A "liberal's" perspective on last night's GOP debate

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

That should be the last ever Republican debate hosted by CNBC

I'll have to catch it on YouTube. I heard the moderators were all trying to make a name for themselves. I guess Anderson Cooper is looking pretty good right now.

Link to watch the debate....3 parts

Thanks, I get YouTube through Roku so can see it on the bigger screen.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

Yes there are dogs and rabid dogs...just as there are bad and really bad politicians.

Your point is?

Apparently it flew over your head.

let me rephrase: "Well to dovetail on your absurd statement" [the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs] Dogs have many similarities but great differences too.

 

[gipper]

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

Yes there are dogs and rabid dogs...just as there are bad and really bad politicians.

Your point is?

Apparently it flew over your head.

let me rephrase: "Well to dovetail on your absurd statement" [the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs] Dogs have many similarities but great differences too.

Apparently you failed to comprehend. Let me explain slowly....

there are differences in dogs, just as there are differences in politicians....but...slowly now...are you understanding?....at the end of the day, they are still all dogs.

Get it now?

 

[PredFan]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

 

[nat4900]

Why should we give a rat's ass what a liberals perspective is? Liberals are notorious liars.

You should just sit back and take a nap....(....right after you stroke your guns a bit, that is.)

 

[nat4900]

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

Well, the MAIN problem with Cruz, is that he'd argue about the existence of gravity. No one will work with the guy since he has an extremely poor attitude and his policies are way off-the-wall.

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

The media will not let that happen. They have too much invested in Mrs. BJ. They will protect her just as they have for years now. The recent hearings are proof of this. She admitted to lying to the American people, and the media then proclaims how great she did in the hearings. Ds and Libs can't see the fraud.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

Well, the MAIN problem with Cruz, is that he'd argue about the existence of gravity. No one will work with the guy since he has an extremely poor attitude and his policies are way off-the-wall.

Does not play well with others

 

[Rustic]

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

Well, the MAIN problem with Cruz, is that he'd argue about the existence of gravity. No one will work with the guy since he has an extremely poor attitude and his policies are way off-the-wall.

Does not play well with others

The only way to be...

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

It is funny when a Leftnutter thinks they can objectively and thoughtfully critique the Rs.

 

[amrchaos]

That should be the last ever Republican debate hosted by CNBC

The republicans knew the bias when going in.

The same BS you saw CNBC give the GOP is the kind of BS Democrats wish to avoid with Fox News.

It is equivalent to having tea with your enemies in their dining room. Somebody may get poisoned.

 

[rightwinger]

No question that CNBC was minor league

Their questions were at times childish...."What is your biggest fault"?
They continually engaged in personal digs about the candidates
They didn't follow up their questions

But the Republican responses were equally childish and ignored the question being asked

Overall a very poor excuse for a political debate

 

[bedowin62]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

It is funny when a Leftnutter thinks they can objectively and thoughtfully critique the Rs.

lol yup!!

and why does this LWNJ put "liberal" in quotes that way??

doesnt even know what he is? or half ashamed to admit it?????

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

It is funny when a Leftnutter thinks they can objectively and thoughtfully critique the Rs.

I am fully capable of critiquing Ted Cruz

 

[Wry Catcher]

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

Yes there are dogs and rabid dogs...just as there are bad and really bad politicians.

Your point is?

Apparently it flew over your head.

let me rephrase: "Well to dovetail on your absurd statement" [the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs] Dogs have many similarities but great differences too.

Apparently you failed to comprehend. Let me explain slowly....

there are differences in dogs, just as there are differences in politicians....but...slowly now...are you understanding?....at the end of the day, they are still all dogs.

Get it now?

Yep, you're blinded by bias and cannot read with comprehension.

 

[Rustic]

No question that CNBC was minor league

Their questions were at times childish...."What is your biggest fault"?
They continually engaged in personal digs about the candidates
They didn't follow up their questions

But the Republican responses were equally childish and ignored the question being asked

Overall a very poor excuse for a political debate

Typically progressive...

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not surprised that you would prefer the most progressive of the candidates. You however are wrong about Cruz, he would destroy Hillary in any debate. the guy is 100 times smarter and is used to arguing in the Supreme Court and has never lost. She'd look like the babbly moron she is.

His Constitutional arguments on Obamacare were wrong as was his ill-advised shutdown of Government

When has Cruz ever been right as a Senator?

It is funny when a Leftnutter thinks they can objectively and thoughtfully critique the Rs.

I am fully capable of critiquing Ted Cruz

You most certainly are and I look forward to your critiques...as they are always amusing.

Being a Leftnutter, I can be assured that your critiques will be more like.....WTF MAN...why doesn't he LOVE BIG UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT LIKE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[amrchaos]

I just don't get Jeb

If his name wasn't Bush he wouldn't even be on the podium

Rubio beat him up quite easily and Bush's lame "France" retort was an insult not just to France but one of our branches of Government

Then Bush ducks the question of whether he would accept ten dollars in spending cuts for one dollar in tax increases with a giggle and ...I would kiss a Democrat if he would give me ten dollars in spending cuts

That is a bad question for a politician back rolled by industry. 10 in spending cuts hurt their profits from government contracts. $1 tax increase hurt them in profits.

I'll duck it to if I had the same people buttering my family bread like Jeb. Hell I would ignore the question all together and go off topic a la Cruz.

 

[gipper]

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

Yes there are dogs and rabid dogs...just as there are bad and really bad politicians.

Your point is?

Apparently it flew over your head.

let me rephrase: "Well to dovetail on your absurd statement" [the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs] Dogs have many similarities but great differences too.

Apparently you failed to comprehend. Let me explain slowly....

there are differences in dogs, just as there are differences in politicians....but...slowly now...are you understanding?....at the end of the day, they are still all dogs.

Get it now?

Yep, you're blinded by bias and cannot read with comprehension.

I say pols are all the same like dogs are and you say not all pols are the same as not all dogs are the same....and I am biased. You need to look up the definition of biased. When you do, I think you will agree that you are the one biased.