|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 04 2015 05:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:35 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On November 04 2015 05:27 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2015 05:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A follow up point to this shameful RNC/Republican debate episode: compare (1) Hillary's 11 hour bravura performance before the most deceitful partisan attacks the Republican congress could produce with (2) the sad cry-babying of Ted Cruz when someone asked him about why he opposed the bipartisan budget compromise. Hillary is ready to president if she can hold her own against that many lies. Cruz is ready for talk radio, where no one asks you questions. Its not like Hillary could have told the Benghazi committee to fuck off and stay home for tea and biscuits tho. Nor was it in her interest to shine a light on how badly it went. The media did that perfectly fine on their own. I believe if the Democrats had been on stage during the CNBC debate they would have complained about the questions aswell. Does your imagination of what the Democrats might have done justify what the Republicans actually did? Hillary actually did handle partisan questioning for 11 hours. The Republican candidates broke down and started complaining 1 question in. The obvious thing that is going on here is that this was a planned talking point by the various campaigns. Cruz got a substantive question about the debt limit deal, and he then immediately riffed on a standard anti-media talking point that the Republican primary electorate wanted to hear. Cruz was playing to the crowd and Republicans by attacking the media, substance of the question be damned. Check the transcript (bolded for emphasis): QUINTANILLA: Senator Cruz. 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 that fear of -- another Washington-created crisis is on the way.
Does your opposition to it show that you're not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?CRUZ: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. (APPLAUSE) This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?" How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?
(APPLAUSE) QUINTANILLA: (inaudible) do we get credit (inaudible)? CRUZ: And Carl -- Carl, I'm not finished yet. CRUZ: The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, "Which of you is more handsome and why?" (LAUGHTER) And let me be clear. (CROSSTALK) QUINTANILLA: So, this is a question about (inaudible), which you have 30 seconds left to answer, should you choose to do so. CRUZ: Let me be clear. The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. (LAUGHTER) And nobody watching at home believed that any of the moderators had any intention of voting in a Republican primary. The questions that are being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other. It should be what are your substantive positions... (CROSSTALK) QUINTANILLA: OK. (inaudible) I asked you about the debt limit and I got no answer.(CROSSTALK) CRUZ: You want me to answer that question? I'm happy to answer the question... (CROSSTALK) CRUZ: Let me tell you how that question... (CROSSTALK) CRUZ: Let me tell you how that question... (CROSSTALK) HARWOOD: Senator Paul, I've got a question for you on the same subject. CRUZ: ... so you don't actually want to hear the answer, John? HARWOOD: Senator Paul? CRUZ: You don't want to hear the answer. You just want to... (CROSSTALK) HARWOOD: You used your time on something else.Senator Paul? CRUZ: You're not interested in an answer. (CROSSTALK) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/28/the-third-republican-debate-annotating-the-transcript/ LMAO. That's not a question - that's an all ready formulated and synthesized conclusion, with a lead-in that begs the question. The whole point of that is not to ask a "substantive" question, that would lead to a better understanding of...anything really, but someone whose agenda (E.g. more Government spending and debt = good! (by virtue of their conclusion that said spending and debt is good for the economy, and any cessation would be a "crisis")), is being paraded about as non-biased and/or impartial to any extent is LAUGHABLE. Doesn't matter anyways - this forum is an echo chamber for this kind of partisanry and ideological stuff. Anyone not tied hand and fist to the DNC or to the little Red Book would find this "question" as far from a "substantive" question as it gets.
The majority of the country was against the shut down on the debt limit and the majority of the country still disapproves of it. There is a good answer to the question about doing things the majority of the country is against, which is statesmanship. Truman did things that the country disapproved of. So did Washington and Adams during their time.
But Cruz couldn’t see that answer. He was to busy being offended by the fact that someone would question his decision to shut down the government using the debt ceiling, which has been heavily criticized by people in his own party. And throwing a fit on stage to please the crowd who didn't like the wording of the question.
But Obama is right, China and Russia are going to frame the questions any way they want.
|
On November 04 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:
That entire exchange by Cruz is embarrassing to read. If you want to shut down the government, at least answer the questions of people who think its a bad idea.
It was an embarrassingly phrased question after a night of truly abominable moderating. Cruz had plenty of ground to stand on.
|
[/QUOTE]
LMAO. That's not a question - that's an all ready formulated and synthesized conclusion, with a lead-in that begs the question. The whole point of that is not to ask a "substantive" question, that would lead to a better understanding of...anything really, but someone whose agenda (E.g. more Government spending and debt = good! (by virtue of their conclusion that said spending and debt is good for the economy, and any cessation would be a "crisis")), is being paraded about as non-biased and/or impartial to any extent is LAUGHABLE.
Doesn't matter anyways - this forum is an echo chamber for this kind of partisanry and ideological stuff. Anyone not tied hand and fist to the DNC or to the little Red Book would find this "question" as far from a "substantive" question as it gets.[/QUOTE]
It is called a leading question, commonly used in cross examination of witnesses. These kinds of questions sound rude, but they are used in courtrooms to force witnesses to address inconsistencies in their testimony and/or to bring out counter points to what witnesses say. It gives the questioner a chance to get some premises in before asking the real point of the question. You have heard these questions before in the Law and Order series.
It is a little rude, but the way to respond is to challenge the premises inserted in the question. Cruz could have said "no, the debt limit compromise is a bad idea, here is why: (insert substantive challenges to premises in leading question)". Cruz instead focused on the questioner without ever actually dumping out his (substantive reasons) for opposing the debt limit deal.
Moreover, every president ever has had to face leading questions from the press. See, every last press conference by every president ever.
|
On November 04 2015 05:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:
That entire exchange by Cruz is embarrassing to read. If you want to shut down the government, at least answer the questions of people who think its a bad idea. It was an embarrassingly phrased question after a night of truly abominable moderating. Cruz had plenty of ground to stand on.
Its a question the other other part of the country that isn't Cruz's base is asking. It is pretty leaning, but being President is a hard job and people ask mean questions. Throwing a fit on stage and going for some cheap laughs is good in the moment, but doesn't really prove you are qualified for the job.
And Cruz never addressed the debt limit or his plan in any way. And Cannons is right, that as an attorney, Cruz should not be to grumpy about a leading question.
|
If that was the case then why when Cruz knew McConnell didn't have the votes to get the govt funding not get on the floor and explain the grounds for his shut down. Instead he ran out the doors and waited for reporters to rush around him so he could blame the government while the votes were still being tallied. He's a horse's ass and takes advantage of the rubes in his district.
|
On November 04 2015 05:45 Wegandi wrote:
Doesn't matter anyways - this forum is an echo chamber for this kind of partisanry and ideological stuff. Anyone not tied hand and fist to the DNC or to the little Red Book would find this "question" as far from a "substantive" question as it gets.
Right, because during the debate this thread was not full of people commenting on how bad/ridiculous the questions were.
Come on man.
|
On November 04 2015 05:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:
That entire exchange by Cruz is embarrassing to read. If you want to shut down the government, at least answer the questions of people who think its a bad idea. It was an embarrassingly phrased question after a night of truly abominable moderating. Cruz had plenty of ground to stand on.
Makes one wonder if they have seen Russia/China in the UN. CNBC is a cakewalk compared to the rhetoric used internationally to frame questions or comments.
If they can't take the heat they should stay out of the kitchen. To beat the metaphor into the ground, their complaints about CNBC amounts to sitting in the living room complaining about how incapable they are to stand the pungent mushrooms from the kitchen, while simultaneously claiming if they were in the kitchen, they'd be the next Chef Ramsey.
It's an absurd position to hold.
|
On November 04 2015 05:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If that was the case then why when Cruz knew McConnell didn't have the votes to get the govt funding not get on the floor and explain the grounds for his shut down. Instead he ran out the doors and waited for reporters to rush around him so he could blame the government while the votes were still being tallied. He's a horse's ass and takes advantage of the rubes in his district.
Heck in a meeting with Republican leadership during the shutdown he was asked what his plan was now that the shutdown was going on and he had nothing.
The guy has no regard for anything but himself.
|
Reminds me, I often felt that congresspeople needed to be cross-examined more. To make sure their ideas hold up to scrutiny better.
When "debating" on the floor of the house/senate, they often talk past each other, even when they specifically ask each other questions. I think it'd be good if they had some requirement to actually answer the questions they ask of each other.
|
Obviously Cruz is a scumbag. I'm only saying that it's hypocritical to criticize his embarrassing lack of answers when he and everyone else on stage were being asked embarrassing questions.
|
On November 04 2015 06:05 zlefin wrote:
Reminds me, I often felt that congresspeople needed to be cross-examined more. To make sure their ideas hold up to scrutiny better.
When "debating" on the floor of the house/senate, they often talk past each other, even when they specifically ask each other questions. I think it'd be good if they had some requirement to actually answer the questions they ask of each other.
That is hard to do on congress because they would need a neutral party to do it. It didn't used to be like that, but then cameras were invested and put inside. The eroding of debate in the house and senate has been slow. Personally, I would rather it be like the house of lords and people just swearing at each other. Just cut out the BS and get right in there.
On November 04 2015 06:09 IgnE wrote:
Obviously Cruz is a scumbag. I'm only saying that it's hypocritical to criticize his embarrassing lack of answers when he and everyone else on stage were being asked embarrassing questions.
Cruz made his mark on congress with the debt limit, he should have jumped at the chance to explain why he thought it was best for America. Regardless of the terrible question, I would expect anyone running for president to jump at the chance to explain their past plans were great. But his pride got in the way.
|
On November 04 2015 05:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:
That entire exchange by Cruz is embarrassing to read. If you want to shut down the government, at least answer the questions of people who think its a bad idea. It was an embarrassingly phrased question after a night of truly abominable moderating. Cruz had plenty of ground to stand on. Hear hear. Respect for hating the candidate (and all he stands for), but still calling a spade a spade.
|
On November 04 2015 06:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 06:05 zlefin wrote:
Reminds me, I often felt that congresspeople needed to be cross-examined more. To make sure their ideas hold up to scrutiny better.
When "debating" on the floor of the house/senate, they often talk past each other, even when they specifically ask each other questions. I think it'd be good if they had some requirement to actually answer the questions they ask of each other. That is hard to do on congress because they would need a neutral party to do it. It didn't used to be like that, but then cameras were invested and put inside. The eroding of debate in the house and senate has been slow. Personally, I would rather it be like the house of lords and people just swearing at each other. Just cut out the BS and get right in there. Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 06:09 IgnE wrote:
Obviously Cruz is a scumbag. I'm only saying that it's hypocritical to criticize his embarrassing lack of answers when he and everyone else on stage were being asked embarrassing questions. Cruz made his mark on congress with the debt limit, he should have jumped at the chance to explain why he thought it was best for America. Regardless of the terrible question, I would expect anyone running for president to jump at the chance to explain their past plans were great. But his pride got in the way.
Given the history of judges in this country, who have the job of doing that neutral oversight for cross-examination, it shoudln't be that hard to get someone to do it. If nothing else, you already have hundreds of federal judges who were already (sorta) selected to be able to do that.
|
On November 04 2015 06:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 06:09 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2015 06:05 zlefin wrote:
Reminds me, I often felt that congresspeople needed to be cross-examined more. To make sure their ideas hold up to scrutiny better.
When "debating" on the floor of the house/senate, they often talk past each other, even when they specifically ask each other questions. I think it'd be good if they had some requirement to actually answer the questions they ask of each other. That is hard to do on congress because they would need a neutral party to do it. It didn't used to be like that, but then cameras were invested and put inside. The eroding of debate in the house and senate has been slow. Personally, I would rather it be like the house of lords and people just swearing at each other. Just cut out the BS and get right in there. On November 04 2015 06:09 IgnE wrote:
Obviously Cruz is a scumbag. I'm only saying that it's hypocritical to criticize his embarrassing lack of answers when he and everyone else on stage were being asked embarrassing questions. Cruz made his mark on congress with the debt limit, he should have jumped at the chance to explain why he thought it was best for America. Regardless of the terrible question, I would expect anyone running for president to jump at the chance to explain their past plans were great. But his pride got in the way. Given the history of judges in this country, who have the job of doing that neutral oversight for cross-examination, it shoudln't be that hard to get someone to do it. If nothing else, you already have hundreds of federal judges who were already (sorta) selected to be able to do that.
As someone who works in the legal field, judges are not as neutral as you think. But the real question is what do they do of the congressman/woman doesn't answer? What would they be empowered to do?
|
On November 04 2015 06:09 IgnE wrote:
Obviously Cruz is a scumbag. I'm only saying that it's hypocritical to criticize his embarrassing lack of answers when he and everyone else on stage were being asked embarrassing questions.
Then it's a good thing that we're going to vote on the moderators in the primaries and not the candidates. Oh wait, I think that's backwards.
Yeah, the questions were crap. Just read this thread during the debate and you'll hear it repeatedly. However, if someone wants to be president, they should be able to rise above the crap. They should know how to deal with leading questions and put a positive spin on it rather than attack the questioner.
Cruz could have gone on a speech about how "he fought against ever increasing debt that will eventually bankrupt this country and crush our economy. And that if it ruffled some feathers and pissed off the establishment, then he was okay with that because he has been fighting that fight for the American people for years."
There was an opportunity there to rail against the establishment candidates while also point out that he was leading the fight against establishment politics, not Trump or Carson.
I don't personally agree with his position and I think the debt limit is the wrong way to fight that fight; however, he had an easy opening to differentiate himself from his opponents, but instead dove right into the muck and went after the moderators for their crappy questions.
Rise above the crap or dive right in and start flinging it too. He made his choice.
|
I don't think judges are that neutral, but they do a better job than congress.
As to what they'd do, it'd take a lot of thought to settle on something proper; my starting point would be to have similar consequences as would be used in a court proceeding if a witness refused to testify (without an appropriate reason).
|
The Keystone XL pipeline project is not officially dead, but that hasn’t stopped environmental groups from dancing on its grave. TransCanada, the corporation behind the project, asked the Obama administration on Monday to delay a final decision on whether the controversial pipeline extension plan could proceed — a move that opponents of the project have described as an act of desperation.
“Clearly TransCanada has lost, and they recognize that,” said Bill McKibben, founder of the anti-Keystone group 350.org, in a Tuesday statement. “It’s one of the great victories for this movement in decades. In defeat, TransCanada is asking for extra time from the referees, and clearly hoping they’ll get a new head official after the election.”
The formal approval process has dragged on for years, in part thanks to the environmental movement’s staunch opposition to the project. Activists have turned the Keystone XL pipeline extension, which would be able to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the United States daily, into a symbol for the entire fossil fuel industry. They have demanded that the White House reject the project as a sign of its commitment to climate change mitigation.
President Obama has yet to make a ruling on the pipeline, but his administration has indicated that he will make a formal decision before he leaves office in 2016. Climate activists said they believe TransCanada is trying to stall until the decision rests with Obama’s successor because the current administration is likely to reject the project.
Any of the Republican presidential candidates, if elected, would likely approve Keystone XL. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has said she opposes the project.
Source
|
On November 04 2015 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:53 IgnE wrote:On November 04 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:
That entire exchange by Cruz is embarrassing to read. If you want to shut down the government, at least answer the questions of people who think its a bad idea. It was an embarrassingly phrased question after a night of truly abominable moderating. Cruz had plenty of ground to stand on. Hear hear. Respect for hating the candidate (and all he stands for), but still calling a spade a spade.
Don't remember if I explicitly stated it anywhere but even I know the questions were crappy. The point that the reaction was piss poor stands on it's own though.
Questions for those planning on voting Republican:
In your view would Hillary be a better or worse president than Obama? Why?
In your view would Bernie be a better or worse president than Obama? Why?
|
On November 04 2015 03:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 02:57 kwizach wrote:On November 04 2015 02:27 IgnE wrote:On November 04 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On November 04 2015 02:03 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2015 19:32 kwizach wrote:On November 03 2015 12:54 IgnE wrote:
I think more people have heard of Lessig than Chafee. [...] Chafee is just a clown. Chafee was a U.S. senator for eight years and the governor of a U.S. state (Rhode Island) from 2011 to 2015. He also managed to qualify for the first debate, something Lessig could not do, so clearly less people had heard of Lessig than Chafee. I'm going to put my KwarK hat on here and point out that it's logically possible for more people to have heard of Lessig than Chafee. Just fewer people might have wanted him to be the Democratic candidate. Of course it's possible. It's also possible every single citizen in the U.S. secretly wanted Lessig to be both the Democratic candidate and the next president of the U.S., but decided to answer something else when polled. Or perhaps we could accept what's more probable, namely that this wasn't the case and that more people had heard of Chafee. More people outside of Rhode Island have heard of Lessig. Had you heard of Chafee before this year? Rhode Island is part of the U.S., last time I checked. I had heard of neither candidate. Why is this important to you again? Shouldn't this be about Lessig's message on campaign finances instead of about how his popularity measures up to Chafee's? The point is that Lessig was trying to qualify under rules that had previously been set out and now the rules have been changed to permanently exclude him. If he reached 5% in the polls tomorrow he wouldn't be on stage. And in response to the Hillary Machine's shameless attack on democracy people like you are saying "well he doesn't even qualify under the new rules so he doesn't deserve to be up there." Like what?
I did not condone the changing of the rules by the DNC. What I did was react to your claim that more people knew of Lessig than Chafee. It's unsubstantiated and the available evidence appears to contradict that claim.
|
Matt Bevin wins Kentucky Gov. race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
