Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Guest

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:

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 !

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.