Frazzled wrote:

I would love to see the DNC get quizzed the way the conservatives did last night.

We both know that will never ever ever happen.

 Frazzled wrote:
I have no problem with scientific method. I have a problem with setting scientists up to be the new priesthood. They've a proven capacity to walk hand in hand with the tyrant, and they are easily manipulated by money or ideology.

 dogma wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Q: Senator, in light of recent highly edited videos, you put forth a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Senator, why do you hate women? (they didn't actually ask this one - this is just an example of how they were forming their questions)

Why not cite the questions that actually were asked? Why make things up? I mean, if the questions were equivalent to your fabrication there should be no need for it.

An accurate article.

 generalgrog wrote:

His point was that the cnbc moderators were deliberately tough on the republicans (which isn't a problem in and of itself), while the democratic moderators threw nothing but softballs and engaged in a love fest. Of course it's all designed to make the democratic candidates look good and the republican ones look bad.

 d-usa wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

His point was that the cnbc moderators were deliberately tough on the republicans (which isn't a problem in and of itself), while the democratic moderators threw nothing but softballs and engaged in a love fest. Of course it's all designed to make the democratic candidates look good and the republican ones look bad.

I didn't realize that CNBC hosted the last Democratic debate.

 jasper76 wrote:
I still dont know why the Republican voters don't like Rand Paul. Best candidate on the stage, in my opinion, and by a good margin.

Having seen the whole debate now and playing "who won"?, I'd have to say Kasich. He'd probably make an excellent running mate to whoever wins .

I'm still thinkin Bush or Rubio will get the nomination, advantage Bush. Incidentally, the media trashed Bush's performance, but I think he did fine.

Jeb Bush = NPC with 8s in all attributes and leather armor

 Ouze wrote:
Unfortunately I don't know how to embed... tweeters? Tw..... stuff people put put on Twitter. So I'm just going to copy and paste here.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire

 Ouze wrote:
So.. Patton Oswalt ranked the candidates. Unfortunately I don't know how to embed... tweeters? Tw..... stuff people put put on Twitter. So I'm just going to copy and paste here.

Spoiler:

Patton Oswalt ✔ @pattonoswalt

Ted Cruz = dwarf cleric with 3 Charisma.

John Kasich = level 4 fighter with standard plate armor and a standard long sword, 10 strength

Chris Christie = shambling mound

Carly Fiorinia = level 5 Drow elf with a + 1 Ring of Vampiric rrgeneration

Rand Paul = halfling thief

Jeb Bush = NPC with 8s in all attributes and leather armor

Ben Carson = necromancer, 19 intelligence, 4 wisdom

Marco Rubio = paladin, 18 charisma, all other stats 9, cursed broadsword

Mike Huckabee = gelatinous cube

Trump = level 21 demi-liche, Lamarkin's Rod of Disease, Cloak of Revulsion

Anyway, as it's sort of gaming related I thought this crowd might appreciate it.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire

Maybe I'm just old but I'm getting more of a young Bob Hope vibe. I don't really know why, either. It's not like he actually looks like a young Bob Hope or anything.

Spoiler:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire

Maybe I'm just old but I'm getting more of a young Bob Hope vibe. I don't really know why, either. It's not like he actually looks like a young Bob Hope or anything.

Spoiler:

The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.

Analysis - Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent
The numbers are small, nonetheless the US decision represents a notable shift in US policy. Their mission will be "to help co-ordinate local ground forces and coalition efforts" against IS in northern Syria. In all likelihood they may fight alongside Kurdish forces who have been the most effective of Washington's local allies.
"Co-ordination" could well mean forward air controllers; teams trained in the skills of linking up tactical air power with troops on the ground; designating targets and calling in strikes. The fact that the US now has specialised A-10 ground attack aircraft reasonably close by at the Turkish air base of Incirlik may also be significant.
This is a small step intended not least to reassure Washington's unsettled allies in the region. The drift in US policy has become even more apparent since Russia's muscular intervention from the air. But to be convincing the US may need to do a good deal more and that seems to be at variance with President Obama's basic instincts.
US special operations forces have previously taken part in at least two raids in Syria.
In May, troops killed senior IS member Abu Sayyaf and captured his wife in eastern Syria.
And last summer, forces failed in an operation to rescue American hostages including journalist James Foley, who was later beheaded by IS fighters.
This week talks are being held in Vienna involving Iran, Syria's ally, for the first time.
The meeting sought to close the gap between the US and its allies, who support the rebels, and the key foreign allies of the Syrian government, Russia and Iran.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Well, so much for no boots on the ground

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34681648

The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.

 Ouze wrote:
The RNC is being proactively butthurt about the media bias NBC was sure to have shown.

https://gop.com/nbc-letter/

Spoiler:

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Dear Mr. Lack,

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.

While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.

I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.

While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.

I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

What's really interesting is that Obama has paved the way for candidates like him - first term senator, young (for a president), and willing to go up against a much more seasoned opponent (Obama versus Hillary, Rubio versus Bush). I am really interested to see how he does!

 kronk wrote:
Bob Hope doesn't care about humorless people.

 Ouze wrote:
The RNC is being proactively butthurt about the media bias NBC was sure to have shown.

https://gop.com/nbc-letter/

Spoiler:

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Dear Mr. Lack,

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016.
The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case.

Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case.

Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.

Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.

While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.

I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.

While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.

I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee


(note - I have reformatted this to better fit on Dakka - Ouze)