Republicans To Demand Debate Questions In Advance

[easyt65]

Any time a politician appears on a talking head show, they are given advance heads up of what the questions will be. Only a fool would bleev Clinton's the only one.

They ALL are.

Thanks for admitting how stupid this thread is, then...

 

[Lakhota]

Dear GOP: Man Up!

 

[Camp]

Any time a politician appears on a talking head show, they are given advance heads up of what the questions will be. Only a fool would bleev Clinton's the only one.

They ALL are.

Thanks for admitting how stupid this thread is, then...

Another one that does not know the difference between an interview and a debate, or at least is pretending there is no difference.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fuck these whining little republicans. They're showing that they don't deserve power. Period.

How many questions did the liberal moderators ask about infrastructure?

It would be more important then 90% of the questions you republicans get. Infrastructure is a huge part of our economic engine...but, of course, you living in a third world swamp don't believe so.

 

[easyt65]

Camp, WHO THE HELL NEEDS QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE WHEN THE QUESTIONS BEIN GASKED BY THE DUMBMASS LIBERAL MEDIA ARE ABOUT FANATASY FOOTBALL AND 'HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE THAT GUY NEXT TO YOU'?

The GOP wants to QC the questions to ensure no more of THAT Shi'ite goes on.... otherwise we will have more 'pooh-flinging monkeys' like the CNBC 'journalists'!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

With all the whining and crying from the Republican Presidential candidates about getting tough questions from the media, how long will it be before they are demanding the debate questions are given to them in advance so that they can prepare and manipulate their answers? Some are already suggesting they should have hand picked moderators. That would be the same thing. Soft ball questions, advance knowledge of the questions and answers prepared by their consultants and PR staffs.

^ Bullshit.

There's no complaint about "tough" questions. That's an outright lie.

There were no tough questions.

There were partisan hack fake questions from a partisan hack left wing Democrat party supporting bunch of faux moderators pretending to be journalists.

Mark Levin is exactly right. What probably should be done is to cut these poseur journalists OUT of the GOP debates entirely.

True journalists can then (if their partisan instincts permit them to do their actual job) report on the debates, instead.

 

[Arianrhod]

"Republicans To Demand Debate Questions In Advance"


It's only fair:

Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Question
LINK: Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Questions In Advance - Breitbart/

New Hillary Emails: Media, Congress Fed Her Questions ...
LINK: Email Reveals Hillary Clinton Was Fed Questions Before Meet the Press Appearance

(Oh, those pesky e-mails.... )

Any time a politician appears on a talking head show, they are given advance heads up of what the questions will be. Only a fool would bleev Clinton's the only one.

They ALL are.

That's why you will hear one of them complain once in a while when the host goes off script. They will actually say there was an agreement that matter would not be discussed!

What's alarming is that there are actually people who believe a Presidential debate is exactly the same as a one-on-one interview.

And these people vote.

 

[S.J.]

Republicans are going about it the wrong way. Instead of asking to change the format they need to just start refusing to answer rhetorical gotcha questions. When the moderators try to get them to attack each other they should instead attack the moderators and call them out.

 

[easyt65]

What's alarming is that there are actually people who believe a Presidential debate is exactly the same as a one-on-one interview.

And these people vote.

No what's alarming is that Obama and Hillary have a massive body count of their own, are crooked as hell, lied to Americans, broke the law, etc... and Liberals don't give a damn and vote for them anyway.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Republicans To Demand Debate Questions In Advance"


It's only fair:

Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Question
LINK: Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Questions In Advance - Breitbart/

New Hillary Emails: Media, Congress Fed Her Questions ...
LINK: Email Reveals Hillary Clinton Was Fed Questions Before Meet the Press Appearance

(Oh, those pesky e-mails.... )

You unfamiliar with the difference between an interview and a debate.

Well this is a dumb post, do ya really think trumps off the wall comments are scripted by a team of experts?

 

[blastoff]

Gosh, what if they end up with just substantive questions like 18 Trillion in debt, ISIS threats, etc.? How's that gonna help the voters know who the best fantasy football players are?

 

[S.J.]

Fuck these whining little republicans. They're showing that they don't deserve power. Period.

How many questions did the liberal moderators ask about infrastructure?

It would be more important then 90% of the questions you republicans get. Infrastructure is a huge part of our economic engine...but, of course, you living in a third world swamp don't believe so.

So why didn't we hear those questions? You just made my point for me, moron. Thank you.

 

[easyt65]

Gosh, what if they end up with just substantive questions like 18 Trillion in debt, ISIS threats, etc.? How's that gonna help the voters know who the best fantasy football players are?

...and ratings would suck...and we all know ratings = $$$

 

[Camp]

Camp, WHO THE HELL NEEDS QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE WHEN THE QUESTIONS BEIN GASKED BY THE DUMBMASS LIBERAL MEDIA ARE ABOUT FANATASY FOOTBALL AND 'HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE THAT GUY NEXT TO YOU?

The GOP wants to QC the questions to ensure no more of THAT Shi'ite goes on....

First, a debate is a way of ascertaining how a person, in this case Presidential candidate, will react spontaneously to questions. They are meant to show how much knowledge the candidate has and how they react under pressure. That is why the questions are kept secret and and may include "gotcha" type questions. The fantasy football questions come in because they involve a type of gambling and the "how much do you hate the guy next to you" question is relevant because the candidates spend so much time bashing and attacking each other the question becomes a test of whether the candidate has the guts to do the bashing face to face.

An interview is an opportunity for a candidate to take a good amount of time to answer questions with detailed explanations. The purpose is to ascertain the well thought out policies of the person being interviewed. The person being interviewed will generally have many options as to which news type programs to appear on. This gives them the option of negotiating with the program. If Meet The Press is not willing to meet the demands of the interviewee, the interviewee can go on some other Sunday morning news program.

Finally, no one is forcing a candidate to show up for a debate. If the candidate does not like the program and rules or the moderators and network, they have the option of staying out of the debate.

 

[Camp]

"Republicans To Demand Debate Questions In Advance"


It's only fair:

Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Question
LINK: Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Fed 'Meet the Press' Questions In Advance - Breitbart/

New Hillary Emails: Media, Congress Fed Her Questions ...
LINK: Email Reveals Hillary Clinton Was Fed Questions Before Meet the Press Appearance

(Oh, those pesky e-mails.... )

You unfamiliar with the difference between an interview and a debate.

Well this is a dumb post, do ya really think trumps off the wall comments are scripted by a team of experts?

No, Trump is his own expert, but most of the others are addicted to script writers. Bernie no, Hillary yes.

 

[Care4all]

I don't think I ever seen a real debate yet, it always seemed scripted.

But REAL debate, like a college debate, always has the subject and debate "sides" defined, and then each side gives their studied and researched opinions of why they agree with the certain position they took....?

In other words, why shouldn't the questions or at least the majority of the questions that are going to be asked and give each candidate time to explain their position, give their proposals, or cures for such...etc etc etc....?

As example, Do you agree with the ACA Health care reform bill (obamacare), if not...why not? And what reforms would you do to strengthen the bill, or what would you propose that could replace the bill and still cover those uninsured citizens?

Or another example, What is your position on how deep the U.S. should involve itself in the middle east? Under what circumstance would you put boots on the ground? If so, where and for how long and at what expense? Why do you feel this is for the benefit of all the American people?

What is your position on HB1 visas, and why? What are the negatives and positives that you can see for the average American citizen?

How would you handle the immigrants that are here illegally? Be specific with your priorities, and your solution to reducing further illegal immigrants and at what cost...how would you pay for it?

etc etc etc...

I see no harm in giving them the questions upfront, as long as the questions and topics are designed to get some DETAILS from the candidates.

 

[TNHarley]

With all the whining and crying from the Republican Presidential candidates about getting tough questions from the media, how long will it be before they are demanding the debate questions are given to them in advance so that they can prepare and manipulate their answers? Some are already suggesting they should have hand picked moderators. That would be the same thing. Soft ball questions, advance knowledge of the questions and answers prepared by their consultants and PR staffs.

Speaking of all that whining...

 

[easyt65]

SIDEBAR:
Sorry, an earlier, IGNORANT LIBERAL COMMENT has forced me to post this....

I keep hearing Liberals bitching and moaning about INFRASTRUCTURE and how REPUBLICANS, who just took over LESS than a year ago haven't done anything about it.

Liberal Progressive Democrats took over Congress - 3 seats shy of a Super Majority in the House and Senate - and thus controlled the budget...the federal government's purse strings...SPENDING...the last 2 years of Bush's time in office.!

They were SO concerned with our collapsing INFRASTRUCTURE that they got together and passed... the FAILED nearly $1 (ONE) TRILLION Stimulus Bill, which contained OVER 7000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) pieces of DNC-ONLY SELF / PARTY-serving PORK, did NOT contain money for 'shovel-ready' projects because, as Obama had to admit, there was no such thing.

INSTEAD of money for improving our infrastructure they spent money on"
- A study to help alcoholic Chinese prostitutes learn how to drink more responsibly on duty
- A study to see if a gay Argentinian male had a better sex life than a straight American male (This had 'barney Frank...or Obama...written all over it)
- A PERSONAL LOAN (still not paid back) to Barbara Boxer's husband to get his personal business out of bankruptcy
- BILLIONS for big Obama donors who had invested heavily in 13 'Green Energy' companies that went bankrupt (Couldn't have them lose all that investment money now, could we? I don't remember the govt giving Americans billions when the stock market crashed and they lost THEIR money...)

No, 'Infrastructure' must have slipped their minds at the time. They still had 3 years to spend money on that, right? You would think, after learning that Obama/Democrats added $7 TRILLION in new debt in 4 years that SURELY some of that had to go to 'INFRASTRUCTURE', right? NO!

Obama and the Democrats rammed a minority-supported piece of legislation into law against the will of a majority of Americans who opposed it - the ACA - and in doing so cut $500 million (?) from Medicare, ADDED $1.4 TRILLION in new debt over 10 years, and got tax payers BILLIONS for a web site that doesn't work yet and is so plagued with scam artists and hackers no one in their right mind would use it.... Yet not a DIME in that legislation went to 'Infrastructure'....

So to all my 'esteemed' Liberal peers and posters out there who have ever demonized the GOP for not addressing our 'infrastructure', or who has ever even considered doing so....after Democrats / Obama added nearly $7 TRILLION in new debt and running Congress for 4 years with 3 votes shy of a Super Majority Control of Congress - 2 of those years having a Liberal President - yet never once giving a crap enough to do anything about our infrastructure during all that time...

STFU ABOUT THIS NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE! If you would really have cared about it you would have done something about it when you hade the chance.

 

[BluesLegend]

These are our debates we can do whatever we want, you don't have a say in the matter libs sorry. The level of bias is clear off the scale on how the liberal moderators are treating Dem vs Rep candidates, its absurdly obvious so we are taking over and telling them to eat it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Uh no. Then you're just reciting a prepared answer.

Bias Liberal Moderator# 2,718,217: What's your favorite color....

Republican Candidate #1 : Blue

Bias Liberal Moderator# 2,718,217: Candidate 1, that's funny because Candidate #7 says they like Red, what do you think about Candidate #7 hating Blue but liking Red????!?!!?!!??!?!?!?!?!!!!!?!.....

Republican Candidate #1 : These questions are meant to cause fights and are unimportant to the American people....

Bias Liberal Media: Stop whining and answer the totally legit question!!!!