How obvious do you have to be??

the propaganda arm of larger corporations. If you think for one moment their top priority is quality journalism or informing the public you've fallen down the rabbit hole.

have profits as their main motive.

It is naïve to think otherwise. That is why they are in business - to make money.

Those are very disgusting too -- actual citizens who heard for the first time critiques of their candidates positions that Fox and other right-wing media kinda...forgot to mention. Like dysfunctional economic plans that could not achieve their supposed goals but will continue to shift riches and power upward. THAT's what those viewers really mean by "tough" questions -- ones that disagreeably surprised them.

bumper-sticker economic plans.

but others were not - like "what is your biggest fault" and "are you a comic-book villain". What a waste of air.

We didn't have them at the Democratic Party debate for a reason, and that reason was the differences in audience and candidates. We have no sociopaths, snake oil salesmen, or buffoons on our stage because of who we are.

The issue is whether the process is working. It isn't. The purpose of debates is to learn the candidates positions on public policy. Gotcha questions on personal character, current poll numbers, whether you paid your credit card bill on time in 2004 do nothing to enlighten voters on the candidates positions.

It's first and foremost a disservice to the viewing public. Just because the Republicans don't like it doesn't make it anymore palatable.

debates. Sure, it's disgraceful. It's been disgraceful ever since the parties tossed over the League of Women Voters in favor of infomercials for the candidates. And we thought THAT was bad!

The happening now, though, and it IS a happening, is the right wing turning angrily on the media. The question is why? The answer is that REAL questions that were asked among all the fluff. Think about it -- all these Fox viewers who had NO idea experts in many fields had real problems with their candidates wonderful platforms.

Also, all of the GOP debates have been adversarial to the point of overtly disrespectful of the candidates to varying degrees. These guys aspire to leadership of the federal government that right-wing ideology now despises so heavily, so commercial media played that up to please the audience -- but now it's backfired.

This isn't just amusing. It's worth discussing.

All he did was fill in the blanks.
The actual question to him was totally legitimate. He was asked if he was going to oppose the raising of the debt ceiling and he went off. strictly theater.

Cruz -> Bernie.

happy halloween.

CNBC can't create a circus type atmosphere then claim well this one question was legitimate. Cruz wasn't trying to duck the question. What Cruz complained about needed to be said. CNBC needed to be called out.

created the circus atmosphere themselves.

Cruz was asked about his ongoing efforts to shut down the government and default on America's debts, a stunt he pulled before that cost us $24 billion and lowered America's credit rating.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/

Cruz is just one of the clowns. The job of CNBC is to get clowns like Cruz to answer serious questions like the ones you posted. Instead they gave him opportunities to grandstand about liberal bias by asking a bunch of loaded questions to the entire panel and encouraging the candidates to attack each other.

You can't run a serious political debate like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show and then complain that the candidates don't take your questions seriously.

Cruz' diatribe, so loved by Republicans, came in response to the most substantive question imaginable -- how he justified continuing to fight to shut down the government and default on our debts, when the last time he pulled that it cost us $24 billion and our credit rating.

A question which it might be noted he never did get around to answering.

And it was interesting that in so doing, he made up a lot of characterizations that weren't in evidence. No one accused Carson of "not being able to do math," but Cruz planted that seed. No one invited candidates to make attacks on each other they hadn't already begun or telegraphed. He even managed to mention again that Jeb's numbers were down.

It was a well-crafted cheap shot that simultaneously kept him from answering for his inexcusable shut-down stunts, and allowed him to remind everyone of the other candidates' weaknesses.

Rubio responded to a question about the impact of his fantasy flat tax plan by insisting the report being read from did not exist.

Carson responded to questions about the impact of HIS fantasy flat tax plan by staring sleepily around the room.

Trump lied every time he opened his mouth, about everything. He actually disclaimed his own platform, from his own website, and accused "the press" of lying about it, when HE was the liar. When he was politely proven wrong, he ignored the facts and moved on to whine about the moderators some more.

This is their little game.

It's the same old Republican dodge they use every time anyone asks them to back up their rhetoric with facts. Journalists can't be trusted. Scientists can't be trusted. University professors and school teachers can't be trusted.

Their objection isn't to "bias," it's to facts. It wasn't the lack of substance that insulted them, it was its presence.

All those issues are not being discussed because CNBC asked loaded questions and encouraged candidates to attack each other. The moderators are responsible for getting serious questions asked and answered. They failed.

What was "loaded" about asking Rubio and Carson to respond to a tax policy institute's findings that their flat tax plans were unworkable?

If the problem was the type of questions, why did Cruz choose to go off when asked a pure policy question about his pursuit of government shutdowns?

How was CNBC responsible for making Trump lie (by, surprise, falsely blaming the press) about his own published platform criticizing Rubio by name?

The fact is Republicans don't like substantive questions, and those were the ones that made them angriest.

When faced with facts that reveal their ignorance, their go-to defense is to attack whoever is asking the question.

The fact is that it did and CNBC is responsible. Funny when the League of Women Voters ran debates they were just fine.

The right claiming CNBC was too liberal and hostile is rich. What a joke the Republican Party has become. Unfortunately the Democratic Party has largely moved right enough to replace the old Republican Party as the current right has entered loony land.

But CNBC and the rest of mainstream media needed to called out. Cruz did the right thing. He called them out right then and there. On the air. Imagine if Dukakis had done the same when CNN's Bernard Shaw asked him a death penalty question in the form of a rape/murder fantasy of his wife. If Dukakis had ripped him a new one instead of giving the namby pamby answer he did give we'd probably be calling him former President Dukakis today.

I've been saying for years that this station is nothing more than Faux Business 2.0. CNBC serves as an anchor pipeline to Faux Business. They're firmly in the tank for the RNC - a bunch of Republican 1%ers interviewing Republican politicians and Republican 0.0001 percenters.

conservative, they're just not worth listening to. I just wanted to watch the stock numbers. Rick Santelli a liberal? That would make Jon Stewart spew in laughter.

If you're talking about the moderators after the debate instead of the multitude of important issues facing the nation you've failed at moderating the debate. Period. Just because the GOP has fielded a bunch of clowns doesn't exclude the media from doing their job. I know it's real popular to claim how the candidates are deflecting and don't want to answer tough questions but the questions were loaded and stupid. Sure, it's fun to rag on the GOP candidates for whining but to ignore the piss poor job the media is doing is leading us down the path to idiocracy.

What are we talking about today? How the Republicans want to privatize SS? Destroy unions? Permanent war? Ban abortion? Etc etc etc? No. We're not talking about any of that. Why? Because CNBC was more interested working "clown" into their questions to Trump, bringing up snake oil products Carson was involved in, and goading participants into attacking each other.

The mainstream media has turned our political process into a reality TV show and people on the left fall for the bait just like the Republicans because the GOP is getting clowned....this time. Bread and circuses. Meanwhile no serious discussions on income inequality, police brutality, corporate welfare, etc.

Stop making excuses for and defending the mainstream media just because Republicans are whining about liberal bias. The media failed the Republicans, the Democrats, and the viewing public. They put on a clown show for ratings. Next time these celebrity news spokesmodels moderate a debate they should look for inspiration from real journalists like Cronkite or Murrow instead of some second rate Howard Stern sidekick yelling insults at a press conference.

Please. The man is running on his competence and intellectual superiority based on a brilliant medical career. The fact that he sold his credibility to a discredited MLM marketing scam selling people Aloe Vera pills is hardly off the reservation.

Neither were the questions about all of the fantasy "flat tax" programs. Carson choked. Rubio lied.

Neither was it unfair to ask Cruz to defend why he consistently wants to shut down the federal government by preventing us from paying debts already incurred.

Each time they appealed to the audience and whined about "gotcha" questions, because they could not and would not answer substantive questions, period.

"The media is mean to us" is an old, hacky Republican dodge they use for everything, to avoid the fact their principles and policies are simply wrong all the time. They do the same thing with "mainstream scientists" and "mainstream education."

Everyone's lying except the poor, picked-on Republicans.

What they're arguing is that facts don't matter, because the facts are not on their side.

is definitely not a proper question in a public policy debate. Public policy debate questions are for things like, oh I don't know, PUBLIC POLICY! I have an idea. Since they care so much about Carson's link to scam artists and since you're a news station why don't you assign a reporter and cover the story on your f#@king NEWS STATION that broadcasts 24 f#@king hours a day.

Now if another candidate wants to rip into Carson or any other candidate because they declared bankruptcy, didn't pay their credit cards on time, or lends their name to snake oil cures that's fair game. It's telling if they do and it's telling if they don't. But that's not the role of a moderator in a debate.

Debate questions should be able to be asked and answered by any and all of the candidates. Again it's a public policy debate. Not a debate of Trump's moral character. I don't need Jeb Bush's opinion on Trump to know he's an asshole. I want to know what are candidates positions on public policy issues. And if some dimwit news celebrity thinks I should know about the dirty dealings and moral character of these clowns how about doing some f#@king reporting on your 24 hour news channel about it instead of endless hours of inside the beltway know nothing pundits who spout opinions about what some other know nothing pundit said.

But not by a moderator at a "public policy" debate. The role of moderator is not the same as an investigative reporter. If I go on a job interview I don't expect to be asked to turn my head and cough. If I go to the doctor's office I don't expect to asked how I voted last election. Just because a question is legitimate doesn't mean it's appropriate in every situation.

Starting off your questions with "Why are you such an idiot?" or "How can you win when nobody likes you?" type questions don't work in a public policy debate format. The reasons should be obvious by now.

Also not being able to provide a source for an accusation ("Where did I read this?&quot was unprofessional.

excuse for why the Moderators hadn't checked their sources for the questions so as to be able to hit back when challenged by the Rethugs: "I never said that!" "No, Senator (or whatever), on March 21 you wrote the following on your web page". Candy Crowley, the otherwise undistinguished Republican water-carrier showed it could be done it in the Presidential debates so the only excuse left is that the Moderators were just too lazy to do their homework and so got sandbagged by the lying Rethugs. Negligent doesn't begin to describe it.

Do the prep work and you won't look foolish.

I was unimpressed by the moderators (not as much as the clowns on the stage, but still)

Republican candidates have a right to be mad. CNBC intentionally put on a clown show. You can't bury one or two substantive questions in a cloud of gotcha questions and then claim candidates don't want to answer your questions.

If you went on a job interview and the interviewer asked you your bra size and then when called on it later claim he also asked you your work experience that wouldn't fly either. Either you conducted a fair interview or you didn't.

The so called journalists moderating that debate spend more time in make up chairs than honing their craft. Pretending that they aspired to anything more than embarrassing the candidates and getting them to attack each other for sound bites and ratings is just silly. The whining of Republicans is merely the putrid stench left behind of the journalistic turd CNBC dumped in the middle of the debate.

who are the clowns and who are the ringmasters for the GOP.

Both debates started out with insulting questions aimed at Trump. Last time I checked Fox News is not a bastion of liberal bias. This debacle is really an issue of establishment vs outsider candidates and hack media vs legitimate journalism. Liberal or conservative bias has nothing to do with it.

These people aren't running for head of the local PTA, they're running for President of the United States. They should be able to answer a question cogently whether they think it is biased or not.

The purpose of a political debate is to assess the positions of of those seeking office on important issues regarding public policy. Not see how candidates respond when you insult them or attack their character. Bottom line. We didn't learn their positions on important public policy issues. Massive media fail.

question re finances of the country. Rather than answer the question, he went for the "oh, woe is me" answer he will be able to insert into his campaign ads. Also, I didn't notice any hand wringing from either the left or the right when Hillary got email/Benghazi questions. Let's face it. The majority of the candidates on the right are pathetic whiners. I have to give kudos to Chris Christie for commenting that questions are not always what you want them to be, but you just answer them and shut up about it.

I couldn't care less whether Cruz is a whiner or not. The problem with Republicans is they are against gay rights, civil rights, sane guns laws, abortion, minimum wage, taxing the rich, etc. Did we learn any of that from the debates? No. CNBC gave the Republicans an excuse to whine instead of asking straight questions and demanding straight answers. They failed.

It reminds of people who excuse torture. They think the purpose of interrogation is to make the suspect uncomfortable and upset when the purpose of interrogation is to get information. The purpose of debates is to get information. Not make candidates whine and look stupid. CNBC failed at providing information to the public by asking loaded questions and goading candidates to attack each other. It was a self serving clown show exclusively for the benefit CNBC.

Last edited Sun Nov 1, 2015, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you serious? That was the biggest take away from the Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders jumping in and saying that everyone was tired of hearing about Hilliary's damn emails.

(as I do), the channels you need are often not included in your package (they aren't in mine).

No crowd to roar their approval or jeer their hate at the drop of the appropriate pre-fab applause line.

Just candidates, panelists and the people watching at home, watching the flop-sweat gather and waiting for the stammering to start.

There might even be, y'know. follow-ups, research and facts involved?

The premise is flawed. Candidates should not be experiencing flop sweat in a debate from moderator's questions. They should be feel free to espouse their opinions no matter how crazy they are. Debates should not be interrogations or exams from moderators. That's not what debate is about. If some Republican wants to screw the poor, discriminate against gays, or go to war at the drop of hat I want him or her to say it loud and proud. Not feel defensive because the moderator framed the question in a way that presupposes a correct answer.

...and attack. Only chicken shits run from questions when they are running for President.