CNN/Youtube Republican Debate Options

[blaarg]

So I watched the Republican debate last night and then came home and checked the drudge and there is a big hoopla how a couple of questions taken were from *gasp* democratic supporters...

Here's the link:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/diggi...ards-supporter/

Personally I felt that the abortion and the don't-ask-don't-tell questions were one of the top five questions asked...I don't see why it is a big deal if they support the other party. These were important issues which needed to be addressed, and it just so happened that the ones addressing them were democrats....

I thought the purpose of debates was to give the ENTIRE American public (regardless of party affiliation) the ability to see what the candidates stand for...that was why I (a democrat) was watching it in the first place...so why can't the ENTIRE American public ask them questions?

[Spectatrix]

Goddamn they're retarded...

But if you click through on her YouTube profile, you see her latest video in response to the candidates’ answers. And she’s prominently wearing…her John Edwards ‘08 t-shirt:

How, you ask, should CNN have known? Well, on her YouTube profile, this woman links to her personal blog, where her user profile makes her political leanings crystal clear:

Because, ya know, the staffers at CNN have the time to examine the profiles of every one of the thousands of people they got questions from...

In any case, I agree with you. Both parties should expect questions from members of the other party. If they can't handle that, how can they expect to do well in the general election?

[Oasis]

What an ugly ass bitch.

What the hell is she doing asking questions? She looks like she's 12

[Billy]

So her not being attractive in your opinion has what to do with what?

[Dogmeat]

The purpose of the republican debates were to find out which canidates were closet homosexuals.

[Hartmann]

So I watched the Republican debate last night and then came home and checked the drudge and there is a big hoopla how a couple of questions taken were from *gasp* democratic supporters...

Here's the link:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/diggi...ards-supporter/

Personally I felt that the abortion and the don't-ask-don't-tell questions were one of the top five questions asked...I don't see why it is a big deal if they support the other party. These were important issues which needed to be addressed, and it just so happened that the ones addressing them were democrats....

I thought the purpose of debates was to give the ENTIRE American public (regardless of party affiliation) the ability to see what the candidates stand for...that was why I (a democrat) was watching it in the first place...so why can't the ENTIRE American public ask them questions?

Well, that proves how much you read...

The "hoopla" isn't about the fact that they were democrats, it was the fact that CNN touted these people were "undecided" voters but come to find out, they're hardcore supporters of different candidates.

[chook]

When I watched the democratic debates, i didn't see any universally denounced view points, like pro gun advocacy, questions.

[blaarg]

Well, that proves how much you read...

The "hoopla" isn't about the fact that they were democrats, it was the fact that CNN touted these people were "undecided" voters but come to find out, they're hardcore supporters of different candidates.

That is ridiculous. These people were specifically targeted because they were democrats asking questions in a republican debate. I am sure some of the republicans asking questions in the republican debate were not undecided as well, and you don't hear any hoopla surrounding this... these people were specifically targeted because they were democrats.

Regardless, there shouldn't be any "hoopla" to begin with. So what if they were undecided/decided or democratic/republican...they asked questions which needed to be answered.

[Oasis]

So her not being attractive in your opinion has what to do with what?

Has a bit more to do with the fact she can't get in to a PG-13 movie.

[woody]

That is ridiculous. These people were specifically targeted because they were democrats asking questions in a republican debate. I am sure some of the republicans asking questions in the republican debate were not undecided as well, and you don't hear any hoopla surrounding this... these people were specifically targeted because they were democrats.

Regardless, there shouldn't be any "hoopla" to begin with. So what if they were undecided/decided or democratic/republican...they asked questions which needed to be answered.

that's all fine and dandy, just don't say that the people asking the questions are undecided voters.

[Spectatrix]

I admittedly didn't watch the debate while it was going on, but the clips I've seen haven't said anything about the questioners being undecided voters or having political leanings. Am I missing something?

[pebkac]

that's all fine and dandy, just don't say that the people asking the questions are undecided voters.

Why? I mean, the question is still the same if it was asked by a democrat or an undecided voter.

[impala454]

Pretty cool debate. I like the youtube format. Was nice to see tough questions being asked.

[Hartmann]

Pretty cool debate. I like the youtube format. Was nice to see tough questions being asked.

What tough questions?

I am waiting for the next installation, Dancing With the Candidates: Politics 2008.


And could it be the end of the universe? I have been reading through Ron Paul's stance on issues and I actually agree with him on a lot of stuff, well, besides him being a quack with all of the conspiracy theories. Me and Lance voting for the same candidate? Look for the Apocalypse near you November 4th.

[Mommy]

haha yup

[blaarg]

I am waiting for the next installation, Dancing With the Candidates: Politics 2008.
And could it be the end of the universe? I have been reading through Ron Paul's stance on issues and I actually agree with him on a lot of stuff, well, besides him being a quack with all of the conspiracy theories. Me and Lance voting for the same candidate? Look for the Apocalypse near you November 4th.

What conspiracy theories... the only one I know is the formation of the North American Union which you can take some evidence that we are moving towards it (which Ron Paul pointed out at the debate). Anyways, Paul used that point to say that we should protect American sovereignty, which I think everyone should agree on....

[impala454]

What tough questions?

I don't recall all of em, but a couple memorable ones were:

1. To Ron Paul: "Since we all know you're not going to win the Republican nomination, how will you use this race & publicity to get yourself into a better position to make a difference in this country?"

2. To all candidates: "Do you own any guns, how many, and what models?"

3. A gay, decorated, retired general who did not come out until after he retired (in person) asked all candidates: "Why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"

4. All candidates: "Would Jesus support the death penalty?"

5. Guy holding a Bible up, All candidates: "Do you believe every word of this book?"

Definitely more interesting questions than the typical ho hum boring questions that get asked at these things. There was apparently some pretty heated debate on immigration at the beginning but I missed it.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul in the debate. The guy really is a quack living in his own little world. When he started going off about how he thinks we should remove every military installation all over the world and bring home every American soldier not on our soil, he showed me he's not the man to lead our country.

[impala454]

Oh and Mitt Romney showed he's as much of a flip flopper as Hilary... he's scratched off my list too. I was actually fairly impressed with McCain and of course my current vote getter Fred.

[TetraGrammaton C...]

i think the ron paul question you mentioned was a tough one.

the jesus/death penalty question (although pointing out a hypocrisy among conservative ideals) merely made the candidates choose between judicial forgiveness and intolerance. it was one of the better questions.

the rest of the questions seem pretty stock, as if to simply ask the candidates to elaborate on standard conservative stances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9AlzH2IYns...feature=related
they showed this video randomly in a promo for the debate. its forced sympathy may not be totally appropriate, but it does shift the responses from supporting standard party criteria to detailing why the candidates may be opposed to more "liberal" ideas.
i think that a balanced approach of both types of questions would best aid undecided voters.

[Hartmann]

What conspiracy theories... the only one I know is the formation of the North American Union which you can take some evidence that we are moving towards it (which Ron Paul pointed out at the debate). Anyways, Paul used that point to say that we should protect American sovereignty, which I think everyone should agree on....

He also believes 9/11 was an inside job.

[Mommy]

I don't recall all of em, but a couple memorable ones were:

1. To Ron Paul: "Since we all know you're not going to win the Republican nomination, how will you use this race & publicity to get yourself into a better position to make a difference in this country?"

2. To all candidates: "Do you own any guns, how many, and what models?"

3. A gay, decorated, retired general who did not come out until after he retired (in person) asked all candidates: "Why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"

4. All candidates: "Would Jesus support the death penalty?"

5. Guy holding a Bible up, All candidates: "Do you believe every word of this book?"

Definitely more interesting questions than the typical ho hum boring questions that get asked at these things. There was apparently some pretty heated debate on immigration at the beginning but I missed it.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul in the debate. The guy really is a quack living in his own little world. When he started going off about how he thinks we should remove every military installation all over the world and bring home every American soldier not on our soil, he showed me he's not the man to lead our country.

I think those questions are pretty childish, actually.

[blaarg]

He also believes 9/11 was an inside job.

I am going to need sources for this because I really don't think that is accurate.
I mean he brings up the 9/11 commission report to show that our foreign policy in the middle east is the major factor on our being attacked on 9/11 (he mentions this in almost every debate), never once citing that it was an inside job...

For one if this WAS the case and he believed that it was an inside job, they would have mentioned it more prevalently in the media and probably asked him about it during the debate. I just think your statement is flat out false...

[Spectatrix]

I am going to need sources for this because I really don't think that is accurate.
I mean he brings up the 9/11 commission report to show that our foreign policy in the middle east is the major factor on our being attacked on 9/11 (he mentions this in almost every debate), never once citing that it was an inside job...

For one if this WAS the case and he believed that it was an inside job, they would have mentioned it more prevalently in the media and probably asked him about it during the debate. I just think your statement is flat out false...

No, he doesn't think that 9/11 was an inside job. Found a clip of an interview where he says he absolutely does not believe that: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=519_1185293237

That having been said, many Ron Paul supporters DO believe that.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Dec 3 2007, 01:10 PM

[impala454]

I think those questions are pretty childish, actually.

What's childish about them? I thought it was a great way to ask them. You definitely find out more about the person from questions like that rather than the same old "How are you going to fix healthcare (as if it was broken every friggin election)?" followed by the same old boring answers.

[Hartmann]

No, he doesn't think that 9/11 was an inside job. Found a clip of an interview where he says he absolutely does not believe that: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=519_1185293237

Thanks! Actually makes me like him a little more.

[Mommy]

What's childish about them? I thought it was a great way to ask them. You definitely find out more about the person from questions like that rather than the same old "How are you going to fix healthcare (as if it was broken every friggin election)?" followed by the same old boring answers.

how does asking a candidate if they believe every word of the Bible help us gain any knowledge as to whether they are going to be a good leader for our country? After I posted that it was stupid, I read an article in the newspaper from a columnist who thought it was just as ridiculous.

[impala454]

how does asking a candidate if they believe every word of the Bible help us gain any knowledge as to whether they are going to be a good leader for our country?

It's an important core belief of the vast majority of the Republican voters, so I think that makes it a pretty relevant question.

[Mommy]

So you are saying if you are a Republican, you are a Christian? That's kinda odd. I know a lot of people who vote Republican for fiscal reasons, instead of moral reasons.

[blaarg]

I thought the questions were great (what would Jesus do being tops).
However, I thought the beginning with about 1/2 hour to immigration where every candidate basically agreed with each other was stupid.

There was an interesting article that I liked that talked about what Jessica is talking about:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et...=la-home-center

And the author of the article is every bit right about how issues like Iraq and the economy were sort of slighted in the debate...other than that, I thought the format/questions were really good, I only wish it was longer to cover more issues...

[Oasis]

I thought the questions were great (what would Jesus do being tops).

Whoever gave the answer "Jesus would have been too intelligent to get in to politics" has my vote. Huckabee, maybe.

[blaarg]

So you are saying if you are a Republican, you are a Christian? That's kinda odd. I know a lot of people who vote Republican for fiscal reasons, instead of moral reasons.

That is why he said a "vast majority" of Republican voters are Christian (not "all" as you are inferring)...
A agree with Impala, if you are an average Republican it is relevant (hell even if you are average democrat considering 80% of the united states are christians)...

like I said, I thought the questions were relevant/great, I just wish it was longer to tackle more issues...

[impala454]

So you are saying if you are a Republican, you are a Christian? That's kinda odd. I know a lot of people who vote Republican for fiscal reasons, instead of moral reasons.

No I'm not saying if you're a Repulican you're Christian. All I'm saying is the question was relevant. People want to know about the candidates. We are, after all, choosing someone to represent us. Giving more pointed questions like the Jesus question or the "What guns do you own?" question say a lot more, and are a lot more interesting IMHO. Someone who has an arsenal and enjoys shooting is more likely to support gun owner's interests than someone who just says "Yeah I support gun rights". Someone who is willing to say they believe the Bible is the word of God is more likely to share the same moral convictions of religious voters than someone who answers an easier question (some typical debate question like "Are you religious?").

edit: blah... blaarq beat me to it ah well.

[Mommy]

I just think it's dumb. Seperation of church and state. If we care whether or not candidates read the Bible (since 80% of us are Christians accoring to someone who posted above me) then wouldn't 80% of us also want the 10 Commandments posted in courtrooms. I don't know. I consider myself Christian, and I want prayer back in schools, to maintain the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience, the 10 Commandments in courtrooms, etc. Truth of the matter is, we live in a society, though, that seperates the two. What does it matter if a candidate reads the Bible?

Shouldn't we rather ask, "what are your personal morals?" If a candidate then choses to say they draw their morals from the Bible, that is ok. To judge a candidate based on their religious affiliation is ignorant in my opinion (unless it's Mitt Romney...fuck the Mormons...I don'tknow if I'm kidding or not).

What should matter is how they are going to fix our healthcare crisis, our subpar education system with federal standards, find a resolution to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the growing concern with Iran. Those are the issues that matter. Yes, they are brought up in every debate of every election, but it is because we so desperately need these problems solved.

Maybe a lot of you don't realize the healthcare crisis because you either work full-time or you are covered under your parents, but it sucks. I'm in school, and my parents don't have me under their insurance, so that means no healthcare for me unless I want to pay insane monthly payments on a independent health insurance plan or I pay out of pocket for every office visit, etc. I like how Hillary is approaching this crisis. I may not like her other stances, but I really think she could make a difference here. That's why I often consider voting for her, if I do vote. Please don't reply a billion times with why you hate Hillary. I don't care, and that's not the point of my post.

[FORSAKENR320]

cliff notes plz

[Mommy]

paging Christine to moderate Brandon's comment

[impala454]

Jessica, is it so difficult to say that someone would want to know that a person they're voting on to represent their interests, shares the same moral background? It's not friggin separation of church & state. It's just what you think of the guy as a person.

[Mommy]

does religion define a person?

[blaarg]

Jessica, is it so difficult to say that someone would want to know that a person they're voting on to represent their interests, shares the same moral background? It's not friggin separation of church & state. It's just what you think of the guy as a person.

wrd.
I think we talked about this in the Huckabee thread whether questions concerning personal beliefs are relevant (in that case it was Huckabee not believing in evolution)...

So Jessica, if the candidate was a Satanist you wouldn't find that relevant?

[Mommy]

wrd.
I think we talked about this in the Huckabee thread whether questions concerning personal beliefs are relevant (in that case it was Huckabee not believing in evolution)...

So Jessica, if the candidate was a Satanist you wouldn't find that relevant?

no as long as they had a similar set of morals as me

[Spectatrix]

A guy doesn't have to be a Christian to have a good set of morals. Moreover, a proclaimed Christian can also be corrupt as fuck.

I'm an atheist (well, atheist agnostic). Does that mean I'll only vote for an atheist? No (not that I have much choice if I want to vote at all). But I won't vote for someone who uses religion alone as a basis for legislation. If they're inspired by their religion, great, that's all fine and dandy... but make your political decisions relevant to the rest of us too.

But that's just me. I know others don't agree.

[impala454]

For cryin out loud, I'm not voting for a particular candidate solely because of their religion, or saying any of you should. I just felt that a pointed religious question to the Republican candidates was relevant and interesting.

[Spectatrix]

Oh I have no problem with the Bible question. I agree that it's relevant and interesting, though I'd probably be looking for candidates with the opposite answer from most people (I'd hope they said no).