I don't watch the debates, I don't even care anymore.
I have been saying for decades our press is a cancer on society. They're supposed to be the protectors of democracy, but instead they use their high profile positions to advance their own personal agendas.
What makes them scum is the fact that they pretend they're being objective, while they lie and distort and do anything other than encourage an intelligent exchange of ideas. They PREVENT any intelligent discussion, they're more interested in making a name for themselves or some gotcha moment
They're liars, they enable lying which makes an intelligent discussion of the issues impossible, and the biggest problem we have is that we the people enable all of them to play their game of charades.
I have been saying for decades our press is a cancer on society. They're supposed to be the protectors of democracy, but instead they use their high profile positions to advance their own personal agendas.
What makes them scum is the fact that they pretend they're being objective, while they lie and distort and do anything other than encourage an intelligent exchange of ideas. They PREVENT any intelligent discussion, they're more interested in making a name for themselves or some gotcha moment
They're liars, they enable lying which makes an intelligent discussion of the issues impossible, and the biggest problem we have is that we the people enable all of them to play their game of charades.
I'm enjoying the baseball game, albeit after sleeping through a few innings
let's go Royals
the $ 200 i have on the game is actually a lot more important to me than anything going on in these "reality TV show debates"
[FONT=Domine, serif]"Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you're not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?" CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Domine, serif]--------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]
[FONT=Domine, serif]is this an example of an intelligent question?
[/FONT]this is insulting, this is a statement, this is mocking, this is making yourself part of the debate, this is what idiots like and scumbags do
and for those who understand argumentative fallacies, this is known as begging the question. For those who don't, you're the reason they act like this.
it's getting worse and worse every election cycle
[FONT=Domine, serif]--------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]
[FONT=Domine, serif]is this an example of an intelligent question?
[/FONT]this is insulting, this is a statement, this is mocking, this is making yourself part of the debate, this is what idiots like and scumbags do
and for those who understand argumentative fallacies, this is known as begging the question. For those who don't, you're the reason they act like this.
it's getting worse and worse every election cycle
I read several of the questions, tough? are you kidding me?
not about policy and ideas and actual positions on the issues, more about the horse race and insults and simple shallow idiocy, and somebody actually says "they're supposed to ask touch questions".
just another great example of the differences between so many of us on the political spectrum.
some people want an honest discussion on the issues, others want candidates to be insulted and trivialized and they value gotcha moments
"the greatest argument against a democratic form of government is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter" Churchill
not about policy and ideas and actual positions on the issues, more about the horse race and insults and simple shallow idiocy, and somebody actually says "they're supposed to ask touch questions".
just another great example of the differences between so many of us on the political spectrum.
some people want an honest discussion on the issues, others want candidates to be insulted and trivialized and they value gotcha moments
"the greatest argument against a democratic form of government is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter" Churchill
<header class="entry-header" style="margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">[h=2]Surprise! John Harwood Lied About Marco Rubio’s Tax Plan[/h]</header>
OCTOBER 28, 2015 By Sean Davis
As The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway predicted, CNBC’s management of Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate was a complete disaster. The night’s biggest loser, aside from everyone who suffered through watching the debate debacle, was CNBC moderator John Harwood, who blatantly and aggressively lied about the tax plan proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Harwood accused Rubio of offering a tax plan that was heavily tilted towards the rich. When Rubio corrected him and said that no, lower-income taxpayers receive a higher percentage of the plan’s benefits than rich taxpayers, Harwood repeatedly argued with him and declared that Rubio’s plan was just a big, fat giveaway to the wealthy 1 percent. Proving that his agenda was to push progressive talking points, not to offer debate questions that might lead to insightful answers, John Harwood swore up and down on live television that the conservative Tax Foundation backed up his assertion about Rubio’s tax plan.
Guess what? Harwood got his facts wrong. Very wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. We know this because Harwood himself admitted as much on Twitter earlier in October:
<iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" data-tweet-id="654282664506036225" title="Twitter Tweet" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 10px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 500px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; width: 500px; height: 203.766px; min-width: 220px;"></iframe>We also know Harwood was full of it, because the head of the Tax Foundation was forced to publicly correct Harwood on Twitter during the debate. Here’s what Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, said about the main beneficiaries of Marco Rubio’s tax plan:
<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" data-tweet-id="659553135636127744" title="Twitter Tweet" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 10px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 500px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; width: 500px; height: 181.766px; min-width: 220px;"></iframe>John Harwood refused to issue a correction before the debate audience he deliberately misled. The clock is now ticking on whether he’ll issue any correction at all.
OCTOBER 28, 2015 By Sean Davis
As The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway predicted, CNBC’s management of Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate was a complete disaster. The night’s biggest loser, aside from everyone who suffered through watching the debate debacle, was CNBC moderator John Harwood, who blatantly and aggressively lied about the tax plan proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Harwood accused Rubio of offering a tax plan that was heavily tilted towards the rich. When Rubio corrected him and said that no, lower-income taxpayers receive a higher percentage of the plan’s benefits than rich taxpayers, Harwood repeatedly argued with him and declared that Rubio’s plan was just a big, fat giveaway to the wealthy 1 percent. Proving that his agenda was to push progressive talking points, not to offer debate questions that might lead to insightful answers, John Harwood swore up and down on live television that the conservative Tax Foundation backed up his assertion about Rubio’s tax plan.
Guess what? Harwood got his facts wrong. Very wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. We know this because Harwood himself admitted as much on Twitter earlier in October:
<iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" data-tweet-id="654282664506036225" title="Twitter Tweet" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 10px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 500px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; width: 500px; height: 203.766px; min-width: 220px;"></iframe>We also know Harwood was full of it, because the head of the Tax Foundation was forced to publicly correct Harwood on Twitter during the debate. Here’s what Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, said about the main beneficiaries of Marco Rubio’s tax plan:
<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" data-tweet-id="659553135636127744" title="Twitter Tweet" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 10px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 500px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; width: 500px; height: 181.766px; min-width: 220px;"></iframe>John Harwood refused to issue a correction before the debate audience he deliberately misled. The clock is now ticking on whether he’ll issue any correction at all.
