Who is Watching the Debate?

The moderators were awful. I found my self applauding Ted Cruz's comment to them... and I hate Ted Cruz. "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"

I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

If folks don't bother to watch the whole debate, why would any criticism have value?

I picked up on this when John Harwood was on The Daily Show last week. They showed the clip of Rick Perry unable to name the 3 Federal agencies he would abolish and Harwood smirked and said (paraphrasing) "This is what we want to do next week". Why? What on Earth makes a debate moderator think that his job is to force debaters to say something stupid?

Well, actually, I know why: It's so that CNBC can sell gaffe clips to all the various other shows that want to put it up and make fun of it.

CNBC - and they're not alone - has obviously forgotten what a debate is. The moderators bring up an issue and the debaters debate that issue. It's not a 2 hour gotcha show, it's the only time where voters have to compare and contrast candidates on actual issues. Let the candidates fluster and falter and f**k up their half-remembered talking points all by themselves.

S**t, I never thought I'd ever say that Ted Cruz was right, but he was.

Agree. They seem to forget that a moderator is not supposed to be a participant in the debate.

ParticleMan said:
Agree. They seem to forget that a moderator is not supposed to be a participant in the debate.

I'm not sure they forgot anything. I think, from the very first question, it was their intent to embarrass the participants and to provoke the 'cage match' Cruz mentioned. Their job was to bring up substantive topics worth discussing, keep the discussions on track, and try to give each participant a fair amount of time. They failed miserably at doing so.

I concur with Ridski's comment 'Let the candidates fluster and falter and f**k up their half-remembered talking points all by themselves.' This was one instance where the politicians were justified in attacking the media.

Stoughton said:I'm asking this honestly and maybe a Bush supporter or Republican/conservative can answer. It was a big applause line, but I don't understand what Jeb meant when he said that his brother "kept us safe." I'd understand if Jeb wanted to shout that W "held us together" or "moved the nation forward" during a terrible crisis, but the "kept us safe" wording baffles me. He can't even claim that W "kept us safe" by capturing or killing bin Laden after 9/11.

There's no answer to your question. Nothing is rational. The enormous distortions. The magical thinking. The lack of empathy. And gaslighting. Especially Trump. He is a master at gaslighitng.

Donald Trump’s History Of Saying Offensive Things And Then Pretending They Didn’t Happen

Donald Trump says he never slammed Mark Zuckerberg. It's literally on his campaign site

Donald Trump: 'I Didn't Say Many of Those Things' Disparaging Women

Donald Trump says 'he didn't say' the things about women that Megyn Kelly asked him about in debate

Why does Christie get a pass on statements like this:

They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that's in
that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long
time ago. And they've stolen from you because now they know they cannot
pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight
years.

All that's in your 401(k) is a pile of IOUs for money spent on something else a long time ago. The share of stock or a corporate bond that was purchased for your account yielded cash that went to build a factory (for example) in exchange for an IOU for a share of the profits.

And when he says that they "cannot" pay, what he really means is that he doesn't want to pay. There's a long list of ways the Federal government can come up with the funds pay SS obligations. There is no excuse not to except his backers are greedy.

And let's not even talk about the seven-to-eight years lie.

The cruelty and selfishness make me sick.

The truth sometimes make us sick as well

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

Maybe he wanted to help out a friend.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/20151027-jerry-jones-backs-draftkings-investment-and-sees-no-conflict-it-s-all-fantasy.ece

mtierney said:
The truth sometimes make us sick as well

Wasn't much truth last night.

It was about gambling on NFL players, which is a valid and timely topic.

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

those moderators were all auditioning for the Today co-hosting gig, except Harwood whose just a rude a hole.

Yeah, I get that, but really? That's what we wanted to hear their opinions on?

dave23 said:
It was about gambling on NFL players, which is a valid and timely topic.

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

jeffl said:
Yeah, I get that, but really? That's what we wanted to hear their opinions on?

dave23 said:
It was about gambling on NFL players, which is a valid and timely topic.

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

I think you have to much time on your hands if their opinions on fantasy football is a major concern in todays world. Why not ask them who they think should win dancing with the stars.

The criticisms of the moderators is kind of silly. I mean, does anyone think that this clown show could spend even 10 minutes talking substantively about anything? You could have Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow moderating this thing, and it would still be two hours of inanity, insanity, lies and the same old 30 year old talking points about cutting taxes and regulations and shrinking government.

maresleg said:

jeffl said:
Yeah, I get that, but really? That's what we wanted to hear their opinions on?

dave23 said:
It was about gambling on NFL players, which is a valid and timely topic.

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

I think you have to much time on your hands if their opinions on fantasy football is a major concern in todays world. Why not ask them who they think should win dancing with the stars.

These candidates have absolutely nothing to say, so it doesn't matter what you ask them.

These candidates have absolutely nothing to say, so it doesn't matter what you ask them.

And whatever you do ask them, they just respond with whatever they want not even pretending to answer the question asked.

drummerboy said:
The criticisms of the moderators is kind of silly. I mean, does anyone think that this clown show could spend even 10 minutes talking substantively about anything? You could have Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow moderating this thing, and it would still be two hours of inanity, insanity, lies and the same old 30 year old talking points about cutting taxes and regulations and shrinking government.

Vote for whoever says them the loudest.

tom said:
Why does Christie get a pass on statements like this:
They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that's in
that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long
time ago. And they've stolen from you because now they know they cannot
pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight
years.
All that's in your 401(k) is a pile of IOUs for money spent on something else a long time ago. The share of stock or a corporate bond that was purchased for your account yielded cash that went to build a factory (for example) in exchange for an IOU for a share of the profits.

And when he says that they "cannot" pay, what he really means is that he doesn't want to pay. There's a long list of ways the Federal government can come up with the funds pay SS obligations. There is no excuse not to except his backers are greedy.
And let's not even talk about the seven-to-eight years lie.
The cruelty and selfishness make me sick.

What is in your 401K are investments which can be cashed in for -
money. What is in the SS lock box are promises to pay you back. If
nothing is changed, in the reasonably near future there will be more
recipients than contributors and the IOUs will have to be covered by the
Government.
They can do that by printing more money, in which
case Gresham's law will eventually kick in, or they can do it by raising
taxes, in which case you will be paying yourself to make good on the
IOUs.

But the bottom line is the government can do it. Christie says it can't.

(No one, by the way, is forecasting more recipients than contributors.)

It's easy to raise taxes to pay for Social Security without raising taxes on the recipients. Raise the cap, or create a "donut." Raise the cap now, and the shortfall down the road won't be as severe.

Also, borrowing. And it can be done for a fraction of the price of the war with Iran and Russia that Christie seems to want.

drummerboy said:
The criticisms of the moderators is kind of silly. I mean, does anyone think that this clown show could spend even 10 minutes talking substantively about anything? You could have Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow moderating this thing, and it would still be two hours of inanity, insanity, lies and the same old 30 year old talking points about cutting taxes and regulations and shrinking government.

At least then the criticism could be directed where it belongs.

That being said, it was still the choice of the candidates to take the low road. (In contrast to Bernie Sanders, for example, in his response about Hillary's emails in their debate.)

I don't know that anyone thinks it's a "major concern." But the question of whether we ought to regulate corporatized gambling within a $10b business is legit.

maresleg said:

jeffl said:
Yeah, I get that, but really? That's what we wanted to hear their opinions on?

dave23 said:
It was about gambling on NFL players, which is a valid and timely topic.

jeffl said:
I hate Christie but he made a good point: "Why are we talking about Fantasy Football?"

I think you have to much time on your hands if their opinions on fantasy football is a major concern in todays world. Why not ask them who they think should win dancing with the stars.

Anne Coulter of all people made the fair point that CNBC's questions were hardly different from those of CNN and Fox. (Which is to say, they were equally bad.) The candidates have succeeded in painting the whole thing as a farce, allowing them to avoid real content.

For instance, asking Ben Carson to "do math" (to quote Ted Cruz) around his proposed flat tax is absolutely meaningful and fair. Unfortunately, everyone is now parroting the line that they asked no good questions, allowing Carson to get away with avoiding "doing math."

drummerboy said:
The criticisms of the moderators is kind of silly. I mean, does anyone think that this clown show could spend even 10 minutes talking substantively about anything? You could have Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow moderating this thing, and it would still be two hours of inanity, insanity, lies and the same old 30 year old talking points about cutting taxes and regulations and shrinking government.

tom said:
But the bottom line is the government can do it. Christie says it can't.
(No one, by the way, is forecasting more recipients than contributors.)
It's easy to raise taxes to pay for Social Security without raising taxes on the recipients. Raise the cap, or create a "donut." Raise the cap now, and the shortfall down the road won't be as severe.

tom said:
Also, borrowing. And it can be done for a fraction of the price of the war with Iran and Russia that Christie seems to want.

In other words, there is no SS Trust fund.

Current London Odds: HRC 4/5 Rubio 4/1 Trump/Sanders 9/1 Bush 14/1 Carson 22/1

tom said:
Also, borrowing. And it can be done for a fraction of the price of the war with Iran and Russia that Christie seems to want.

Not if we win quickly and take all their oil.

tom said:
But the bottom line is the government can do it. Christie says it can't.
(No one, by the way, is forecasting more recipients than contributors.)
It's easy to raise taxes to pay for Social Security without raising taxes on the recipients. Raise the cap, or create a "donut." Raise the cap now, and the shortfall down the road won't be as severe.

They don't want to raise taxes to cover future Social Security shortfalls. They want social security to fail, to validate their mantra that government is the problem, to privatize.

Much of it is ideological

Dwight D Eisenhower -
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that
party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, his brother (8 November 1954)

Problem its no longer a splinter. The stupids have multiplied. These program are attacked by a major party as being undeserved entitlements.

In previous posts on MOL, we discussed the willful ignorance of many republicans. That was proven in the debate:

BenCarson was asked about his involvement with Mannatech, a nutritional
supplements company that makes outlandish claims about its products and
has been forced to pay $7 million to settle a deceptive-practices
lawsuit. The audience booed, and Mr. Carson denied being involved with
the company. Both reactions tell you a lot about the driving forces
behind modern American politics.

As it happens, Mr. Carson lied. He has indeed been deeply involved with
Mannatech, and has done a lot to help promote its merchandise.
PolitiFact quickly rated his claim false, without qualification. But the Republican base doesn’t want to hear about it, and the candidate apparently believes, probably correctly, that he can simply brazen it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/springtime-for-grifters.html

terp said:

tom said:
But the bottom line is the government can do it. Christie says it can't.
(No one, by the way, is forecasting more recipients than contributors.)
It's easy to raise taxes to pay for Social Security without raising taxes on the recipients. Raise the cap, or create a "donut." Raise the cap now, and the shortfall down the road won't be as severe.

tom said:
Also, borrowing. And it can be done for a fraction of the price of the war with Iran and Russia that Christie seems to want.

In other words, there is no SS Trust fund.

I'm talking about the shortfall. See above.