Ben Carson wants Republican candidates to band together and change the debates
 

Haha, wouldn't that be like a union Ben?

Good idea. The liberal moderators don't want a debate, they want a shootout at the OK Coral. The biased media have had 2 shots at this and consistently prove their intention is to attempt to get the candidates to discredit each other. No such hanky panky at the democratic debate. Fortunately the candidates are quite a bit smarter than the media and very efficiently exposed their unprofessional tactics. So why not band together to get tough unbiased questions relevant to the job they are campaigning for. If you are a die hard liberal I apologize for you reading something you cannot comprehend.

Interesting. Lead moderator.....John Harwood.

Here is a list to his last few columns in the NY Times..

On the Economy, Republicans Have a Data Problem
Tax Plans of G.O.P. Favor the Rich Despite Populist Talk
Timing Gives Sanders a Lift in His Quest
Republicans Vow to Erase Obama’s Record, but Such Promises Are Rarely Kept
Outsiders Stir Politics, but Often Fail to Win or Govern Well
Angry Bent of Party Let Trump Rise
Bernie Sanders: A Revolution With an Eye on the Hungry Children

And a link...

John Harwood - The New York Times

No bias here huh ?

The candidates are not a stupid lot by any means. They obviously knew of the political bent of the panelists.

The candidates and their staffs could have banded together and just refused to meet with those panelists.

Obviously, their ego was too big to miss an opportunity to get in front of a camera.

What about the RNC? Didn't they put the debates together? This wasn't a conspiracy.

That's quite naive, Chi. Of course it was a conspiracy. They conspired to make the questions personal. They didn't want the public to know what the policies were of the candidates. They wanted to make the candidates look irrelevant and unappealing. They asked stupid questions, not related to policies at all.

What I would like to see is a list of questions published that had each candidates' position on it. Publish it in a newspaper of on a central website for all to view. Then, the moderators could ask for details on these issues and get the candidates to tell us why their program would be more appealing than the other candidate's. This cr@p about asking personal questions is nothing more than character assassination. If they were truthful about it, then they would have asked Hilary about her felony viloation regarding her classified material on her unsecured and unauthorized server, and ask her why she lied to everyone about Benghazi. They would have asked Sanders where/how he planned to fund his extravagant entitlement program. Not letting him off the hook by saying "the rich will pay for it. " Details. They tried to tell the GOP candidates that their tax plans wouldn't work, but they didn't ask any details of the DNC candidates, other than "do black lives matter?" What a stupid question.

My point was the RNC's name is all over the debates Reince Priebus should be on the hot seat. All three debates had poor moderating with CNBC being the worse.

I would have applauded any or all who would have made their statement of displeasure at the disrespectful, unprofessional behavior of the moderators, then walked politely off the stage.

Naive is thinking that the RNC had any indication or foresight on the theme of the questioning. Do you actually think that the RNC filtered through the questions beforehand?

The assumption no doubt was since the chair person, Debbie something or other, was with the moderators...the mistaken or naieve conclusion had to be that is what they all do.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

BS!

You are confusing heat with bias stupid arrogant moderator attitude.

One would have to be like them to not see the difference how the democratic moderators behave and type questions asked.

It is not ever a very satisfying discussion when the opposition is so predictable, like the sun coming up in the morning.

Never a variance. Never a new thought. Never able to stay on subject. Very rigid following of the party talking points. Requires little or no interpretation....just read or should I say pull the string in the neck!

These candidates all had their staffs prep them for days with all possible answers and what stock answers to give. Also, the candidates all know if the question is not one they have heard, they just divert it quickly to another talking point.

Personally, I thought the best candidate was Trump with his off the cuff remarks. Bush came out looking real bad, Rubio was good, and the rest were lackluster.

Poor questions and they did not reflect what voters want to know about candidates.

Typical liberal bias that was very apparent. They did nothing to camouflage their plot.

Carson was right to gather support with the candidates. The questions asked were all baited to make the candidates look bad. Just because the moderators have no intention of voting for a conservative, should not cause them to compromise their professionalism. They were VERY unprofessional and if they worked for me, I would have found replacements real fast. Grade school pretenders do a better job in their mock interviews than these posers.

I want to know how their policies would differ. I would like to know their plans for the economy, foreign policy, etc. I am not interested in their thoughts on gay marriage, it's a done deal. I am not interested in what they think about abortion, it's a done deal. I want to know how they plan to change things. I want to know their plans for the future of America. I am not interested in what they think about "black lives matter." Let the socialists run on their stupid social ideas. Let them make claims of female inequity. Let them talk about how they are going to make everyone the same by penalizing the rich, and making everything free for the free loaders. I have no intention of voting for a socialist, so I have no interest in their feel good ideas of "Free" until they become slaves of the gov.

Tell me how you are going to balance the budget. The Dems don't care about even having a budget.
Tell me how you are going to sustain Social Security and Medicare. The Dems want everyone to have it, but they don't have a plan to pay for it.
Tell me how you are going to fix the health care problem. The Dems plan to socialize it.
Tell me how you are going to get rid of the illegal invaders. The Dems want to welcome them with citizenship and benefits.

So, we know how the Dems plan to destroy America. It's time to find out which GOP candidate I want to elect for America's future.

I want to get a feeling as to how one of the GOP candidates will handle leading America back to it's feet as the best in the world. I don't want to be like Europe. Been there and didn't see anything there that I want here.

The liberals have hosed up America with their abortions and gay marriage. Let's see what the GOP has to offer to repair America for our future.

I want Hilary to go to jail for breaking federal laws and putting my country's national security in jeopardy. I want Sanders to return to mother Russia (USSR) where he thinks he will be more comfortable. And I want to help Obama pack his belongings and vacate the White House.

Is that too much to ask?

The RNC said no more NBC. There's foresight and preemptive filtering, eh? Or is that too naive.

The ego problem was with the panelists. The candidates were there to debate the issues facing our country not to deal with the political bias of the moderators. The superior intelligence of the candidates was able to thwart the obvious liberal media bias.

In my view the matter of a presidential debate is in and of itself requires the highest priority in its planning and execution by all parties concerned. The RN. C negotiated with CNBC in good faith. The moderators were accepted in good faith and the candidates were expected in good faith to be prepared to answer a moderators questions and not to do so would normally place them in poor light.

Unfortunately with or without the consent of their employer the moderators choose to conduct this debate like a circus and using the candidates as their play things. It was very unprofessional, unethical and very discourteous .

You cannot fault the candidates for their refusal to go along with this farce.
comments such as comic candidate, your weakness, etc were not tough questions they were inappropriate question. In fact I do fault Bush for attempting to legitimize Hardwood's question concerning fantasy football. It made bush look ridiculous

Beyond all that the American viewers/voters were denied the benefit of listening to a debate and have the opportunity to compare their views and policies. This was a selfish act by these CNBC moderators and an immature one at that.

Personal Best Regards:

governor
 

Quote from Governor Chris Christie “If you can’t take it, on the stage, no matter whether it’s fair or unfair, and I thought there was a lot of unfair stuff the other night–but if you can’t take it, then how are you going to take running against Hillary Clinton, how are you going to take negotiating for America around the world?” Quit whining !

Christie tells it like he means it! So much better than Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, or Fiorina.

Christie was right. But, the fact remains that the issues are not addressed if the liberal media is going to try to stack the deck toward their view, instead of allowing the public a chance to see how each candidate stands on issues. It's the public that gets shafted by the liberal media moderators, not the candidates that much. What did we learn in the Democrat debate(?), besides how they all think that Hilary should be the first female president? Nothing other than how socialist they can get and how much free stuff they are offering. It was more like an auction than a political discussion.

Actually Carson wants the next debates off of television and onto the internet. Interesting idea. Bet Nixon wished there were that option for the 1960 election.

These are republican debates. Pick whoever you want to moderate these debates. Then they can stop whining about bias. There is Drudge, Coulter, Krauthammer, Christol, etc.

Add Hannity, Levin, and Limbaugh. It would be a love fest of bashing Obama, Clinton(s), Kerry, et al. Hold it at the NRA headquarters and let the high fives begin. Don't forget, I think there are eight more debates. Plenty of frenzy time. Of course this may be wishful thinking on my part for a good show. Or is it?

It really would be great to hear what the candidates think they can get done. Not just their wish list but honest to gosh reality of what they think they can do.

Carson's tax plan is a dream that could not be passed. Fiorina's plan to scrap the tax codes and put it on 3 pages is ridiculous. Trump building a 1000 mile wall and making Mexico pay for it could not happen.

Bashing Hillary or Bernie doesn't help anyone. Repeating that Obama was terrible does not get them elected.

Let's hear them all speak on a single issue and exactly what they would do - that could be feasible - to fix the issue. Give each at least 5 minutes with no interuptions. 8 debates left means around 16 different issues discussed in depth.

OR, they could stand around calling the Republicans "the enemy" and offering everyone FREE college, FREE health care, black is beautiful, women are superior, and men are slavers. That would be ridiculous, but then they could all stand around listening to Hilary cackle and her minions on the stage could all shout "Sieg Heil!!" And Hilary could accept her coronation. Oh, that already happened at the Dem debate(?).

Yes, it would be nice to hear where they stand on issues. I really don't want to hear anymore empty promises, just where they stand on current issues. I don't want to hear where they stand on abortion; it's redundant. I don't want to hear where they stand on gay marriage; it's redundant. I want to hear about where they stand on Illegal Aliens, Sanctuary cities, unemployment, how to boost the economy, foreign policy, energy, etc. I want to hear about any ideas they might have in regards to handling these items of interest, and how they would sell their ideas to congress. Not how they would circumvent congress. I want to know that they are planning on addressing the Social Security solvency issue.

I DON'T want to hear a moderator ask a candidate what he thinks of something another candidate may have said about him/her. I want to hear only questions regarding policies.

If these Republicans are whining and saying that the CNBC moderators were infair and did not ask what they had prepped for - how the heck are they going to handle Putin?

Putin is not going to give his questions for approval 48 hours in advance and agree to a 67 degree room with bathroom breaks allowed.

Boy ain't that truth. Putin really caught Obama with his pants down.

The cancelled February Telemundo debate would have been good for Jeb. He should be the one whining about that.

Total BS.....one subject has nothing to do with the other.
One is pointing out the incompetent amateurs on CNBC.

The other is on the world stage.
Do you not think, the POTUS, who ever it is, is not prepped for encounters with other world leaders? Please get some education about how dipomacy, debates or arguments are handled. Just like legal depositions, scripted and rehearsed until they get it right. Depending on the candidate the more they actually know they make it more real.

Obama for example has no clue on most subjects except for what is on the teleprompter or in his notes. It is very easy to tell the few times he is without them.....at those times he is not a very good communicator.

When the loaded lefty obsured questions started, They should of just walked off the stage and left.

The best option!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt Putin would ask questions about our proposed tax changes, building a wall on the Mexican border, or fantasy football picks.

On the other hand, he might be able to give Hilary and Sanders some advice on socialism and communism today, gun control, women's rights, email security and FREE education.

The question is NOT regarding the toughness of the questioning. It is about the validity of the questions and what do they have to do with the policies and issues that the candidates will face today and in the future.

I do not want to hear questions about what once candidate said about another. I do not want to hear questions about fantasy football. I don't care what the candidates think of abortion or gay marriage. That's already a moot point.

How about:

Unemployment
Economy
Illegal Immigration
Social Security
Obamacare
Terrorism
Foreign policy
National Security

Let the individual states worry about their civil unrest, marijuana laws, gay marriage, etc.

Let the individual states worry about gay marriage? Sorry to inform you that same sex marriage IS the law of the land already.

The states are taking care of marijuana issues already.

No, Putin is not going to be asking about immigration. The next President is going to have to think on her/his feet and answer the issues brought up immediately. Carson just does not have that experience and would be completely lost. Trump would try bluffing or bullying - which probably would be a bad idea.

Some of us just have to disagree with the highlight.
You do understand we now have a measuring stick called Obama to use as a basis. ANYBODY with an ounce more experience in ANYTHING is more qualified than he is, hence those currently running are all head and shoulders above Obama in the intelligence circle and much better equipped to be prepared and to respond.

And I place Clinton significantly lower than Obama where ever that bottom happens to be.

IS EVERYBODY looking forward to all the tough questioning just around the corner for the Democratic candidates by Ms Maddow ?

Toughies I am sure.

I like Chris Christie he's a great show horse. so I am sure he said ïf you can't take it........" However, it was also Christie who too got fed up with the snarky questions Hardwood, et al were leveling told Hardwood at one point "even in New Jersey what you are doing would be considered rude."

The Republican debate underscored the the obvious liberal bias by the main street media. what you are witnessing now is the liberals surrounding the wagons again making claim that Republicans can't take it....while Clinton Sanders, et all sit there looking dumb fat and happy. Democratic candidates can skate because the main street media construct the necessary manner for such travel.

Personal Best Regards:

Don't know how tough, but they will at least show some intelligence. She is one smart lady.

The truth of the matter is Levin, Hannity Limbaugh, et al would not be needed if the main street media did they job honestly and ethically. Just one of the Obama scandals , you choose, would have been enough to drive him from office if the liberal media had a Bernstein or Woodward motivating enough to take down a Democrat as they were a Republican.

Personal Best Regards:

:agree: ....totally.

:thumbup: