• 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!

CNN Debate Review

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As usual, the questions were designed to attack the candidates or make the candidates attack each other rather than substance. And the republican moderators were even worse than Wolf. So, now that the primary debate are over I would say that once again they were pointless.

Is the best way to make America great again to isolate it from much of the rest of the world?

you called Mr. Trump "unhinged" when he proposed banning non-American Muslims from the United States. Why is that unhinged?

We've heard a lot about keeping Americans out or keeping Americans safe and everyone else out. Is this what you want the party to stand for?

you voted for a bill that President Obama signed into law just this past June that made it harder for the government to access Americans' phone records. In light of the San Bernardino attack, was your vote a mistake?

@rubio-So, is Senator Cruz wrong?

why would you be willing to put somebody who's a maniac one heartbeat away from the presidency?
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
As usual, the questions were designed to attack the candidates or make the candidates attack each other rather than substance. And the republican moderators were even worse than Wolf. So, now that the primary debate are over I would say that once again they were pointless.
Click to expand...

How can you vote if you do not get to see the candidates in action ???

Ergo NOT pointless.
 
jonny5 said:
As usual, the questions were designed to attack the candidates or make the candidates attack each other rather than substance. And the republican moderators were even worse than Wolf. So, now that the primary debate are over I would say that once again they were pointless.
Click to expand...

They may not have said everything you wanted to hear, but I would not say the debate was pointless for all those candidates. And the moderators for last nights CNN debates were far better than the fiasco over at CNBC, where there was damn near bipartisan complaint *and* across the political spectrum media and commentary criticism of those CNBC moderators.

BTW, they have to go after each other. The field of hopefuls is still way too large, and they need to create distances from one another. Which is arguably playing into Trump's hand especially at this stage.
 
OrphanSlug said:
They may not have said everything you wanted to hear, but I would not say the debate was pointless for all those candidates. And the moderators for last nights CNN debates were far better than the fiasco over at CNBC, where there was damn near bipartisan complaint *and* across the political spectrum media and commentary criticism of those CNBC moderators.

BTW, they have to go after each other. The field of hopefuls is still way too large, and they need to create distances from one another. Which is arguably playing into Trump's hand especially at this stage.
Click to expand...

I, for one, am ready for far fewer candidates. No reason to have to listen to the also-rans.
 
WCH said:
I, for one, am ready for far fewer candidates. No reason to have to listen to the also-rans.
Click to expand...

At some point something has to give here. With this number of hopefuls headed into the primary season the only alternative is seeing massive drop outs after the first few significant state primaries. My concern is this happening too late, and us ending up with a highly brokered convention. It is bound to end in controversy and perhaps send a candidate or two to another party irregardless of whatever agreement, pledge, bull**** document was signed.
 
tres borrachos said:
I actually thought CNN did a good job.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Tres Borrachos. :2wave:

:agree: They did a better job than last time, but even Trump remarked after the debate was over that too many questions were "Trump said "_______ " *fill in the blank* "what do you think about that?", which looked to me like baiting to get a personal attack started! Who cares how they feel about each other - it's not important! Sheesh!
 
Best moderation I've seen in years. CNN has a ton of journalistic chops, unmatched by the other networks.
 
OrphanSlug said:
At some point something has to give here. With this number of hopefuls headed into the primary season the only alternative is seeing massive drop outs after the first few significant state primaries. My concern is this happening too late, and us ending up with a highly brokered convention. It is bound to end in controversy and perhaps send a candidate or two to another party irregardless of whatever agreement, pledge, bull**** document was signed.
Click to expand...

This is my fear also.

From Veterans Party of America


Since early 2013 the Veterans Party of America has told the People that the nominees will be Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, regardless of the popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders and Mr. Donald Trump. The reason is the rules established by the Two Parties to guarantee their “Chosen One” will be elected.

The true results of the Two Party Primary Elections are not based simply by the number of votes cast for a candidate, but are established under rules set by the actual party itself.

****BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): Both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee (RNC and DNC) determine how many Delegates each State will be allowed to award at the Nomination Convention, how those Delegates will be awarded, and overall nomination rules.

These rules are established to guarantee the respective Nation Committee determines the outcome of the nomination. Not every candidate will be eligible to participate in their party’s Nomination Convention, regardless of the number of Primary Delegates or votes received.
 
I don't think there would have been this many candidates still left in the race at this point if it hadn't been for Trump and Carson. The also rans keep on waiting for them to fall off the table so they can have their shot.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Tres Borrachos. :2wave:

:agree: They did a better job than last time, but even Trump remarked after the debate was over that too many questions were "Trump said "_______ " *fill in the blank* "what do you think about that?", which looked to me like baiting to get a personal attack started! Who cares how they feel about each other - it's not important! Sheesh!
Click to expand...
With all respect, to me it appeared fine: the mods we're having the candidates comment upon each other's policies. That's legit, if not a bit Socratic, IMO.
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't think there would have been this many candidates still left in the race at this point if it hadn't been for Trump and Carson. The also rans keep on waiting for them to fall off the table so they can have their shot.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree; the party guys are all hanging around for the long anticipated fall of Trump, which may never happen. They still can't believe he's succeeding at this, and still can't believe or accept the American people's distaste with elite party politics!
 
I'd make a couple of points from the cheap seats:

1. CNN did fine, although surely there are better people on CNN than Dana Bash to ask questions and when/why did Hugh Hewitt become an all purpose questioner for GOP debates.

2. To those complaining about the questions skewed to drawing out conflicts, that's what debating is all about. These exercises are to help those interested, and particularly primary voters, to see the differences between the candidates' policy positions and to see them under pressure to be lucid and convincing in support of their positions. The only complaint I would make in this regard is that the questions seemed to predetermine where the conflicts in policy should be. As an example, every question to Cruz was about Rubio and every question to Rubio was about Cruz - likewise, every question to Bush was about Trump. It was, in effect, a script to match CNNs programming of the Republican contest.

3. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Trump looked not only idiotic but incredibly childish and immature. His constant facial contortions were very irritating and I can't understand any sane person wanting that petulant jackass as your President. It's like watching Pee Wee Herman.

4. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Rubio looked a little damaged by the pressure and Cruz was his usual patronizing asshole self. Christie did well, but I'm growing tired of his constant attempts to paint himself as the serious person and everyone else as arguing minutia. I like Bush, so you know I thought he did well. I thought Paul did very well although his positions on many issues are just not acceptable in the real world. Fiorina grates once again and is finished and Kasich has really been disappointing. That leaves Carson and I just don't understand his relevance in the race. The man may be brilliant in a pediatric surgery setting, but he's entirely miscast as a Presidential candidate.

5. The undercard was only relevant as to whether or not Lindsay Graham was going to burst out crying at any moment. Every comment and answer was like a plea for mercy. Very uncomfortable watching the breakdown, but he did have a couple of good zingers.
 
Chomsky said:
With all respect, to me it appeared fine: the mods we're having the candidates comment upon each other's policies. That's legit, if not a bit Socratic, IMO.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Chomsky. :2wave:

My thought is that it's more important what the voters think about what plans each candidate has, and they're all capable of telling us about them. We all know these candidates are competing with each other for the job of POTUS, so who cares whether or not they like each other personally? I sure don't! This isn't, or shouldn't be, about how one might disagree with someone else on their vision for the future. We are all entitled to our opinion, whether or not anyone else shares it.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I'd make a couple of points from the cheap seats:

1. CNN did fine, although surely there are better people on CNN than Dana Bash to ask questions and when/why did Hugh Hewitt become an all purpose questioner for GOP debates.

2. To those complaining about the questions skewed to drawing out conflicts, that's what debating is all about. These exercises are to help those interested, and particularly primary voters, to see the differences between the candidates' policy positions and to see them under pressure to be lucid and convincing in support of their positions. The only complaint I would make in this regard is that the questions seemed to predetermine where the conflicts in policy should be. As an example, every question to Cruz was about Rubio and every question to Rubio was about Cruz - likewise, every question to Bush was about Trump. It was, in effect, a script to match CNNs programming of the Republican contest.

3. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Trump looked not only idiotic but incredibly childish and immature. His constant facial contortions were very irritating and I can't understand any sane person wanting that petulant jackass as your President. It's like watching Pee Wee Herman.

4. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Rubio looked a little damaged by the pressure and Cruz was his usual patronizing asshole self. Christie did well, but I'm growing tired of his constant attempts to paint himself as the serious person and everyone else as arguing minutia. I like Bush, so you know I thought he did well. I thought Paul did very well although his positions on many issues are just not acceptable in the real world. Fiorina grates once again and is finished and Kasich has really been disappointing. That leaves Carson and I just don't understand his relevance in the race. The man may be brilliant in a pediatric surgery setting, but he's entirely miscast as a Presidential candidate.

5. The undercard was only relevant as to whether or not Lindsay Graham was going to burst out crying at any moment. Every comment and answer was like a plea for mercy. Very uncomfortable watching the breakdown, but he did have a couple of good zingers.
Click to expand...

I take issue with number 2 specifically. The questions werent about policy. They were about candidates personal problems with each other. "Mr Trump is unhinged. Carson is a maniac."
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'd make a couple of points from the cheap seats:

1. CNN did fine, although surely there are better people on CNN than Dana Bash to ask questions and when/why did Hugh Hewitt become an all purpose questioner for GOP debates.

2. To those complaining about the questions skewed to drawing out conflicts, that's what debating is all about. These exercises are to help those interested, and particularly primary voters, to see the differences between the candidates' policy positions and to see them under pressure to be lucid and convincing in support of their positions. The only complaint I would make in this regard is that the questions seemed to predetermine where the conflicts in policy should be. As an example, every question to Cruz was about Rubio and every question to Rubio was about Cruz - likewise, every question to Bush was about Trump. It was, in effect, a script to match CNNs programming of the Republican contest.

3. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Trump looked not only idiotic but incredibly childish and immature. His constant facial contortions were very irritating and I can't understand any sane person wanting that petulant jackass as your President. It's like watching Pee Wee Herman.

4. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Rubio looked a little damaged by the pressure and Cruz was his usual patronizing asshole self. Christie did well, but I'm growing tired of his constant attempts to paint himself as the serious person and everyone else as arguing minutia. I like Bush, so you know I thought he did well. I thought Paul did very well although his positions on many issues are just not acceptable in the real world. Fiorina grates once again and is finished and Kasich has really been disappointing. That leaves Carson and I just don't understand his relevance in the race. The man may be brilliant in a pediatric surgery setting, but he's entirely miscast as a Presidential candidate.

5. The undercard was only relevant as to whether or not Lindsay Graham was going to burst out crying at any moment. Every comment and answer was like a plea for mercy. Very uncomfortable watching the breakdown, but he did have a couple of good zingers.
Click to expand...

Rubio was stressed yes. But he kept his composure although he did seem a little riled.

Jeb and Carly were shaking in their boots however.
 
jonny5 said:
I take issue with number 2 specifically. The questions werent about policy. They were about candidates personal problems with each other. "Mr Trump is unhinged. Carson is a maniac."
Click to expand...

Actually, the questions were about leadership qualities and personality, temperament, judgement are all relevant to foreign affairs leadership. Trump is unhinged - giving Bush an opportunity to expand on that statement was a great way for him to explain why Trump will or should never be President. As for maniacs, it's Cruz that was so cast that way by Trump - just happens to be one of the few honest and accurate things Trump has said in 2015.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, the questions were about leadership qualities and personality, temperament, judgement are all relevant to foreign affairs leadership. Trump is unhinged - giving Bush an opportunity to expand on that statement was a great way for him to explain why Trump will or should never be President. As for maniacs, it's Cruz that was so cast that way by Trump - just happens to be one of the few honest and accurate things Trump has said in 2015.
Click to expand...

The ancient Greeks already discussed that the weakness of any democracy is that if all the idiots get together and elect an idiot then everyone suffers.

Always have always will.
 
Riveroaks said:
Rubio was stressed yes. But he kept his composure although he did seem a little riled.

Jeb and Carly were shaking in their boots however.
Click to expand...

We saw a different debate or were struck by different things. Nothing unusual about that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
3. Again, from my personal bias, I thought Trump looked not only idiotic but incredibly childish and immature. His constant facial contortions were very irritating and I can't understand any sane person wanting that petulant jackass as your President. It's like watching Pee Wee Herman.
Click to expand...

John...I just cannot see how any sane individual could even consider voting for this guy. The facial contortions were embarrassing to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom