Republicans attack each other in bad tempered third presidential debate

[GinBoy2]

The questions asked were aimed at getting them going at each other. Many of the answers pointed out how inappropriate the moderator's questions were.

Whiners.

"Whiners"??? I don't think so. The people on that stage are winners, and one of them are destined to be the next president of the United States. The moderators were the losers in this debate with their nonsensical and immature questions but then I wouldn't expect anything less. After all, the moderators are liberals who tend to have loony leftist ideas.

Honestly you believe that? In a stage filled with so many people you are never going to have a debate. The best you can hope for is some kind of Beauty Pageant, and may the best and prettiest man (or woman) win

[willyumiii]

"... the Republicans are determined not to allow a Democrat back into the White House."

Well, they're not going the right way about it, nor have they got the right people to do it.

Republican don't even know it, but they are putting the final nails in the coffin of the GOP.

The American voters have had more than enough of their childish ways.

" Enough is Enough" B.S.

[Chicog]

Amazingly enough Fiorina apparently had the biggest chunk of time.

But I'm struggling to remember anything she said apart from the fact that the 'man who sacked her' said something nice about her.

Oooh Boehner's farewall speech coming up.

If he has any sense it will be a quick "So long suckers" and then off to the free bar.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Chicog

[sgtsabai]

And the clown bus continues at full speed toward the cliff. I will beg to differ on Bernie Sanders, it is the main (lame) stream corporate media that is doing their best to keep his message from the mainstream Americans. They, like the Wall Street criminals and banksters that have bought Hillary, hate him and are rightfully scared of him. Of course, as long as the gerrymandered, voter suppressed Republican congress is in power, nothing good for the people will ever get done. Still better than if if they controlled the White House and they do oh so want it to be the WHITE House again.

[ggt]

The biggest loser was the CNBC News Network...who tried unsuccessfully to cause the candidates to leave their game plan and respond to personal attacks by the moderators...

Their conduct and behavior was inexcusable...it is a Presidential Candidate debate...not an extension of "celebrity roast"...

The candidates handled the obnoxious questions by slamming the moderators for their lack of attention to the issues which are most pressing to the US and American people...

More than one candidate pointed out the obvious...that many US News Channels are un-apologetically liberal Democratic supporters...

It begs the question...why on earth would the Republicans allow themselves to be treated in such an ill manner?

Next debate will have a more civil decorum...

[Jingthing]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

[Trouble]

The questions asked were aimed at getting them going at each other. Many of the answers pointed out how inappropriate the moderator's questions were.

I watched the entire debate and couldn't agree with you more. The title of the quoted article could not be further from the truth. In fact I would say because of the nature and tone of the questioning it solidified the candidates and in fact there was some compliments paid to one another. This article couldn't be further off base. Sure there were a couple of moments like when Bush attacked Rubio for missing votes in which Rubio defended himself well. That was just a cheap shot and in my opinion finished Bush. For the most part the candidates were most civil to each other. Who writes this crap?

[Trouble]

<<snip>>

One party is addressing these as problems we need to fix and the other says you need to "work harder" to the people who are working the hardest - as we saw last night in the debates vividly in High Def and Dolby Stereo Sound.

That "one party" is now in the seventh year of the recovery without any substantial results.

Care to fill us in on what they might have accomplished during the seven year itch?

The "one party" has accomplished almost everything the far out right has opposed for their entire lifetimes, so just check your list of issues that were always near and dear, cause they're history. One would expect the lunar orbiters of the right had already noticed, but then again it's pretty far and away out there in political and cultural oblivion.

It is quite amazing to me that liberals propose so many populist social benefits without the slightest idea of how to pay for them other than raise taxes. Taxing only puts the money in the governments hands to blow through rather than allow the money to be spent or invested which pumps it into building the economy. Bernie and Hillary are the first to promise relief for the college loan program and they will do this with a tax increase. Instead of adding a new program maybe they should be figuring out how to shrink the budget and reduce the debt. I really don't think Republicans have an aversion to social programs which really go to help people help themselves. What they have a problem with is the way liberals just want to tax and spend. Congress is in the midst of funding another year of bloated government, increasing the debt ceiling without a limit this time around and with no attempt whatsoever to control or reduce the budget. It is most likely that when Obama leaves office the US will be close to 21 trillion in debt. That is his legacy. There was a great deal of talk last night about the social security trust fund, medicare, and the debt.That to me is healthy debate whether you agree or not. That is something neither Bernie or Hillary want to talk about. Hillary's economic thrust is that "people need a raise" which is great press but short on ideas. Liberals pander to their base by promising to improve peoples lives by government programs. Conservatives want good government, less government, and fiscally responsible government. There is only one way to improve peoples lives and get out of the fiscal mess and that is to grow the economy. Unfortunately for the country, that has not happened under the Obama presidency. I feel that currently there is an administration that has no clue about what direction to take and is floundering and out of its depth. The administration has given up on even talking about the economy. It relies on the statistical numbers to tout growth but in reality it is mostly stagnant. It has no credible foreign policy and at 7 years it can't continue to blame things on the previous administration. Sorry but Hillary and Bernie represent more of the same attempt to pacify by populist policies and irrelevant social issues which get us deeper in debt. It's the economy, stupid! That catch phrase used during Bill Clinton's campaign does not seem to resonate with Obama, Hillary or Bernie. A strong economy means more people working, more taxes paid, less need for social programs and a reduction in deficit spending. At least the republicans are putting these issues on the table something neither Bernie or Hillary are willing to do.

[arrowsdawdle]

they're all so unpresidential it's hilarious. and the two that are leading the polls are the two pure lunatics who have never actually been politicians. this lot make mitt romney look thoroughly statesmanlike and electable.

Why would you want politicians in view of recent history?

[ggt]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

[Jingthing]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

I watched it and didn't see any personal attacks. If they can't handle some challenging questions, including about their characters, then they're going for the wrong job. Who are you kidding anyway? Most of them deflected most of the questions anyway and didn't even bother to fake answering the questions.

[buji]

Why is this even a "chat", it's like watching a repetitive game show. Anyone over age 40 (educated or street wise) knows it's a fake...same stuff all the time but forever a looming facade over a dumbing populace.

[buji]

To add, ALL QUESTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THEM & Approved/revised 24 hrs before the show, as it's just a show for the stupid middle-America people.

[RubbaJohnny]

My conclusion is there a huge opportunity for liberal Republican like Lincoln,Eisenhower or Nixon who is not entrall to church mammon or the NRA, any such candidate could wipe the floor with Hilary. The jejune quality and presentation at the debate made Romney look statesmanlike and the GOP should draft him asap

[bendejo]

My conclusion is there a huge opportunity for liberal Republican like Lincoln,Eisenhower or Nixon who is not entrall to church mammon or the NRA, any such candidate could wipe the floor with Hilary. The jejune quality and presentation at the debate made Romney look statesmanlike and the GOP should draft him asap

Yes, bring back Mitt! I second it.

I want to see posts about dogs on top of stationwagons again.

[Berkshire]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

I watched it and didn't see any personal attacks. If they can't handle some challenging questions, including about their characters, then they're going for the wrong job. Who are you kidding anyway? Most of them deflected most of the questions anyway and didn't even bother to fake answering the questions.

Nevermind not answering questions, some even outright lied, like Trump and Fiorina. That's the thing though, Republican voters don't seem to care if their candidate lies repeatedly.

[Berkshire]

My conclusion is there a huge opportunity for liberal Republican like Lincoln,Eisenhower or Nixon who is not entrall to church mammon or the NRA, any such candidate could wipe the floor with Hilary. The jejune quality and presentation at the debate made Romney look statesmanlike and the GOP should draft him asap

A "liberal Republican" would have the best chance in a general election, but there is no such animal. They would be skewered in the primaries. Even Kasich, who's a moderate and may even lean a bit left (although he can't admit it) has to kowtow to the conservative base (read crazies).

[chuckd]

To add, ALL QUESTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THEM & Approved/revised 24 hrs before the show, as it's just a show for the stupid middle-America people.

We can presume you have a link to back this up?

If not, it is wild eyed speculation on your part.

[chuckd]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

I watched it and didn't see any personal attacks. If they can't handle some challenging questions, including about their characters, then they're going for the wrong job. Who are you kidding anyway? Most of them deflected most of the questions anyway and didn't even bother to fake answering the questions.

Nevermind not answering questions, some even outright lied, like Trump and Fiorina. That's the thing though, Republican voters don't seem to care if their candidate lies repeatedly.

Democrat voters seem to thrive on the lies. Why else would they support Hillary?

[Boon Mee]

Bad tempered debate?

Guess we should ask ourselves if there wasn't overt bias on the part of the so-called 'moderators' eh?

Edited October 30, 2015 by Boon Mee

[Scott]

Bad tempered debate?

Guess we should ask ourselves if there wasn't overt bias on the part of the so-called 'moderators' eh?

Moderators often get blamed.

[GinBoy2]

Bad tempered debate?

Guess we should ask ourselves if there wasn't overt bias on the part of the so-called 'moderators' eh?

Moderators often get blamed.

Oh Scott, stop feeling sorry for yourself LOL.

But seriously, if you can be serious about these debates; as I've said previously with so many people on stage you are never going to have a 'debate', it's a beauty pageant where the one you gets the best sound bytes wins the crown.

That being said, CNBC didn't do a great job. 5 moderators! Whose brain child was that? It was a herd of cats trying to herd a slightly larger herd of cats. Equally CNBC isn't a political network unlike Fox, it's anchors are finance guys not politco pundits.

All that being said, the moderators weren't the problem, but you have to hand it to Cruz who very adeptly accused the moderators of very specific issues asked of the candidates, then promptly went on to repeat the same questions to the same candidates. Quite brilliant in his own bat shit crazy way.

[buji]

To add, ALL QUESTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THEM & Approved/revised 24 hrs before the show, as it's just a show for the stupid middle-America people.

We can presume you have a link to back this up?

If not, it is wild eyed speculation on your part.

The link is called intelligence based on over & over & over decades of witnessed experience. The stupid doe-eyed people otherwise know as human cows will watch every election as if it's the first, forgetting previous BS, every bill for education, infrastructure, rights, raised taxes will be seen also as the first as those so many stupid Americans forget the lies from the past & think different when nothing ever changes in country where government is so unbelievably fat with greed & power.

[Chicog]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

I think most of them have the idea that "fair and balanced" is the one-way right wing crap the Fox monkeys throw around.

To quote Lance Corporal Jones, "They don't like it up 'em, Mr. Mainwaring!".

There is no apology required for ruffling a few feathers.

The smart ones took it as an opportunity to blow their trumpets.

[chuckd]

To add, ALL QUESTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THEM & Approved/revised 24 hrs before the show, as it's just a show for the stupid middle-America people.

We can presume you have a link to back this up?

If not, it is wild eyed speculation on your part.

The link is called intelligence based on over & over & over decades of witnessed experience. The stupid doe-eyed people otherwise know as human cows will watch every election as if it's the first, forgetting previous BS, every bill for education, infrastructure, rights, raised taxes will be seen also as the first as those so many stupid Americans forget the lies from the past & think different when nothing ever changes in country where government is so unbelievably fat with greed & power.

No link so I'll just stick with the wild eyed speculation.

[buji]

No reason at all to apologize for being liberal Democratic.

Of course not...but the news channel and moderators should apologise to the American public for not putting on a fair and balanced debate around the most pressing issues facing the next President of the US...their personal attacks of the candidates are getting rather old after three debates...

I think most of them have the idea that "fair and balanced" is the one-way right wing crap the Fox monkeys throw around.

To quote Lance Corporal Jones, "They don't like it up 'em, Mr. Mainwaring!".

There is no apology required for ruffling a few feathers.

The smart ones took it as an opportunity to blow their trumpets.

Another idiot, right, left, they're all the same, America has one party...corporations. Done. Look over the past 40 years, they've all worked in one direction though some slower than others, Obama being the most demanding...but indeed all went for bigger government & more control...power.

[Boon Mee]

Well, CNBC has been turfed from future Republican debtes. Therefore, we can conclude there was bad faith on the part of those moderators.

[Pinot]

Well, CNBC has been turfed from future Republican debtes. Therefore, we can conclude there was bad faith on the part of those moderators.

The bad thing those moderators did was not follow up, not answering the question or just the outright lying. Of course they didn't like the moderators. They weren't asking the right questions.

These are the type of questions the Republicans want to answer:

How can we get rid of the immigrants?

How can we take benefits away from everyone?

What women's rights would be the first to go?

How can we get more money into the hands of the rich so they can trickle it down the poor?

Where would you start your first war?

How would you eliminate all efforts on climate change?

What would be your first step toward ruining the economy like you did last time? (I'm kidding, they howl when they get those kind of questions)

These are the questions these guys want to answer, not those "Liberal Questions" no one cares about (except the majority of the electorate).

These candidates are all unelectable, no one's even close. Every debate is a can't miss comedy show. Oh, those bad moderators

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pinot

[Chicog]

Well, CNBC has been turfed from future Republican debtes. Therefore, we can conclude there was bad faith on the part of those moderators.

No, we can conclude that they don't want a meaningful debate, just a vacuous infomercial.

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

One party is addressing these as problems we need to fix and the other says you need to "work harder" to the people who are working the hardest - as we saw last night in the debates vividly in High Def and Dolby Stereo Sound.

That "one party" is now in the seventh year of the recovery without any substantial results.

Care to fill us in on what they might have accomplished during the seven year itch?

The "one party" has accomplished almost everything the far out right has opposed for their entire lifetimes, so just check your list of issues that were always near and dear, cause they're history. One would expect the lunar orbiters of the right had already noticed, but then again it's pretty far and away out there in political and cultural oblivion.

It is quite amazing to me that liberals propose so many populist social benefits without the slightest idea of how to pay for them other than raise taxes. Taxing only puts the money in the governments hands to blow through rather than allow the money to be spent or invested which pumps it into building the economy. Bernie and Hillary are the first to promise relief for the college loan program and they will do this with a tax increase. Instead of adding a new program maybe they should be figuring out how to shrink the budget and reduce the debt. I really don't think Republicans have an aversion to social programs which really go to help people help themselves. What they have a problem with is the way liberals just want to tax and spend. Congress is in the midst of funding another year of bloated government, increasing the debt ceiling without a limit this time around and with no attempt whatsoever to control or reduce the budget. It is most likely that when Obama leaves office the US will be close to 21 trillion in debt. That is his legacy. There was a great deal of talk last night about the social security trust fund, medicare, and the debt.That to me is healthy debate whether you agree or not. That is something neither Bernie or Hillary want to talk about. Hillary's economic thrust is that "people need a raise" which is great press but short on ideas. Liberals pander to their base by promising to improve peoples lives by government programs. Conservatives want good government, less government, and fiscally responsible government. There is only one way to improve peoples lives and get out of the fiscal mess and that is to grow the economy. Unfortunately for the country, that has not happened under the Obama presidency. I feel that currently there is an administration that has no clue about what direction to take and is floundering and out of its depth. The administration has given up on even talking about the economy. It relies on the statistical numbers to tout growth but in reality it is mostly stagnant. It has no credible foreign policy and at 7 years it can't continue to blame things on the previous administration. Sorry but Hillary and Bernie represent more of the same attempt to pacify by populist policies and irrelevant social issues which get us deeper in debt. It's the economy, stupid! That catch phrase used during Bill Clinton's campaign does not seem to resonate with Obama, Hillary or Bernie. A strong economy means more people working, more taxes paid, less need for social programs and a reduction in deficit spending. At least the republicans are putting these issues on the table something neither Bernie or Hillary are willing to do.

There is only one way to improve peoples lives and get out of the fiscal mess and that is to grow the economy.

Type long enuff and one sentence will make some sense. However, aside from foreign policy and war making, growing the economy is a third big thing the Republican party has problems with. The economy grows best under Democratic presidents as the record shows.

Your mass of a post in reply to mine starts out raging against "liberals" and "populist social benefits" so I wanted to object. The post best stands on its own rather than as a reply to my post, or perhaps it might be congruent in response to an applicable post.

My views are mainstream left of center. That translates to mean I am concerned that the USA not become the social welfare democracy that characterises Western Europe. I do believe the USA can and needs to do better in functioning as a society and in tending to the general welfare as stated in the Constitution. So I support HRClinton rather than Bernie Sanders. My views put the USA very short of being France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and certainly Greece. Germany does well, Scandinavia isn't too bad but a bit heavy on the social welfare stuff.

Back in the good ol' USA, Alabama belongs in the former Soviet bloc along with almost all of the states next to it or anywhere near it (excepting perhaps Florida which to its dubious credit hasn't elected a Bush since 2004). Most of the Republicans running for president would have a great deal more national appeal in Bulgaria or Serbia than they in fact do across the breadth and diversity that are the USA.

It wuz btw a bad tempered debate in that the somewhat sloppy CNBC business minded panel were directing a 100% political event entirely divorced from a Davos kind of event and just didn't know it. The really bad tempered stuff however came from the Republicans on the stage who continually, obsessively, everywhere and always blame the MSM for the party's failures which are too many to list here.

After the 2012 election the RNC did an autopsy. After the 2016 one RNC will do a cremation.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Publicus