Fiorina Offers $1.5M To Get In On The Trump-Cruz Debate Challenge

Who's paying her that $1.5 million I wonder? The establishment. If the establishment didn't want this to happen she wouldn't have the option to pay that kind of money.

It's all part of the game.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: greencmp

Check out their searchable text, there is nothing like it anywhere else.

Do you know how long before the debates posted to their database? I don't think they stream them live, but I will check them out. Thanks

My point is that besides conflict of interest, it doesn't make any sense why anything dealing with politics isn't posted live online using tax payers resources.

CSPAN While its a private entity but benefits from being a non profit appears to me like a perfect avenue.

However, in reality why couldn't whitehouse.gov host the video for that matter. I bet even youtube would jump to hosted it.

C-SPAN isn't funded by taxpayers exactly, only cable and satellite subscribers pay an obligatory fee for it as part of the original cable monopoly legislation in the late 70s. One of the few gleaming benefits to emerge from those dark days, local cable studios open to the public is another one.

The primary feature for me is the vast library of legacy content to rummage around in.

If the content is under license they might not have live access to it but, they have a camera crew recording just about every event that occurs.

We definitely do not want the Whitehouse or executive branch, a necessarily partisan political entity, to oversee anything.

a reply to: xuenchen

Silly old fox! You don't watch the Democratic debates, so you wouldn't know a thing about them!

a reply to: greencmp

We definitely do not want the Whitehouse or executive branch, a necessarily partisan political entity, to oversee anything.

No definitely not oversee. but it should be that all political events should be televised and hosted on tax payer resources such as whitehouse.gov not the actual white house.

So regardless if Obama is in office or Bush is in office the website whitehouse.gov would have to host the live and recorded political events.

a reply to: interupt42

I guess that's an unavoidable idealistic division.

I am completely opposed to having the government fund any political outlets at all. To give them monopoly power over the very system of representative selection would be catastrophic.

We already fund the Democrats with public funds through public sector unions and government employed full time lobbyists. If anything we have to dismantle that whole monster ASAP.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

Yep, THAT wasn't a biased post...at all.

Credibility = 0

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

Yep, THAT wasn't a biased post...at all.

Credibility = 0

Which is why I ignored it. I like intelligent discussions.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I watched all but half of the second one. They were all put in place for Hillary and it was easy to tell. Y'all ran your best guy off when you ran Jim Webb off after the first debate.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

Yep, THAT wasn't a biased post...at all.

Credibility = 0

Which is why I ignored it. I like intelligent discussions.

Really? Then I wouldn't bother watching anything from the RNC at the moment. Trump's event is going to be him versus a serial liar (if she can even get in) and two theocratic lunatics. If you think that they're in any way credible to be POTUS then you really haven't been reading anything that they've been saying. And that includes the bloviator.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I watched all but half of the second one. They were all put in place for Hillary and it was easy to tell. Y'all ran your best guy off when you ran Jim Webb off after the first debate.

Teensy problem. I'm not American. Nor am I Democrat.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

Yep, THAT wasn't a biased post...at all.

Credibility = 0

Which is why I ignored it. I like intelligent discussions.

At least you know what to expect from the haters.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That explains a lot. Guess that's on me for not checking to see where you were from in the first place.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come off it. Fiorina? She lies outrageously even for a politician. She's still peddling the PP video as a fact, even though that myth has long since been debunked, shredded and dumped over the side. As for the amazing theocratic twins, AKA Saintorum and Huckacluck, they're both insane religious lunatics who belong in a giant church-shaped asylum.
And by the way. The Faux News debate is not 'MSM', it's the broadcasting arm of the RNC.

Yep, THAT wasn't a biased post...at all.

Credibility = 0

Which is why I ignored it. I like intelligent discussions.

At least you know what to expect from the haters.

They're fairly predictable.

a reply to: interupt42

That's a fair point, but do you think it is wise to be leading the President of the Free World around through reverse psychology though?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I watched all but half of the second one. They were all put in place for Hillary and it was easy to tell. Y'all ran your best guy off when you ran Jim Webb off after the first debate.

That's not a biased post.... at all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

That's a fair point, but do you think it is wise to be leading the President of the Free World around through reverse psychology though?

From what I have seen , our politicians including congress and our president within the last 5 decades didn't need reverse psychology for motivation just a check.

Just about every legislation that has been created has been for the benefit of the established Oligopolies ,while the burden has been placed on the middle-class and below.

Like I said I don't like trump and I think he could be really dangerous as a president , but his need for his ego to be liked and at the forefront could be beneficial.

Unlike the rest that have been driven by pure monetary influences , it might not be bad to get someone who actually cares more about perception and there own ego than just money.

Its a big risk and he could either do great or he could put the final nail on our coffin. I don't see a middle ground with him

The only way I would pick trump is if Hillary were to be selected.

I also feel the same about Bernie Sanders, but I think Bernie has a greater chance of being sincere. I also think its the same scenario with Bernie: 50/50 odds and no middle grounds.

The good thing is that the President is limited on his powers , so trump will likely be able to only talk $h1t with a louder microphone which is his talent.

Him having the microphone and being surrounded by a group of corrupted individuals might not be such a bad thing. That is what appeals me about trump. He has the potential to expose it all and will be in a position to be heard without the power of congress.

With that said I would pick Bernie over Trump and Rand Paul or Carson over all , but more Paul.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes it is, he was talking crap about a Republican and when someone does that it is automatically biased no matter how factual the statement is.

Don't you know? If you talk bad about a Republican that automatically means you're a Democrat sympathizer and vice versa.

Welcome to bizzaro world.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes it is, he was talking crap about a Republican and when someone does that it is automatically biased no matter how factual the statement is.

Don't you know? If you talk bad about a Republican that automatically means you're a Democrat sympathizer and vice versa.

Welcome to bizzaro world.

Yes, the world become a giant series of circle-jerks wherein if you don't agree with me entirely you're my enemy. It's festered for ages and shows no signs of regression even in the "enlightened" circles.

But don't mind me, I'm just an elitist.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes it is, he was talking crap about a Republican and when someone does that it is automatically biased no matter how factual the statement is.

Don't you know? If you talk bad about a Republican that automatically means you're a Democrat sympathizer and vice versa.

Welcome to bizzaro world.

Yes, the world become a giant series of circle-jerks wherein if you don't agree with me entirely you're my enemy. It's festered for ages and shows no signs of regression even in the "enlightened" circles.

But don't mind me, I'm just an elitist.

Self-proclaimed "enlightened circles" are where most political circle-jerks take place; just try saying something negative about the socialist intelligentsia (or worse, Bernie Sanders) and watch the spinning spunk fly.

BTW: Admitting you're an elitist, is the first step towards recovery. Godspeed on your long journey towards redemption.