• 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!

GOP tells NBC next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions

Zyphlin said:
No one can tell me in any reasonable way that asking a candidate if they're running a "comic book campaign" is a fair, objective, non-partisan, reasonable, professional style of debate question.
Click to expand...

Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency.

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?​

Zyphlin said:
Except that's not a legitimate way to professional present that question as a NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED moderator
Click to expand...

You are running for president of the United States because of your record running Hewlett-Packard. But the stock market is usually a fair indicator of the performance of a CEO, and the market was not kind to you.

Someone who invested a dollar in your company the day you took office had lost half of the dollar by the day you left. Obviously, you've talked in the past about what a difficult time it was for technology companies, but anybody who was following the market knows that your stock was a much worse performer, if you looked at your competitors, if you looked at the overall market.

I just wonder, in terms of all of that -- you know, we look back, your board fired you. I just wondered why you think we should hire you now.​
 
mmi said:
Will you say anything to get elected?[/INDENT]
Click to expand...

Thanks for this inane strawmen. Can we expect you to explain why it is you posted this as a non-sensical response to my statement"? Are you trying to say "yeah, well Cooper did it too!"? You realize that doesn't change or counter anything in my statement (and yes, that was a very unprofessional way to ask that question as well). Perhaps you just ignorantly assumed that because I'm conservative I must fit into your prejudiced caricature if what one must think, and so you stupidly assumed I meant something I never said like "they're all out to get republicans". Except my post wasn't about that, it was about moderators lately acting in an unprofessional manner and making the debate about themselves....posting a single example of Cooper doing that doesn't counter my point.

Go beat in your strawman elsewhere.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except that's not a legitimate way to professional present that question as a NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED moderator, unless the HP board explicitly stated "incompetence" was a reason for her firing. If it did not, this is the debate moderator editorializing and positing his opinion on the matter as if it is a fact, which is ridiculously uncalled for in a debate question. The same question could be asked by saying:

You were fired from HP after the company was performing poorly financially under your leadership. How should that impact the American people's belief that you can successfully run the country?

That question asks the same question, however:

1. It does not editorialize on why she was fired with ambiguous notions but rather a definitive fact, it was doing poorly financially
2. It asks it's question in a non-accusation so way (i.e., one assuming a negative and wanting her to provide a counter) but rather a neutral way that does not imply a predisposed belief either way by the public.

Both are questions that ask the same thing, but one is an unprofessional, editorialized, slanted question and the other is more neutral and factual in tone and content.

That's the difference between a legitimate unbiased debate question that is still hard hitting, and a biased and agenda driven one aimed at setting the narrative from the onset of the question.

The concept is an absolute legitimate one and a question that should be asked in a debate; but it should be asked in a professional, non-editorialized, factual, unbiased fashion.
Click to expand...

The stock price of HP fell by 50% during her time as CEO. That's from lack of leadership, pure and simple. The stock jumped up 6.9 percent on news of her departure. This issue is fair game, as it debates her leadership skills that she would use as POTUS.

Carly Fiorina forced out at HP - Feb. 10, 2005

Forbes Welcome
 
le bouffon said:
The stock price of HP fell by 50% during her time as CEO. That's from lack of leadership, pure and simple. The stock jumped up 6.9 percent on news of her departure.

Carly Fiorina forced out at HP - Feb. 10, 2005

Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...

Fact - the stock price fell 50% during her time as CEO
Editorializing and opinion - it fell because of a lack of leadership

The question can be asked using just the facts or using the opinion as well. The only reason to use the opinion is to set the premise and tone of the question from the onset of one that is in line with that opinion. That is inherently asking the question with bias. That is completely unnecessary in a debate from a moderator. The exact same question can be asked without the moderator coloring it with their opinion.

One is unobjectionable and unbiased one is not. In a debate, a moderator should strive for the former.
 
Zyphlin said:
Fact - the stock price fell 50% during her time as CEO
Editorializing and opinion - it fell because of a lack of leadership

The question can be asked using just the facts or using the opinion as well. The only reason to use the opinion is to set the premise and tone of the question from the onset of one that is in line with that opinion. That is inherently asking the question with bias. That is completely unnecessary in a debate from a moderator. The exact same question can be asked without the moderator coloring it with their opinion.

One is unobjectionable and unbiased one is not. In a debate, a moderator should strive for the former.
Click to expand...

Don't avoid the fact the HP issue has much to do with her leadership skills. That's a humiliating stock price decline. You're crying bias because there's truth to it.
 
Anomalism said:
Thoughts?

GOP tells NBC next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions - Oct. 30, 2015
Click to expand...

What a bunch of pansy assed cowards.

Fox hit them pretty hard and they bitched and whined like crybabies... where's the suspension from Fox debates? I can't stand moderators much at all and think almost all of them in all the debates sucked badly. They either want to be at the center of attention or they want to instigate a fight rather than address policy. Morons.

But what the GOP is trying to do now is to throw their weight around in attempt to control the questions and questioners. Pathetic.

To another point, CNBC like Fox is uber conservative. They are using the throw the baby out with the bath water to eliminate NBC as a whole because of ultra conservative CNBC's action? Bullcrap. They are to cowardly to face questions from anyone who isn't conservative.
 
poweRob said:
What a bunch of pansy assed cowards.

Fox hit them pretty hard and they bitched and whined like crybabies... where's the suspension from Fox debates?
Click to expand...

Trump crybabied because that's what he does. That's it. FOX asked actual good hard questions.

CNBC went full retard.

The GOP needs to learn: Until Democrats agree to have a debate moderated by people like Hannity and O'Reilly, we need to not agree to have debates moderated by the opposition.
 
le bouffon said:
Don't avoid the fact the HP issue has much to do with her leadership skills. That's a humiliating stock price decline. You're crying bias because there's truth to it.
Click to expand...

The fact you're asking the question as to how that should impact the American publics view on her leadership establishes there's a legitimate question to be had about her leadership skills without editorializing by making an accusation and putting the premise forth from the moderator themselves.

The fact you can't see the difference here speaks volumes about yourself. The fact you can't see that the person who is not assigning negative or positive, but simply stating facts is the unbiased position....and even more so, actually suggest THATS the biased position and your opinion based editorialized one isn't, basically shouts it

Let's be frank, your a hyper partisan that ignorantly believes that just because you believe an opinion makes it fact, and believe that it's fine for moderators to editorialize and allow their bias on issue to set a negative premise from the onset so long as it suits your political objectives and desires.

Biased to the right would be asking her question on her time at HP as if it was successful or focusing only on her positive talking points. The fact you're acting as if simply asking the question from a purely factual and neutral perspective is "biased" shines a bright line on your own ridiculous bias.
 
The dos debate only tried to make it about the moderators as opposed to the candidates primarily with Donald Trump and Meghan Kelly. Not good, but isolated. The rest was one of the best debates I've ever witnessed and was very refreshing.

Anderson Cooper made it about himself more than the candidates with the delivery of some of his questions to Clinton and a but with the back and forth with Chafee, but for the most part was pretty good with allowing the candidates to be the focal point.

CNBC was basically trying to see how more reasonable and how much smarter they could appear than the candidates and repeatedly through the night asked questions that were inappropriate for that debate or in a manner wholly inappropriate for a debate situation where the moderators are not meant to be the focus or the participants.

Jake Tapper basically tried to be Jerry F'ing Springer.

I'd say the fox one has been best...with Cooper a distant second....and the other two a ways behind bringing up the rear.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so demo's gonna start having debates on FNC? Or debate at all?
Click to expand...

The Democratic presidential debate was in name only. It was more like a slobbering lover affair between the moderators and the candidates, and it was all enough to turn your stomach.
 
eohrnberger said:
The Democratic presidential debate was in name only. It was more like a slobbering lover affair between the moderators and the candidates, and it was all enough to turn your stomach.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous talking point. There were a number of instances with similar styled unprofessionally delivered answers. While I've still yet to hear anything as gallingly insulting and talking down in style as the "comic book" question was, there were a few towards Hillary that absolutely fell in the unprofessionally presented category.
 
cpwill said:
Trump crybabied because that's what he does. That's it. FOX asked actual good hard questions.

CNBC went full retard.

The GOP needs to learn: Until Democrats agree to have a debate moderated by people like Hannity and O'Reilly, we need to not agree to have debates moderated by the opposition.
Click to expand...

You know, the more I think about Hannity and O'Reilly being moderators, the more I think that the candidates would be challenged with tough questions on the issues, and it wouldn't be a love-in such as the first Democratic presidential debate turned out to be. Gawd, nearly turned me stomach.
 
Zyphlin said:
The fact you're asking the question as to how that should impact the American publics view on her leadership establishes there's a legitimate question to be had about her leadership skills without editorializing by making an accusation and putting the premise forth from the moderator themselves.

The fact you can't see the difference here speaks volumes about yourself. The fact you can't see that the person who is not assigning negative or positive, but simply stating facts is the unbiased position....and even more so, actually suggest THATS the biased position and your opinion based editorialized one isn't, basically shouts it

Let's be frank, your a hyper partisan that ignorantly believes that just because you believe an opinion makes it fact, and believe that it's fine for moderators to editorialize and allow their bias on issue to set a negative premise from the onset so long as it suits your political objectives and desires.

Biased to the right would be asking her question on her time at HP as if it was successful or focusing only on her positive talking points. The fact you're acting as if simply asking the question from a purely factual and neutral perspective is "biased" shines a bright line on your own ridiculous bias.
Click to expand...

And that's the issue. The moderators should ask whatever questions they wish, as the issues presented to a President aren't set, but fluid in the real world. You're incredibly biased towards Carly Fiorina, which is fine, as you're a conservative and I wouldn't expect anything less of you.

The unbiased opinion is that whilst she was at HP, the stock plummeted by 50%. That is fact. As she was CEO at that time, she would need to be held accountable to that. If you believe otherwise, then you have no idea how modern finance or simple economics works. :)
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's be frank, your a hyper partisan that ignorantly believes that just because you believe an opinion makes it fact, and believe that it's fine for moderators to editorialize and allow their bias on issue to set a negative premise from the onset so long as it suits your political objectives and desires.
Click to expand...

Also, if you wish to throw insults around, at least use proper grammar. It's you're, not your. Also, what is a hyper partisan? You're just making up words now. And you're the one calling me ignorant. Hah!
 
Last edited:
ToastyOats said:
CNBC's Republican Primary Debate was Extremely Substantive | The New Republic

There were a lot of substantive, policy-based questions. Unfortunately crying about the mean ol media isn't a substantive response.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the complaint that the questions weren't substantive enough? Cruz was just looking for an opportunity to climb on a soapbox. Other networks will mostly ask the candidates the same style of questions, but I have a problem with either party insulating their candidates from hardline questioning. We should expect these people to be fact checked, to be grilled, and to have answers. There is nothing more slimy than watching a politician try to get out of answering questions, and Cruz has a pattern of doing that.
 
The difference between the Republican debate and the Democratic debate was that Democrats actually answered the hard questions. Hillary was hit hard on the email controversy. Instead of screaming "bias", she answered the questions, and Bernie Sanders chimed in, not saying that there were unfair questions, but by saying that Americans are sick to death of hearing about Hillary's email. So Democrats, instead of whining about unfair questions, handled them.

On the other hand, Republicans, during their debate could have taken a similar stance, but chose to bash the media for "unfair questions". During debate, you are going to get hard questions. How you handle them shows your ability to handle the highest office in the land. For instance, Carly Fiorina could have acknowledged that she was fired, but in the same answer could have said that no other person in her position could have done any better, due to the pricing pressure brought upon her company by the Chinese, who were given an unfair advantage by...... The Democrats, who allowed the Chinese to engage in unfair monetary policy by undervaluing the yuan in relation to the dollar. The audience would have eaten that response up. You see how she could have turned this to her advantage? And indeed, Democrats can take the blame for a lot of the economic problems caused by Chinese monetary policy. But instead, Fiorina acted like the idiot she is, and showed the world that she is just not ready for prime time.

Hillary is going to be an absolutely horrible president, but based on what I have seen in the Republican debates so far, she is going to be president.
 
Moderator to Ben Carson:
-"Were you in cahoots with Mannatech, that company who settled for $7 million on a deceptive-practices lawsuit?"
Carson;
-"Absolutely not"

Conservative take on this: That was a gotcha question!
But when you fact-check, it appears that Ben Carson was up to his eyeballs in the scam!
 
Anomalism said:
He didn't make up words. It's a real term that people use.
Click to expand...

It's not in any dictionary that I know of. Ah, wiki, the substitute of academic books and actual dictionaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom