• 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!

CNBC lays out its bias for all to see.

ludin said:
you wouldn't see Hillary or sanders sign up for a fox news debate. they would get slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Fox asked all the republican candidates tough questions. They would do the same with democrat candidates. They interview democrats every day and all day on their various shows. They always do it with tough questions but no lack of respect.
 
Doc91478 said:
In the end what the CNBC debate showed was the distain the biased media has for the candidates attempting to wrest the nomination for presidency of America. Anyone with a modicum of logic could plainly see and hear the contempt, disrespect and dislike shown by the moderators to those on the stage. Then again we can all see that everything that NBC did toward the planning for the debate was geared to demean and humiliate the participants and even the audience. I understand that the auditorium could hold up to 11,000, while NBC only issued 1,000 seats. Something is wrong at NBC, are they so ideologically bent that they cannot practice their profession of Journalism honestly? If so they have no business in journalism or the business of broadcasting the news.
Click to expand...

So who said this? Not that I don't disagree with it.
 
David_N said:
His plan is different from the usual GOP plans, I'll give him that.
Click to expand...

Not in any way that matters IMO. His plan would blow up the budget deficit, about $600 billion per year and 'only' $240B per year using pretty generous 'dynamic scoring.' According to the Tax Foundation, it takes till 2040 until the added revenue from "Laffer Curve" effects offsets the early revenue losses. So once again, Cheney still has the most concise summary of GOP views on taxes and deficits - "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won....tax cuts are our due."

And of course he eliminates taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest income, and estates, so it's a plutocrat's wish list (nearly) all crossed off....interest expense, except for mortgage interest, would no longer be deductible. That will come with time as the lobbyists work on getting 'incentives' for their debt heavy industries to 'compete' worldwide, etc...

He does throw some bones to the middle class and poor, but that's easy to do when you're willing to propose something that increases the debt by $6 trillion over 10 years over current levels. Of course, that's about average for the GOP contenders - Trump's plan is $12 trillion in the red over 10 years. When reality is no barrier, the sky is the limit.
 
iguanaman said:
It also raises taxes on the middle class with a 35% rate on incomes above $75,000. How he thinks that will fly with voters I don't know. Those in the middle class are the spenders in the economy, taxing them more is suicide. We need more rate classes not less.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he's changed that now. I don't know the cutoffs but he added a couple of brackets. Makes the revenue losses skyrocket ($600B/year under the newest version), but that's no problem since deficits don't matter when you're cutting taxes and a republican.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
We need reduced government spending so the rates don't have to be so high.
Click to expand...

Tax rates are at historical lows already and spending as a % of GDP is down also. But carry on I know it is all you have.

Tax_Rates_All.png
 
I was surprised that after reading through three pages of this thread not to see even one post defending the moderators. I don't look at every member's "lean" but I did notice several moderates. The moderators' performance was absurd. Anyone defending them is a true lefty. They not only asked downright stupid questions but whenever they asked a gotcha question and the candidate came back with a good response, the moderators tried to cut them off every time so they couldn't finish. No wonder there was so much applause whenever the candidates talked about the bias of the main stream media. Rubio had a great comeback when hit with the Florida paper's ad demanding that he resign due to so many missed votes - when campaigning Democrats missed a lot of votes the paper didn't address them at all. Bush looked pathetic attacking his friend Rubio just to try making himself look better. Backfired big time. That's why Trump and Carson are in the lead, because voters are sick of the political game playing, backstabbing, backroom deals, and shameless attempts at being part of the Washington status quo.
 
iguanaman said:
Tax rates are at historical lows already and spending as a % of GDP is down also. But carry on I know it is all you have.

View attachment 67192133
Click to expand...

I think you mean debt as a percentage of GDP. We are talking about spending and taxes, not borrowing. But ignore 18 trillion in debt. I know it is all you have.
 
what was great is it was like a liberal perfect storm. You had the contempt, the snarkyness, the arrogant elitism, the total lack of self-awareness of their obvious bias. It was all their in HD quality for the world to see. It should end forever the idea that conservatives are just being "paranoid" about the MSM. last night exposed it for what it is.
 
fmw said:
I think you mean debt as a percentage of GDP. We are talking about spending and taxes, not borrowing. But ignore 18 trillion in debt. I know it is all you have.
Click to expand...

No more than our grandparents ignored the WWII debt. Govt. spending in 2015 as a % of GDP is 20% is about the average for the last 50 years. There has been no real spending growth over that period. Revenue has gone down considerably since 1980 due to tax cuts. The chart tells all. You will notice that the lines cross during Clinton's terms when taxes and revenue were increased while spending was decreased. That is the way to end deficits.

spending-spending-and-revenue-as-percent-of-gdp.png
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
that is about like the time that chris Matthews and I think it was wolf blitzer were fired from covering the RNC that one year.
they were so horrible about it that they lost any and all respect as journalists not that either had any to begin with.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about the same thing, it was Matthews and Olbermann who were removed from covering the general election night, and it was a very smart move.
 
Moderate Right said:
I was surprised that after reading through three pages of this thread not to see even one post defending the moderators. I don't look at every member's "lean" but I did notice several moderates. The moderators' performance was absurd. Anyone defending them is a true lefty. They not only asked downright stupid questions but whenever they asked a gotcha question and the candidate came back with a good response, the moderators tried to cut them off every time so they couldn't finish. No wonder there was so much applause whenever the candidates talked about the bias of the main stream media. Rubio had a great comeback when hit with the Florida paper's ad demanding that he resign due to so many missed votes - when campaigning Democrats missed a lot of votes the paper didn't address them at all. Bush looked pathetic attacking his friend Rubio just to try making himself look better. Backfired big time. That's why Trump and Carson are in the lead, because voters are sick of the political game playing, backstabbing, backroom deals, and shameless attempts at being part of the Washington status quo.
Click to expand...
Apart from CNBC, the loser in that debate might well have been Hillary Clinton.
 
American said:
We'll see how much they admire him when they find out their ratings are sucking ass even more after this debate.
Click to expand...

Au contraire mon ami ...

CNBC said its Wednesday-night telecast of a debate among Republican candidates for U.S. President lured an average of 14 million viewers, making it the most-watched broadcast on the NBCUniversal-owned cable outlet in its history.
Click to expand...

CNBC’s Republican Debate Notches 14 Million Viewers | Variety

NBC probably sees the CNBC ratings as carte blanche to get Hillary to mod at her own debate.

(I think that was the extent of my French wrapped up in one comment)
 
fmw said:
Fox asked all the republican candidates tough questions. They would do the same with democrat candidates. They interview democrats every day and all day on their various shows. They always do it with tough questions but no lack of respect.
Click to expand...
They will probably do the same in the November 10th debates. Fair, balanced, and unafraid!
 
bubbabgone said:
Au contraire mon ami ...



CNBC’s Republican Debate Notches 14 Million Viewers | Variety

NBC probably sees the CNBC ratings as carte blanche to get Hillary to mod at her own debate.

(I think that was the extent of my French wrapped up in one comment)
Click to expand...

Impressive viewership. However, let's not discount the fact that on an average day CNBC having 5 viewers would also set a record for them. I believe all four normal viewers are posting here today, too.
 
Ted Cruz pretty much sums it up. Boom!

 
humbolt said:
Impressive viewership. However, let's not discount the fact that on an average day CNBC having 5 viewers would also set a record for them. I believe all four normal viewers are posting here today, too.
Click to expand...

You are not confusing CNBC with MSNBC, are you? I find it a bit amusing that so many of our 'conservative' members believe that CNBC is just another one of those liberal media outlets when in the real world it definitely leans to the right.

I did not see the debate but what I read on various liberal websites supports what many conservatives are saying - the moderators were obviously unprepared and only occasionally could be seen as asking relevant questions of the politicians on stage. Generally, a fail for CNBC
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065191317 said:
Ted Cruz pretty much sums it up. Boom!

Click to expand...


Yeah, right! He "shamed" moderators by ranting about liberal media, which was not what they had asked about, and then had a hissy fit when the moderator told him his time was up.
 
Somerville said:
You are not confusing CNBC with MSNBC, are you? I find it a bit amusing that so many of our 'conservative' members believe that CNBC is just another one of those liberal media outlets when in the real world it definitely leans to the right.
Click to expand...

That's not what I've observed, but my real world is probably somewhat different from yours.

I did not see the debate but what I read on various liberal websites supports what many conservatives are saying - the moderators were obviously unprepared and only occasionally could be seen as asking relevant questions of the politicians on stage. Generally, a fail for CNBC
Click to expand...

Perhaps had they chosen the moderators a little more carefully the bias displayed wouldn't have been so egregious. I also blame the RNC somewhat. To say they're a little slow on the uptake is an understatement of breath taking proportions.
 
Sorry, no time to read this thread. The RNC chose the network and the moderators. Then a number of the GOP candidates (not the skilled politicians, Bush and Kasich) spent a good portion of the debate and the next day bitching and moaning about the questions. If CNBC is "unfair," how are those clowns gonna deal with ISIL, the right-wing leadership in Tehran, and Putin? We need a president, not a pathetic crybaby.
 
mmi said:
Sorry, no time to read this thread. The RNC chose the network and the moderators. Then a number of the GOP candidates (not the skilled politicians, Bush and Kasich) spent a good portion of the debate and the next day bitching and moaning about the questions. If CNBC is "unfair," how are those clowns gonna deal with ISIL, the right-wing leadership in Tehran, and Putin? We need a president, not a pathetic crybaby.
Click to expand...
It's not that the moderators were "unfair", it's that they weren't professional in getting out the candidates economic messages. Did you learn anything from their rather silly methods? And you really should familiarize yourself with what's going on before commenting.
 
humbolt said:
I watched last night. Unfortunately. CNBC has managed to become the main story, and not the content of the debate. On the plus side, I don't think CNBC has helped themselves in the long run with their effort last night. They richly deserve all the crap they get over this.
Click to expand...

I think they really hurt themselves. Even ThinkProgress thinks the CNBC moderators were a major fail.
 
MrT said:
This post is a bit confusing for me. I read the US News fact check and they confirmed the statement made by John Harwood during the debate.
Click to expand...

USNews has as much validity as Media Matters or Harwood. Maybe that is why you are confused. Garbage in, garbage out. You need a different news source, something more fair and balanced.
 
ludin said:
that is about like the time that chris Matthews and I think it was wolf blitzer were fired from covering the RNC that one year.
they were so horrible about it that they lost any and all respect as journalists not that either had any to begin with.
Click to expand...

Wolf Blitzer had respect as a journalist?
 
Somerville said:
Yeah, right! He "shamed" moderators by ranting about liberal media, which was not what they had asked about, and then had a hissy fit when the moderator told him his time was up.
Click to expand...

You didn't see the whole debate so you don't know the context so you just don't know. I guess you just wanted to throw a hissy fit because he talked bad to a liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom