Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.

I'm sure Sean Hannity will ask the tough questions.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.

Lol, all they need is some loofas and O'Reily might show up to it too.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.

Well, given that the previous debates were moderated by libs, wouldn't it be "fair" to allow Hannity to moderate just one of them? To "balance" things out?

 Breotan wrote:

Well, given that the previous debates were moderated by libs

Except they weren't. The first debate was hosted by Fox News, and the moderators consisted entirely of conservatives.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Well, given that the previous debates were moderated by libs

Except they weren't. The first debate was hosted by Fox News, and the moderators consisted entirely of conservatives.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I make a joke about Hannity and somehow you feel a need to fact-check it for accuracy? Seriously?

I suppose I did, but in retrospect, it does seem silly

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.

Right now it looks like we're wasting tax payer's money to fight a proxy war with Russia, but that has the possibility of soldiers from each nation actually trading shots

 d-usa wrote:
You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.

We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.

I think it is a case that we know what we are opposing (Assad), we just don't know what we're standing for

 d-usa wrote:
You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.

We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.

Just one of "endless wars" from which the fat and greedy Military-Industrial-Complex that dominates our politics feeds off the tax dollars like the swollen parasite it has shown to be.

It is one thing to make plans and gear for defense, but we do not simply defend ourselves, and have not for some time, we just kick in doors and take for our corporate overlords, and many of our soldiers are getting savvy to that concept. for decades cut social programs along with tax cuts to the rich and corporate and allow them to dodge what little they are expected to pay to help support the nation that made them so well off, loopholes and other gimmicks, BUT always some "new threat" pops up just when things calm down to force out more money they claim they have to cut more to spend on the military force we exert recklessly causing more issues.

It is like clock-work and people seem not to see the pattern. then flagging pres gets 9/11, does not stop it with the info he had over a month prior, we go after the bad guys in Afghanistan, we have trouble finding him, but Taliban down, we fight on, suddenly we HAVE to invade Iraq, now we oust all these strong men who were keeping things bottled up. Now we have like clockwork once more this ISIS group as a result of the De-stabilization our greedy corporate masters caused. Meanwhile the American public gets small bytes of info as the news tosses us silly crap like what the Kardasshians are doing that is not actually news.

American people get played yet again. We have many issues to deal with, and some includes pulling funds from the overpaid MIC and back to social programs/safety nets, fix our crumbling unsafe infrastructure, get manufacturing back here, and enough of the petty BS that the Tea party-Republicans keep saying is more important than that. News from DC always sounds like kids tossing a tantrum and demanding to get what they want and ice cream as well. That is NOT leadership.

Shame we don;'t have the way to just fire all the bums and vote more practical people into those seats like Australia did a few years back.

I uhh...wouldn't hold Tony Abbott getting in as a great step forwards. May want to pick another example. And you may want to try to write less....word vomit-y? It is super hard to follow and get your point

 motyak wrote:
I uhh...wouldn't hold Tony Abbott getting in as a great step forwards. May want to pick another example. And you may want to try to write less....word vomit-y? It is super hard to follow and get your point

Broke it up and made it easier to read. Well, Abbott may not have been great, but Australia had had enough of the politicians and fired them, something that if held over their heads here might make the politicians here pause before they got stupid. Maybe.

 generalgrog wrote:

Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...

So your argument, and Cruz's argument, is that Conservatives are persecuted?

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...

So your argument, and Cruz's argument, is that Conservatives are persecuted?

I think that's been their mantra for quite some time now. See "war on Christians, liberal media bias, liberal college professors, IRS targeting Tea Party, health care death panels, etc." Sure, some libs play that card too, but the conservatives seem to have really picked it up ever since Obama has been outmanurering them. I think the whole "take our country back" thing starts with that mindset. I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think the whole "take our country back" thing starts with that mindset.

I thought the Conservative game was "State and local rights!"

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.

Then they are people who cannot own up to their own failings, a difficult argument to sell given that they are supposed to be tough on numerous issues.

 dogma wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think the whole "take our country back" thing starts with that mindset.

I thought the Conservative game was "State and local rights!"

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.

Then they are people who cannot own up to their own failings, a difficult argument to sell given that they are supposed to be tough on numerous issues.

That is their stated game, but there are two problems with that. First, in order to give power back to the state and local level, they need national power to leverage through legislation that would do so in practice. Second, once they get that power, they do not want to relinquish it back to the state and local level, but rather solidify it for themselves (see Bush admin.). Its sort of like how one of the reasons why Communism only works in a theoretical sense--human desires and personal ambition trumps theory in practice.

As to people who cannot own up to their own failings, don't we all do that to a certain extent? I know have a hard time with it myself, but it's something I am mindful of and try to overcome. And I do not believe they would ever try to sell that argument in the first place, that's just my observation as an outsider from them.

Edit: or were you saying that it would be tough for them to sell the argument that they are being persecuted due to their posture? That makes more sense, but then when does rationality ever play into their mindset? They don't see that it isn't working.

I'd posit a different issue going back to my earlier argument about ideological hypocrisy; The GOP advocates smaller government and returning power to state and local authority, but so many of the issues they use as flag ships in their platforms require a large Federal government;

-They want to stand tough in the international community (big gov'ment)
-They want a strong national defense (big gov'ment)
-They want to enforce Judeo-Christian values (big gov'ment)
-They want to deport the illegals (big gov'ment)
-They want to be Tough on Crime (very big gov'ment)

Really the Republicans don't want a small federal government, they just don't want it in areas they don't want it in but that's the exact same thing Democrats want and we can't agree with the Democrats!

Similar at the state level:

The Oklahoma legislature is very heavy on the republican side. And every time one of the cities tries to do something that they don't like they pass laws making it illegal for a city to pass a rule that they don't like. City wants to ban smoking? State legislature passed a law saying they can't do that. City wants to ban fracking within city limits? State legislature passed a law saying they can't do that.

So much for small government and "let local governments decide what they want".

Yep, can't be the world's super-power w/o BIG-Gubbmint! the whole argument by the right is so silly it makes people laugh. Our lowest levels of federal government were waaaaay back if at all in the 18th/19th century.

We did try a weak National government with strong State and Local government. It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...

So your argument, and Cruz's argument, is that Conservatives are persecuted?

Obviously... duh.

Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.

2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!

3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.

4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.

5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?

6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.

7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!

If the GOP has 27 debates and only one conservative news channel, then that's a problem they created themselves.

Yeah, if the there is a free market for news, and the free market wants a so-called liberal media, then it seems like the free market is reflecting market forces.

You're not talking gak about free market capitalism, are you? Because I'm pretty sure implying that capitalism has any sort of failing makes you a socialist .

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, if the there is a free market for news, and the free market wants a so-called liberal media, then it seems like the free market is reflecting market forces.

You're not talking gak about free market capitalism, are you? Because I'm pretty sure implying that capitalism has any sort of failing makes you a socialist .

[sarcasm] The truth has been revealed! Far right wing republicans are all actually a bunch of dirt Commies! [/sarcasm]

From what I see, this is not some partisan conspiracy (mostly), its the GOP seeing that CNBC did a horrible job moderating a debate and now they won't let them mess up anymore.

Ultimately, the problem is that you can't have any sort of meaningful debate with 10+ candidates in two hours or less (including commercials), regardless of who is moderating or which network it's on. All you can really do with that many candidates is give them a bit of time to advertise themselves and their positions, can't do much more than give them a chance to make a soundbite.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Ultimately, the problem is that you can't have any sort of meaningful debate with 10+ candidates in two hours or less (including commercials), regardless of who is moderating or which network it's on. All you can really do with that many candidates is give them a bit of time to advertise themselves and their positions, can't do much more than give them a chance to make a soundbite.

And that is really the reason that it was ridiculous for the candidates to demand a 2 hour debate instead of a 3 hour debate. It made it clear that they are not interested in debating, they just want a national stage. When you have that many candidates with that little time the only way to get anything meaningful out of them is the straightforward approach that makes you look like a gotcha moderator even if you don't do a bad job like these guys. Adding that many moderators competing for time with that many candidates just made it even more of a clown car.

... which is wholly appropriate with this lineup.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.

Right now it looks like we're wasting tax payer's money to fight a proxy war with Russia, but that has the possibility of soldiers from each nation actually trading shots

 d-usa wrote:
You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.

We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.

I think it is a case that we know what we are opposing (Assad), we just don't know what we're standing for

If you like your boots-free Syria, you can keep your boots-free Syria.

I'm with Ouze... What. The. Feth. Is. Going. ON? What's the actual mission? What are the criteria of a successful mission?

By the Holy Emprah... take a good look at this foreign policy fiasco...

And you think Hillary would make this better?

It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.

 Ouze wrote:
It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.

Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.

Wanna try that again bro?