• 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!

Was CNBC Biased?

Was CNBC Bias towards Republican in GOP Debate?

  • Total voters
    37
cpwill said:
I've seen both moderates and conservatives within the movement arguing today that it might become Rubio v Cruz.

That'd be a match I'd be pretty happy with.
Click to expand...

While I like Cruz more than anyone else, I think the best ticket for the GOP would be Rubio and Fiorina...although Christie, Cruz, and Rubio would make great VPs too. Even Huckabee might be a good VP choice to charge up the evangelicals.

Jeb Bush is finished, he needs to be shown the swinging door. He is getting more pathetic by the day. So should Kasich, Graham, Jindal and all the others that have crappy polls.

The big problems are Trump and Carson. Both would likely lose. But Rubio can win; a latino that has shown some flex on immigration. Pair him up with a top notch debater (Fiorina, etc.) and they would be hard to beat.
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
Sorry misspelled bias. Mods please correct.

I did not see the debate last night, but it seemed like the moderator was not a good choice and was asking really dumb questions. So what do you think? Were they biased? Explain.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the debate, but I think it would be. I don't know if the Democrats are going to debate on Fox News, but I would think that they wouldn't.
 
maxparrish said:
While I like Cruz more than anyone else, I think the best ticket for the GOP would be Rubio and Fiorina...although Christie, Cruz, and Rubio would make great VPs too. Even Huckabee might be a good VP choice to charge up the evangelicals.

Jeb Bush is finished, he needs to be shown the swinging door. He is getting more pathetic by the day. So should Kasich, Graham, Jindal and all the others that have crappy polls.

The big problems are Trump and Carson. Both would likely lose. But Rubio can win; a latino that has shown some flex on immigration. Pair him up with a top notch debater (Fiorina, etc.) and they would be hard to beat.
Click to expand...

You know I keep hearing whispers about F/R or R/F ticket. It seems to be very appealing and all inclusive considering one is young latino. The other is a business woman. As a tech guy I have personal grievances with F during her time at HP which I won't get into, but it would definitely be the Republican Party's most diverse ticket ever. That is until Mia Love becomes President :usflag2:
 
Bias? Not quite.

Incredibly incompetent, obviously unprofessional, lacking control over the debate itself, zero time management or equitable division of time to each candidate, and borderline running the whole thing like a bad Jerry Springer show? Absolutely.
 
jpn said:
The questions were not dumb. The responses were.

Early in the debate Ted Cruz got a big ovation for dishonestly mischaracterizing some of the moderators' questions. But those questions all were actually more substantive than many questions posed during other presidential debates.

The real problem is that Republicans have a huge problem answering substantive questions, and so this strategy of attacking the questioners is WAY preferable to answering the questions.

Example: Cruz accused the moderators of questioning whether Ben Carson could do math. Here's the actual exchange:


The question was actually substantive. It was the answer that was absurd.

The problem that Republican presidential candidates have is that they have no defensible answers to real questions.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that either you saw a different debate, or no debate at all. This is not a partisan call, EVEN the liberal media saw it as a trainwreck caused by the moderators. What do you think they were watching?

How bad were CNBC’s debate moderators last night? So bad that they were ridiculed by even their liberal colleagues. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called out “perhaps the most comically poor debate prep we’ve ever seen in a national debate. Are these folks even journalists?” Adam Nagourney of the New York Times asked mid-debate: “Would it be hard to do a panel swap-out during the break? Is Jake Tapper or Chris Wallace in the wings?” Think Progress, which almost functions as Hillary’s personal blog, admitted the debate “was kind of a train wreck.”
Click to expand...

The Gang That Couldn't Bias Straight | National Review Online

Continuing:

CNBC began the evening full of bravado, showcasing its “star” panelists and then allowing them to deliver vapid commentary on the debate for 15 minutes before the debate started. It ended almost trying to pretend the debate never happened. CNBC quickly switched to a rerun of a show called “Profit,”... CNBC moderators John Harwood, Carl Quintinella, and Becky Quick have been completely silent on their Twitter accounts except for a single odd retweet from Harwood.

There were bizarre low points. Harwood went after the income distribution of tax cuts in Marco Rubio’s tax plan and directly disputed Rubio’s contention that Harwood had raised the same issue two weeks ago and had to correct himself. But indeed, Harwood had. Becky Quick admitted she was unsure of Donald Trump’s stance on high-skill immigrant visas after he pushed back on her question about it. She first claimed that Trump had criticized Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for wanting more H-1B visas for immigrants. Trump denied it, and Quick caved and admitted her own confusion.“Where did I come up with this?” she asked, “That you were…?” Trump interrupted: “I don’t know. You people write this stuff.”
Click to expand...

Your comments are a hint of the oblivious partisanship shared by the moderators. The debate is supposed to be BETWEEN the candidates on THE ISSUES, not the so-called "moderators" politics and their targets. Anyone who has seen traditional forensic debate knows the entire format is subject to being a joke, starting with the 2012 idiot partisans like Crowley trying to be a part of the show, making judgement calls and scoring.

Megan Kelly showed a long clip of the questions asked at the GOP debate, and the questions asked at the Democratic debate. The difference was startling. Every Democrat was asked to explain their position on an important issue, politely. No moderator bickered with the answers. No candidates were setup against each other.

In contrast, last nights debate was "the cartoon" of snide and argumentative "moderators" doing little to "moderate" anything. Apparently John Harwood thinks it is his job to take up rhetorical arms against Republicans (as predicted by Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist, two days before the debate).

Sadly, Harwood (and you) actually think they are playing it down the middle of the road. ... I guess if "the middle road" was between Bernie Sanders and the CPUSA...he is.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Almost all the candidates took turns mildly attacking each other - a few times it was even several against one - but only the moderators enjoyed that since their plan of asking personal questions, instead of what the candidates' plans were for changing things, worked! Once again, none of them except perhaps Trump and Carson got enough time to answer the questions so the rest were forced to finish their responses by talking over the moderators! I checked out several sites today, and the universal complaint was about the silly questions asked, like "how do you feel about fantasy football?" Christie stopped that crap in its tracks by challenging the moderators, bless his heart, and got applause!

I think the Dems were hoping it might be Jeb, since they felt he might be an easy victory. It still may be Jeb, who knows, but I don't think so at this point. He really doesn't seem all that interested, but perhaps he's just reticent by nature. Plus I think the public is past ready for a change, which is why Trump, Carson and Fiorina are doing so well - even Bernie is reaping that benefit on the Dem side.
Click to expand...

Gooooood evening Pol!
I never saw Cruz, Carson or Fiorina attack anyone on that stage. Did I miss something?
I think it is important to separate those who initiated the attacks from those who responded to them.
The first attack out of the gate was Kasich attacking the current frontrunners, the "outsiders" Trump, Carson, Fiorina and their budget/tax reform proposals. Trump responded and it wasn't pretty for Kasich. Bush attacked Rubio in a very unfair way and when it was all said and done, Bush looked really small. There are documents that Bush released to his big donors at a pow wow not too long ago that shows Bush's plan to trash Rubio. Evidently he sees Rubio as a threat to him. It's on Drudge at the moment.
Jeb Bush's Campaign Blueprint - US News
Yes, the CNBC panel would have loved to have continued the conflicts between candidates but Cruz put a stop to it. Christie, Huckabee, Rubio all chimed in following Cruz's lead. Even the civil conflict on Social Security between Huckabee and Christie, it was Cruz that commented that both have made good points. It was Cruz that complimented Rand Paul for his efforts to introduce legislation in regard to the Federal Reserve as Paul thinks the Fed’s impact on the economy has been detrimental and called for new operating regimes that would limit the central bank’s influence. I don't see Rand Paul as president but I think he would be a heck of a Secretary of Treasury. I think Christie would make one heck of an Attorney General.

I could go on filling other positions with those people standing on the stage last night. Personally Cruz showed more willingness to stand up for the GOP as a whole than any other candidate in my opinion. I'm starting to really like the guy.
 
Hey that is a great point. Christie would be a great AG. You couldn't intimidate him, and I think he would have the moxie to end this IRS and Email coverup. Actually that would be interesting, if the winner chose his/her entire cabinet and agency heads before the election and most were his/her former challengers.

CIA...Cruz
Homeland Security...Donald Trump
Defense...Graham
State...Bolton
HEW...Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee?
AG...Christie
Treasury...Paul
Budget...Paul or Ryan
Carson - Task Force Chair
 
maxparrish said:
The real problem is that either you saw a different debate, or no debate at all. This is not a partisan call, EVEN the liberal media saw it as a trainwreck caused by the moderators.
Click to expand...

Obviously Cruz made a really smart move when he deflected the question about his tax plan by attacking the questioner. Because he can't talk seriously about his tax plan. It's nonsense.

Cruz hid that with his non-answer.

What's wrong with his plan? It would explode the deficit. The left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice estimates it would cost $15 trillion over ten years. Hell, even the right-leaning Tax Foundation admits that their most optimistic (bordering on fantasy) estimate has his plan coming up from almost a trillion to over three trillion short over ten years.

Yep. It's WAY more fun to attack the moderators rather than analyzing the crazy policy proposals by the latest Republican clown car of candidates.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
CIA...Cruz
Homeland Security...Donald Trump
Defense...Graham
State...Bolton
HEW...Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee?
AG...Christie
Treasury...Paul
Budget...Paul or Ryan
Carson - Task Force Chair
Click to expand...

Awesome. Here's some even better suggestions:

Carson - NASA Administrator. Since Carson believes the world was literally created in six days and that the theory of evolution was "encouraged by Satan," I'm sure he'd have lots to teach those egg-heads who actually believe in, you know, "reality."
I don't know what's scarier. Carson, or his supporters.
Treasury - Cruz or Paul. They want to return to the gold standard! Really! Not joking! They want to turn the clock back 100 years and toss away all the hard-earned knowledge we've (well, some of us have) about economics since then! We all saw how well Cruz grasps economics last night when he apparently was trying to argue that high inflation was a current problem in our economy. I mean Jesus Christ!
State - Bolton. Yes, let's return to the Bush years when the nations around the world hated America. That was great. Really had a lot of foreign policy successes those eight years... :roll:
Budget - Ryan. Right. Let's slash billions from programs for those in need and slash billions of taxes from the already rich! After all, it's the "Christian" thing to do!!!
 
ocean515 said:
What you missed was a tour de force of liberal bias in the 4th Estate. All you have to do to get a sense of what was appropriately described as the DNC SuperPac, otherwise laughably called the mainstream media, is the sound bite of Cruz launching on the mods.

The moderator for the one DNC debate stated clearly before the debate that he wanted to have a debate on issues, and not create an atmosphere where candidates were required to attack each other. Contrast that to the debate last night, or at the Reagan Library. It was a farce.

How can someone with any credibility ask the front runner for President of the United States if his campaign should be viewed as a comic book?

CNBC should be shamed into oblivion.
Click to expand...

What about the first question asked of Donald Trump in the Fox debate? These are not debates, they are for entertainment & ratings and not much else. Watching the Republicans is more like a clown show. Get your popcorn sit down and watch.

By the way CNBC is a center to right channel.
 
pbrauer said:
What about the first question asked of Donald Trump in the Fox debate? These are not debates, they are for entertainment & ratings and not much else. Watching the Republicans is more like a clown show. Get your popcorn sit down and watch.

By the way CNBC is a center to right channel.
Click to expand...

LOL.

CNBC, like the rest of NBC is a liberal cesspool. I'm sure it delights in those who drink up it's unstrained liquid.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Cruz blasted the media and the CNBC moderators for their questions, and then the audience cheered and cheered, liked they agreed with Cruz. The problem though is the viewer/audience love those type of questions. They loved it when Trump attacked Kasich, that same audience cheered and laughed and cheered then too.

Politicians are phony, and liars and hypocritical as hell. But so are most people and voters. We say we hate the media and the 'gotcha questions' they ask, but the reality we love it. We love the reality show type BS Trump is bringing to this primary. The 20 mil instead of the usual 2 mil viewers prove that.

It's not the media, it's us. We love this crap, so the media provides it.

We deserve what we get with our politicians and the media.
Click to expand...
how do you explain the democrats not getting the same style of questions?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

CNBC, like the rest of NBC is a liberal cesspool. I'm sure it delights in those who drink up it's unstrained liquid.
Click to expand...

I don't watch CNBC, but I was forced to sit through the pre-debate commentary. It was far and away more conservative than liberal. Entirely one-sided.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I don't think it's bias necessarily, I think it's just about ratings, people don't tune into these debates to hear about substantive issues, they tune in to watch dingleberries on parade fight one another over who loves the country more.

The panels and questions are designed to cause fireworks because it ups ratings.

Bias may play a role to some extent for the individual moderators, but it is not the primary motivator.
Click to expand...
that theory does not seem to apply when its the liberal agenda on debate
 
jpn said:
The questions were not dumb. The responses were.

Early in the debate Ted Cruz got a big ovation for dishonestly mischaracterizing some of the moderators' questions. But those questions all were actually more substantive than many questions posed during other presidential debates.

The real problem is that Republicans have a huge problem answering substantive questions, and so this strategy of attacking the questioners is WAY preferable to answering the questions.

Example: Cruz accused the moderators of questioning whether Ben Carson could do math. Here's the actual exchange:


The question was actually substantive. It was the answer that was absurd.

The problem that Republican presidential candidates have is that they have no defensible answers to real questions.
Click to expand...
i dont recall any moderators arguing the math with bernie about the spending he is proposing
 
Amadeus said:
I don't watch CNBC, but I was forced to sit through the pre-debate commentary. It was far and away more conservative than liberal. Entirely one-sided.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the pre-debate commentary was? What does that have to do with the debate itself. As almost every article written on the subject has stated, the moderators where an embarrassment, and when placed in comparison to the DNC debate, carved in stone for all perpetuity proof of the bias that exists in the MSM.

I'm sure it's all rainbows and lollipops to those who benefit from such pure bias, but what happens should that bias shift, and the MSM becomes one big Fox News channel in the eyes of liberals. Do you think liberal/progressives would be coming to their defense then?

I've written before, and it needs repeating. There is a reason dictators and despots go after the media first.
 
Who in the media does Hillary go to after her 11 hours of lying before Congress...Rachel Madow!! Now unless you are still in the womb what do you think her purpose was in doing so?
Hillary:"OK, now Rachel just sit there and polish my fat ass for the entire duration of the show".
Madow: "Yes sir, I mean mam."
 
Jetboogieman said:
I don't think it's bias necessarily, I think it's just about ratings, people don't tune into these debates to hear about substantive issues, they tune in to watch dingleberries on parade fight one another over who loves the country more.

The panels and questions are designed to cause fireworks because it ups ratings.

Bias may play a role to some extent for the individual moderators, but it is not the primary motivator.
Click to expand...

The World Series was on tv at the same time so ratings for the GOP debate had to be doomed from the start.

It was a very bad time to have a debate, which is actually lucky for all the GOP candidates who were not happy about the gotcha's.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

CNBC, like the rest of NBC is a liberal cesspool. I'm sure it delights in those who drink up it's unstrained liquid.
Click to expand...

CNBC is a business channel very little of their content can be considered liberal. One of their main hosts is Larry Kudlow who is a conservative Republican. Calling it a liberal cesspool is an uninformed opinion.
 
pbrauer said:
CNBC is a business channel very little of their content can be considered liberal. One of their main hosts is Larry Kudlow who is a conservative Republican. Calling it a liberal cesspool is an uninformed opinion.
Click to expand...

Try again Pete. This is a list of their programming.

http://www.cnbc.com/live-tv/schedule

American Greed
Blue Collar Millionaires
CNBC Originals
Consumed: The Real Restaurant Business
Fast Money
Jay Leno's Garage
Mad Money
Make Me A Millionaire Inventor
Restaurant Startup
Secret Lives of the Super Rich
Shark Tank
The Filthy Rich Guide
The Profit
Undercover Boss
West Texas Investors Club
Your Money Your Vote: The Republican National Debate
 
rhinefire said:
Who in the media does Hillary go to after her 11 hours of lying before Congress...Rachel Madow!! Now unless you are still in the womb what do you think her purpose was in doing so?
Hillary:"OK, now Rachel just sit there and polish my fat ass for the entire duration of the show".
Madow: "Yes sir, I mean mam."
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow is a liberal talk show host who is never seen on CNBC. Her ratings are low compared to Fox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom