It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Last Night's GOP Debate

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

The moderators were fine, to be fair I picked it up right as Cruz was ranting and from the sounds of it he had good reason.
Though he decided to do so after he was asked a question of substance, which is what his rant was about. He decided to waste all his time complaining about no questions of substance being asked, all while ignoring the one asked to him. And then complained about not getting to answer it....

After that the questions were mostly about the issues IMO.
edit on thThu, 29 Oct 2015 15:22:48 -0500America/Chicago1020154880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT




In the dem debate, they actually asked substantive questions. They didnt ask the dems if they were running a comic book villian campaign or what the candidates thoughts were on fantasy football.


They didn't ask jeb about fantasy football, HE brought that up.
And the Dems were very much pit against each other, not sure what debate you watched.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I came to the conclusion after this debate that I really, really don't like Ted Cruz and definitely don't want him as president. I can't stand that man.

Other than that...I enjoyed Rubio and Bush going at it, thought Trump was subdued and not as aggressive, thought Carson didn't hurt or help his campaign and thought fiorina didn't take advantage enough. Winner? I don't even know.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes he did take the time allotted for the answer to attack them. On this we agree. He offered to answer but they got antsy and said he couldn't have more time, which was absolutely within their rights to do. I think he took the first opportunity he got to attack them. They called on him and he decided to use the opportunity. If they really wanted to know the answer, maybe they should have allowed him more time to answer when he offered to answer the question. I think they were shocked and didn't know what to do and fell back on "we have time constraints" as an excuse to get away from him.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry, your reply didn't appear in my message box. I think it means the powers that be want to generally obfuscate the Republicans for the demos, namely Demo Hillary.

Its just a thought, equal time and all, how many voters tuned out the debate for the game?

Millions.

See whats on concurrently next democratic debate…

that will be our sign.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Or you know him say what he needed to say and then answer the question in the time allotted. He went over his time with a a rant, and they just reminded him that the question they asked him was what he wanted and he ignored it.

I agree with what he said, just found the timing of it funny, since he got what he wanted and didn't answer it.
I do not agree with him not answering that question at all btw, I just agree what he said was true.
To me it could easily be seen as a deflection since he got a tough question.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DanDanDat

Debating successfully shows critical thinking skills and the ability to think on ones feet. I personally would like the President to display some of those traits.



Well first I'd say; the Presidential debates do not show how well a critical thinks on his feet nor their critical thinking skills.

It shows how well they come prepared with their over processed talking points; and how well they interject those talking points despite what the moderator may have asked.


But secondly; when does the president need to think on his feet? The president doesn’t get involved with negotiations nether at home or abroad. The president sets policy and then manages other people while they are sent out to think on their feet.

As such the current debate style should be done away with and replaced with an approach where each candidate is given a set amount of unchallenged time to lay out their policy on a particular subject chosen for that night’s debate.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually, I think he planned it. I think he looked at the other debates and planned for this type of scenario. When the debate started, he took note of the questions that were lining up with what he had planned and he burned them. The timing of a substantive question was coincidence but he probably saw the chance to cut loose and avoid a question at the same time. He got a 2fer. Blasted the media and maybe avoided a question he didn't like all in one fell swoop.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I was just wondering how Christie made the debate and rode over the Eastern seaboard and Pennsylvania as that Blimp at the same time

Quite a remarkable accomplishment. Maybe he is presidential material




Chris Christie parks before debate



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

Well first I'd say; the Presidential debates do not show how well a critical thinks on his feet nor their critical thinking skills.

It shows how well they come prepared with their over processed talking points; and how well they interject those talking points despite what the moderator may have asked.


I think it would be safe to assume that you have not participated in a structured debate as, despite doing the requisite preparation and having a script, you cannot prepare or script for all questions, sidebars, rebuttals and follow up. So you do indeed need to think critically, within the time constraints, and offer a cognitive answer.



But secondly; when does the president need to think on his feet? The president doesn’t get involved with negotiations nether at home or abroad.


Do you not realize that every encounter with foreign diplomats is a cause for scrutiny by both sides for any type of weakness that they can exploited or an opening in to how the other party's strategy is being implemented?


As such the current debate style should be done away with and replaced with an approach where each candidate is given a set amount of unchallenged time to lay out their policy on a particular subject chosen for that night’s debate.


And how do you challenge those policies if it is just a forum where they provide a summation of their platform? They already have something like this, it is called a campaign speech.




edit on 29-10-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
why have moderators?....all of them had their own lines and stories to get out and that's what they did....next time, just put 10 podiums up and let them have at it.....maybe give out tomatoes to the crowd, and they can show their displeasure the old fashion way.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The politicians were happy to have them as punching bags.


Though the MSM is justifiably everybody’s punching bag...

the GOP hates the MSM for the wrong reasons.


But these ignorant and lying Republicans are the ones who benefit more than anyone from the MSM...through FOX news.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The politicians were happy to have them as punching bags.


Though the MSM is justifiably everybody’s punching bag...

the GOP hates the MSM for the wrong reasons.


But these ignorant and lying Republicans are the ones who benefit more than anyone from the MSM...through FOX news.


Exactly.. they forget that The Wall Street Journal and Fox News (Both very Right Wing) Are part of the Main Stream Media to just name two.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
I came to the conclusion after this debate that I really, really don't like Ted Cruz and definitely don't want him as president. I can't stand that man.

Other than that...I enjoyed Rubio and Bush going at it, thought Trump was subdued and not as aggressive, thought Carson didn't hurt or help his campaign and thought fiorina didn't take advantage enough. Winner? I don't even know.


Ted Cruz has a smirk that makes me want to throw a chair at him. Which might actually remove said smirk.
edit on 29-10-2015 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WP4YT




In the dem debate, they actually asked substantive questions. They didnt ask the dems if they were running a comic book villian campaign or what the candidates thoughts were on fantasy football.


They didn't ask jeb about fantasy football, HE brought that up.
And the Dems were very much pit against each other, not sure what debate you watched.


Actually yes, the question was about fantasy football. I found the actual question asked by Carl Quintanilla.




“Daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year. But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that’s out of your control. Isn’t that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?”


The question is about fantasy football and gambling.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



Ted Cruz has a smirk that makes me want to throw a chair at him. Which might actually remove said smirk.

LOL!! Yep!

"Word."


edit on 10/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
In truth, yes, the moderators were ill prepared. But to the candidates that complained about the questions, and to those defending them here... do you realize what these candidates say in public? Are we not allowed to ask about this insanity? If the moderators actually ask a question about some lunacy that Trump said, he just bashes them for it and gets applause, no answer. If you ask Huckabee about his over-the-top godly morals then he just deflects... meanwhile this is something that he parades around (loudly) as a key element of his campaign. It's a very interesting approach that is somehow working... say insane stuff, then when confronted just deflect and yell about pc something-or-other, or try to bash the mods for not asking better questions. Meanwhile, when Rubio went on his rant, taxes and immigration had been discussed already, which are big repub talking points. It's just that the candidates didn't really have viable answers, so of course it felt like we weren't getting anywhere and no one was answering questions.

As I stated, the mods weren't prepared, but mainly they weren't tough enough (or hadthe facts) to call the candidates on their blatant lies and evasion techniques.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I was more interested in watching my Royals than trudging through back-handed questions from the Clinton Network Broadcasting Committee. I knew ahead of time there wouldn't be any substantial questions posed to the candidates.

I was pleased to hear that the men and woman got tired of the questions too, and gave some grief back... much to the approval of the crowd and polled.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: amazing
I came to the conclusion after this debate that I really, really don't like Ted Cruz and definitely don't want him as president. I can't stand that man.

Other than that...I enjoyed Rubio and Bush going at it, thought Trump was subdued and not as aggressive, thought Carson didn't hurt or help his campaign and thought fiorina didn't take advantage enough. Winner? I don't even know.


Ted Cruz has a smirk that makes me want to throw a chair at him. Which might actually remove said smirk.


Funny, I said that about Obama many times. Does that make you a racist, too?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I watched the first Rep debate and wasn't happy with it. I watched the first half of the second Rep debate and turned it off. I watched clips of the first Dem debate.

I will not be watching anymore debates. I think this ridiculous debate schedule only lengthens what is already a too long campaign promise, and while I would tolerate that if it gave good results all we're getting is a reality show where people are trying to vote someone off the island and manufacture drama. I would much rather hear interviews with candidates and see campaign rallies.

These so called debates make a mockery out of democracy and I have nothing but contempt for them.




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join