, in 2012 I wrote a check to Huntsman's campaign the day he announced. However, as he wasn't some nutjob or willing to move so far to the right in primaries as to be unelectable in the general (like Romney), he got no where. Just the same, had the GOP nominated someone reasonable like him, I have no doubt they would have won in 2012.

The fact is the GOP has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election but one since 1988, and as long as the base keeps backing clowns and nut-jobs or dragging any candidate with a chance to the extreme right in order to win the nomination, they will continue to lose most presidential elections. If the Republicans want to win, they need a center right moderate that they actually allow to run as a pragmatic moderate.
 
I can assure you that it will never be within Cruz's, Carson's, or Trump's reach, but neither will the majority of Americans. The same could be said for Bernie. However, in 2012 I wrote a check to Huntsman's campaign the day he announced. However, as he wasn't some nutjob or willing to move so far to the right in primaries as to be unelectable in the general (like Romney), he got no where. Just the same, had the GOP nominated someone reasonable like him, I have no doubt they would have won in 2012.

The fact is the GOP has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election but one since 1988, and as long as the base keeps backing clowns and nut-jobs or dragging any candidate with a chance to the extreme right in order to win the nomination, they will continue to lose most presidential elections. If the Republicans want to win, they need a center right moderate that they actually allow to run as a pragmatic moderate.

I understand. My preferred candidate never wins.
 
Have you ever heard anyone's detailed plans in any debates? I mean come on, its a 90 second response at best. Last night was a long ways from substantive, but its about as substantive as it gets with our modern debate formats. In terms of the Republican debates, Fiorina got about as substantive at times as you can get with that format, but its a long ways from actually being substantive due to the time constraints.

So what is Bernie going to do about ISIS? What is Hillary going to do about climate change?

There were more than double the number of Republicans at both debates and they actually said some things of substance. All I heard last night was "Wall Street bad! Climate change is our biggest problem! Iraq was a disaster! I voted for that because my dad just died! My grandpa worked in a factory!"

The closest to substantive comments came from Webb but CNN obviously wasn't interested in giving him time to talk.
 

Those poll numbers are meaningless as most of the electorate in the general election is not engaged. I would put a paycheck on either Trump, Cruz, or Carson going down in the general like Goldwater or Mondale if the Republican Party is dumb enough to nominate one of them. You have to remember there was a time in 1988 that Dukakis was polling way ahead of Bush (and then everyone got to really know Dukakis).
 
I can assure you that it will never be within Cruz's, Carson's, or Trump's reach, but neither will the majority of Americans. The same could be said for Bernie. However, in 2012 I wrote a check to Huntsman's campaign the day he announced. However, as he wasn't some nutjob or willing to move so far to the right in primaries as to be unelectable in the general (like Romney), he got no where. Just the same, had the GOP nominated someone reasonable like him, I have no doubt they would have won in 2012.

The fact is the GOP has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election but one since 1988, and as long as the base keeps backing clowns and nut-jobs or dragging any candidate with a chance to the extreme right in order to win the nomination, they will continue to lose most presidential elections. If the Republicans want to win, they need a center right moderate that they actually allow to run as a pragmatic moderate.

Blame us here in NH for Huntsman's demise in 2012. I personally did my part - volunteered, phone calls, rallies, sign holdings, events, donations....that was a damn shame that he didn't win here. Huntsman was my ideal candidate.
 
Those poll numbers are meaningless as most of the electorate in the general election is not engaged. I would put a paycheck on either Trump, Cruz, or Carson going down in the general like Goldwater or Mondale if the Republican Party is dumb enough to nominate one of them. You have to remember there was a time in 1988 that Dukakis was polling way ahead of Bush (and then everyone got to really know Dukakis).

Since 1952 the same party has won the WH three times in a row only once (RWR, RWR, GHWB). And the electorate is volatile. I'm not certain of anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom