Third Republican Debate

I'm not getting the GOP vibe from you, but I do find it interesting that people found the GOP debate questions to be more attacking than the Democratic one. I found both to be very attacking. The only difference was that during the GOP debate the candidates went after the moderators more and eventually gained crowd support.


Here are some of the questions I took a minute to randomly paste from the Democratic debate:

Opening Question:

Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency. You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended
President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
Will you say anything to get elected?


*Hilary pours out [Politician Answer #523-A]

Cooper follows up:



Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. Just in July, New Hampshire, you told the crowd you'd, quote, "take a back seat to no one when it comes to progressive values." Last month in Ohio, you said you plead guilty to, quote, "being kind of moderate and center." Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?


*Hilary pours out [Politican Answer #321/Alpha4]

Cooper moves on to Sanders:

Senator Sanders. A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?


*Sanders explains his take on Democratic Socialism


Cooper follows up:

Denmark is a country that has a population -- Denmark is a country that has a population of 5.6 million people. The question is really about electability here, and that's what I'm trying to get at. You-- the -- the Republican attack ad against you in a general election --it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist. Doesn't -- doesn't that ad write itself?






These were just the opening questions. The tone would be kept throughout the evening. The Democrats also complained about "bad questions" when it came to Hildo's e-mail scandal.

While I have no problem seeing that the moderators went after the candidates, I don't see how one side was better or worse in that regard.

 

On a related note:

What is it with these people "Not liking" the questions. It's a debate, not your party's national convention where you just get a platform to rile up an already ultra partisan crowd. You WILL get attacked here. Your job is to talk your way out of it effectively and accurately. If you can't, it's called you got stumped on national television and they managed to make you look like the dick politician you are.

These people are complaining about the moderators, yet if you took away the moderators and just let them debate each other, two things would happen:


1. No one would be able to talk without being talked over by everyone else, so we can't do that anyway.
2. The rare moments they would get to talk, they would either simply blab their talking point(S) and/or use the time to attack each other worse than moderators do.

Damn the day when these people get to openly complain about the kind of questions they are being asked and thus have the questions altered to suit THEM better. Maybe if you weren't a shady cunt 75% of the time when the cameras aren't on, you wouldn't have so much shit to be called out on.

 

In post #21, I've pasted the opening two questions that were launched at the Dems. Very in your your face on the attack. There are several others just like that for anyone who cares to read the debate transcript. There is no bias towards the Republicans in terms of debates. There has only been more bitching about the questions than there has been during the Democratic debate >>which also featured bitching about it<<, just not as much.


It should also be pointed out that the Republican debates have almost twice as many people on stage. As such, moderators keep questions flying and there is more talking over each other as well as more personal attacks, simply because you have twice as many people involved.






People are ripping into Sanders' plan like the right is offering amazing counter proposals. Everyone seems quick to agree the Reps were attacked by the mean moderators more, while forgetting the fact that they shredded each other's economic plans just fine on their own. Carson is the current front runner in some polls and they wrecked his plan. Trump was called out on his on several occasions.


This is reminiscent of Obamacare hate. Let's point out everything that does not work, while offering zero viable counter solutions. This is why Reps lost in '12 and this is why they will lose in '16, to most likely Hilary Clinton. Last time they at least had a Mitt Romney to fall back on. This year the "best" you got is what....Jeb Bush?


Whether you are left or right, one thing is very apparent: The left candidates respect each other more during debates, attack each other less, and most importantly, have the support of their constituency more. The right hates its candidates, which is why a Donald Trump can lead polls for months and have the giant presence on the GOP's political stage, while mocking everything about the party and everyone else on the stage with him.