• 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.

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...

Kasich and Jeb are as good as out anyway so it doesn't matter.
 
Grant said:
weren't professional in getting out the candidates economic messages.
Click to expand...

After the opening question for all candidates, a standard technique and a question designed to force them to be spontaneous, and one which is in fact a typical job interview question, the proceedings went like this:

  1. Harwood asked Frumpy how he could cut taxes by $10 trillion without raising the deficit.
  2. Quick asked Carson about his flat tax plan.
  3. Kasich said both were full of crap. Harwood followed up on that. Frumpy lied about Kasich.
  4. Carson defended his plan.
  5. Scruz described his tax plan.
  6. Fiorina talked about reforming the tax code.
  7. Quintanilla asked Rubio about his campaign.
  8. Bush went after Rubio on his voting record.
  9. Harwood asked Bush about his campaign.
  10. Quick asked Fiorina about her business background.
  11. Quintanilla asked Scruz about his views on the budget deal and the debt limit agreement.

Scruz then launched into his tirade about the moderators. This is all that the clowns on stage (anyone other than Bush and Kasich) have to offer. Liiiiibrul media!! They STINK!!

WTF was Scruz doing? If he wants to talk about economic policy, that's what he should have done. But he doesn't. He was VERY happy with the raucous applause he got for his tantrum.

The Right in this country has become a complete joke. If they don't wise up and start supporting candidates who will effectively negotiate for compromises that get them more or less half a loaf (like the new budget agreement), they are headed for the political wilderness. Ryan, Bush, Kasich … those are the kind of leaders who will get you guys yer fair share. But please do continue to live in a dream world where millions of Silent Majority voters who have sat out the last two elections will rally behind a "true conservative." You won't stand a chance.

>>Did you learn anything from their rather silly methods?

My contempt for yer clown car was reinforced.

>>And you really should familiarize yourself with what's going on before commenting.

Yeah, OK, I read the whole thread. Very enlightening. Just more right-wing whining. More of the loser's lament. Music to my liberal ears. Keep ignoring Kasich.

eohrnberger said:
So who said this?
Click to expand...

I think it must be the poster himself. "Distain" and a capitalized "journalism" don't work.

Moderate Right said:
one post defending the moderators.
Click to expand...

You got it now.

>>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.

This is the same generalized criticism I read throughput most of the thread. Any examples?

>>No wonder there was so much applause whenever the candidates talked about the bias of the main stream media.

As I said, this is all they have to offer. More SSE? That dog won't hunt.

>>Rubio had a great comeback … campaigning Democrats missed a lot of votes the paper didn't address them at all.

Were they missing those votes in the summer and fall of the year before the election?

>>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.

They're in the lead because the GOP base is now dominated by RWNJs.

If yer candidates can't handle questions from CNBC journalists like Harwood, that's a clear indication that yer candidates and their economic policy proposals suck, and suck really bad.
 
Last edited:
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...

Cruz responded appropriately because the shameful liberal media's questions were mindless and inane. They were meant to disparage.

Bet we won't hear any questions like those asked of Hillary. You should keep up.
 
NonoBadDog said:
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.
Click to expand...

*sighs* You know that type of argument is intellectually lazy. I pointed out a specific reason why both Rubio and US News could be accurate and you responded by saying, "LULZ, USNEWS LIBERAL, IT LIES."
 
NonoBadDog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think USNews has MORE validity than Media Matters, in that Media Matters is little more than a left wing attack site, and US News at least has the veneer of being a legitimate news source.

Harwood completely invalidated any claim to being fair or balanced or unbiased.

But that's just me. :mrgreen: (And probably a bunch of others as well)
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
I think they really hurt themselves. Even ThinkProgress thinks the CNBC moderators were a major fail.
Click to expand...

The moderators yucking it up on camera after a question reminded me of children seeing just how much they can get away with. While I'm sure there were high-fives all around with the moderators after the debate, they've assured that they'll never have an opportunity to host another one. Without checking, I doubt that day-to-day operations revenue at CNBC is sufficient for them to stand on their own, and I really think they're the fat on the pork chop that cable bundling packages allows.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065193139 said:
Bet we won't hear any questions like those asked of Hillary.
Click to expand...

You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?​

Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?​

Secretary Clinton, he's questioning your judgment.​

the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was inevitable. Should you have seen that attack coming?​

But American citizens did lose their lives in Benghazi.​

next week about your e-mails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it; you joked about it; you called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?​

isn't it a little bit hard to call this just a partisan issue? There's an FBI investigation, and President Obama himself just two days ago said this is a legitimate issue.​

you and your husband are part of the one percent. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?​

Secretary Clinton, do you regret your vote on the Patriot Act?​

Why should Democrats embrace an insider like yourself?​

Really? Another government program? Is that what you're proposing? And at the expense of taxpayer money?​
 
MrT said:
*sighs* You know that type of argument is intellectually lazy. I pointed out a specific reason why both Rubio and US News could be accurate and you responded by saying, "LULZ, USNEWS LIBERAL, IT LIES."
Click to expand...

Okay, here are some valid links.
Fact Check: CNBC Debate Moderator Makes Big Claim About Marco Rubio?s Tax Plan ? Then the Group He Cited Responds With This | Video | TheBlaze.com

Here is a tweet from the president of the Tax Foundation saying Harwood was wrong:

https://twitter.com/scottahodge/status/659553135636127744?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Here is where Harwood admitted he was wrong on 14 October yet he pushed the lie again:
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/654282664506036225?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Okay, here are some valid links.
Fact Check: CNBC Debate Moderator Makes Big Claim About Marco Rubio?s Tax Plan ? Then the Group He Cited Responds With This | Video | TheBlaze.com

Here is a tweet from the president of the Tax Foundation saying Harwood was wrong:

https://twitter.com/scottahodge/status/659553135636127744?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Here is where Harwood admitted he was wrong on 14 October yet he pushed the lie again:
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/654282664506036225?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Click to expand...

The Tax Foundation policy review depends upon whether Rubio will keep a $2,000 basic income for all taxpayers. Rubio's campaign has distanced themselves from that aspect of their initial tax plan.

Rubio deflected by claiming that the poorest Americans would benefit even more than the top 1 percent. Harwood had the better of this dispute on the merits. The Tax Foundation's numbers only show the poorest making out that well because they assumed that Rubio would establish a $2,000 basic income for all taxpayers, a policy from which Rubio's team distanced themselves in a subsequent email to Vox.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Actually, I think USNews has MORE validity than Media Matters, in that Media Matters is little more than a left wing attack site, and US News at least has the veneer of being a legitimate news source.

Harwood completely invalidated any claim to being fair or balanced or unbiased.

But that's just me. :mrgreen: (And probably a bunch of others as well)
Click to expand...

USNews is not much better than Media Matters. They are more liberal than NY Times. That veneer is really thin.
 
humbolt said:
The moderators yucking it up on camera after a question reminded me of children seeing just how much they can get away with. While I'm sure there were high-fives all around with the moderators after the debate, they've assured that they'll never have an opportunity to host another one. Without checking, I doubt that day-to-day operations revenue at CNBC is sufficient for them to stand on their own, and I really think they're the fat on the pork chop that cable bundling packages allows.
Click to expand...

they didn't know how much they screwed up. Their focus was on being clever and making the candidates fight and look bad. They thought they did that. They forgot they were supposed to look like actual journalists. Who were those guest moderators? They were horrible. I could have done better with a hangover.
 
MrT said:
The Tax Foundation policy review depends upon whether Rubio will keep a $2,000 basic income for all taxpayers. Rubio's campaign has distanced themselves from that aspect of their initial tax plan.
Click to expand...

The moderator was wrong. He admitted it. He then lied that he didn't admit it. The president of the Tax Foundation said Harwood was wrong.
 
NonoBadDog said:
they didn't know how much they screwed up. Their focus was on being clever and making the candidates fight and look bad. They thought they did that. They forgot they were supposed to look like actual journalists. Who were those guest moderators? They were horrible. I could have done better with a hangover.
Click to expand...
Leftist journalists are usually more clever in hiding their bias than this lot. It may be a very good thing that the MSM finally exposed themselves for who they are, and every fair-minded person who never paid much attention before, or who were once skeptical about the charges of bias, can now see that.
 
Grant said:
Leftist journalists are usually more clever in hiding their bias than this lot. It may be a very good thing that the MSM finally exposed themselves for who they are, and every fair-minded person who never paid much attention before, or who were once skeptical about the charges of bias, can now see that.
Click to expand...

The RNC just canceled the debates with NBC and Telemoundo. CNN, MSNBC, Politoco, about everyone in the media business is hammering CNBC right now, except for the NYT as of this morning. Harwood also works for the NYT.
 
CNN's take on the CNBC's debate handling

'Shell-shocked' CNBC staffers had long flight home - Oct. 30, 2015

So for some flyers, it was a sleepless night. But there was some laughter and some liquor to lighten the mood — and some speculation about how high the ratings would be.

At 12:30 p.m. Thursday they found out: 14 million people watched, easily making the much-derided debate the most-watched program in CNBC's 30-year history. Because advertisers paid $250,000 apiece, it was "also the most profitable night in the network's history," an NBCUniversal executive crowed.

There was simultaneous crowing and cringing on Thursday. Employees who spoke on condition of anonymity for this story wished for a "do-over" and pointed fingers of blame for the chaotic production. Some pointed all the way up to CNBC president Mark Hoffman, who was also aboard Wednesday night's charter.

"Everyone feels pretty embarrassed," one veteran staffer said.

Now there are even calls for changes to future primary debates and predictions that CNBC won't be in the running to host a debate four years from now.


they screwed the pooch big time.....and even THEY know it
 
and one more from the liberal wash post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-between-cnbc-moderators-and-gop-candidates/

At this point in the campaign, Republican debate moderators should have a healthy understanding that they're one exchange away from being dragged into the debate themselves. (See: Kelly, Megyn.)

Candidates at Wednesday's CNBC debate in Boulder, Colo., seemed extra anxious to go after their questioners — so much so that clashing with the moderators became a major theme of the debate.

Debate watchers on social media rightly criticized CNBC's moderators for some of their questions and for not being able to rein in candidates when they went out of bounds, either on time or substance. But, at times, the 2016 hopefuls on stage seemed to pounce on the moderators with little reason or disputed some facts that weren't exactly in their favor.

The arguments were often left unsolved as the moderators tried their best to, well, moderate and keep the debate moving on.

Here are five instances of candidates sparring with the moderators, along with (hopefully) some clarity.
 
gdgyva said:
CNN's take on the CNBC's debate handling

'Shell-shocked' CNBC staffers had long flight home - Oct. 30, 2015

So for some flyers, it was a sleepless night. But there was some laughter and some liquor to lighten the mood — and some speculation about how high the ratings would be.

At 12:30 p.m. Thursday they found out: 14 million people watched, easily making the much-derided debate the most-watched program in CNBC's 30-year history. Because advertisers paid $250,000 apiece, it was "also the most profitable night in the network's history," an NBCUniversal executive crowed.

There was simultaneous crowing and cringing on Thursday. Employees who spoke on condition of anonymity for this story wished for a "do-over" and pointed fingers of blame for the chaotic production. Some pointed all the way up to CNBC president Mark Hoffman, who was also aboard Wednesday night's charter.

"Everyone feels pretty embarrassed," one veteran staffer said.

Now there are even calls for changes to future primary debates and predictions that CNBC won't be in the running to host a debate four years from now.


they screwed the pooch big time.....and even THEY know it
Click to expand...

RNC suspends 'partnership' with NBC for upcoming debate, amid campaign unrest | Fox News
 
fmw said:
The news this morning has been all about how bad the CNBC moderators were during the republican debate. A good example is John Harwood who attacked Rubio's tax plan saying that it helped the rich more than it helped the poor. He forgot that tweets stay on the internet because he had corrected that position in writing well prior to the debate. Read more here. Surprise! John Harwood Lied About Marco Rubio's Tax Plan
Click to expand...

Surprise John Harwood did not lie. Percentage wise, the ipoor received a much higher percentage, however in real terms, like $$$, the wealthy received the most benefit and the poor received a pittance.
 
Grant said:
The moderators set the tone from the first question and when Cruz finally struck back most joined in, and rightfully so. In addition to Cruz there was Rubio, Christie, Huckabee and Trump. Those who did not strike back at the moderators were all relegated to second tier position.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I had thought about that a little last night but didn't give it much thought as maybe it deserved. You are right. I think Cruz probably got most points for starting the insurrection. Bush sucked, but I expected no less. Rand was shoved off in a corner and seemed just fed up and accepting of the whole thing. Kasich has the "I am really mad" face twitch thing going. It looked like he was just short of hyper ventilating.
 
pbrauer said:
Surprise John Harwood did not lie. Percentage wise, the ipoor received a much higher percentage, however in real terms, like $$$, the wealthy received the most benefit and the poor received a pittance.
Click to expand...

Only in politics can something be equally right and wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom