So, apparently the Hillary plant was just the tip of the iceberg. There were like three other videos from declared supporters of democratic candidates.
That said, I really didn't mind pointed questions from the opposition party. The candidates will eventually have to field these type of questions, so they better be prepared. My only beef with the whole thing is that known democrats were taking question slots away from people who truly wanted to ask questions to differentiate the republican candidates in an effort to pick who they want to elect.
People lied on the internet? Le shock! As long as the questions were valid (as most were), why does it matter which party they're coming from?
It matters since it was a debate among the Republicans and it doesn't give them a opportunity to challenge the Democrats back. It's very low of them to pull this shit.
It's more a bad move on CNN's part since it looks like they cherrypicked entries that would zing the debaters. It gives them a way of not dealing with the issue by playing they "it's a plant!" defense instead.
I would have no problem with it if videos declared their affiliation beforehand
So, apparently the Hillary plant was just the tip of the iceberg. There were like three other videos from declared supporters of democratic candidates.
That said, I really didn't mind pointed questions from the opposition party. The candidates will eventually have to field these type of questions, so they better be prepared. My only beef with the whole thing is that known democrats were taking question slots away from people who truly wanted to ask questions to differentiate the republican candidates in an effort to pick who they want to elect.
People lied on the internet? Le shock! As long as the questions were valid (as most were), why does it matter which party they're coming from?
It matters since it was a debate among the Republicans and it doesn't give them a opportunity to challenge the Democrats back. It's very low of them to pull this shit.
Man what? The entire debate was thrown out of my mind when questions on t3h gayz were banned.
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
My thoughts exactly.
I wonder if CNN will run a story about it? :P
I'm sure FOX will talk about it for the next 20 years
I don't see how changing the person's affiliation changes the questions since they were asked with only the context the person provided in the video.
And besides, why shouldn't democrats get to ask questions at a Republican debate and vice versa? Why wouldn't they be interested?
Seriously, I don't understand the issue. The debate was between Republican candidates but why should that mean individual Democrats shouldn't get to ask them questions?
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
GOJIRA! on
"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
I'm not aware of that. Linky links please.
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?
To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban...
Don't you think if we pulled out [of Iraq] now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain." How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks. I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."
I don't know if any of these people voted for Kodos or Gore or Nixon but an apology? To whom? For what?
GOJIRA! on
"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
I don't see how changing the person's affiliation changes the questions since they were asked with only the context the person provided in the video.
And besides, why shouldn't democrats get to ask questions at a Republican debate and vice versa? Why wouldn't they be interested?
Seriously, I don't understand the issue. The debate was between Republican candidates but why should that mean individual Democrats shouldn't get to ask them questions?
Pretty much, yeah. It's a Republican debate regarding the Republican primary that Democrats can't vote in. Other than trying to make the Republican party look bad a s a whole in the general (which is a year away, so it's not like they don't have time) there's really no reason for them to do so.
CNN/Youtube portrayed this as being sort of a questions for the people, by the people sort of thing. Someone within their organization probably knew they were selecting questions from voters who had already 'sided' with someone in the campaign, but they implied the questions were representative of the undecided masses.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Well, I'm seeing a lot of outrage but not any reasons why other than CNN dared to allow dems ask questions.
I just think it's disingenuous to the supposed spirit of this debate for them not to say they work actively for another campaign.
Last time I checked, you don't have to vote for someone (or have an interest in their policies) just because they're in your party (or outside of it, for that matter).
Are people here suddenly so naive that the notion of "gotcha" questions are something new? The spirit of the debate.. ha...
GOJIRA! on
"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
As I look at it now, the primary election is about each party figuring out for themselves who they'll vote for, however my view might be skewed.
Florida's primary is closed. Democrats can only vote on the democratic candidates, republicans for republican candidates. So to me, it seems silly and time-wasting for democrats to ask Republicans questions. They shouldn't care it, as it won't affect anything. Their thoughts shouldn't matter, honestly, because they can't even vote on it yet.
On the other hand, however, it shouldn't matter that they're democrats. The questions, CNN may have felt, were important and legitimate anyhow, even if they didn't know.
You could also argue that the democratic questioners were asking questions in the attempt at some subtle subterfuge, asking particularly damaging questions which would fragment the party and hurt certain candidates more than others.
CNN/Youtube portrayed this as being sort of a questions for the people, by the people sort of thing. Someone within their organization probably knew they were selecting questions from voters who had already 'sided' with someone in the campaign, but they implied the questions were representative of the undecided masses.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Aren't people who already have sided with someone part of the public?
Aren't you supposed to sway them through the debate?
I tend to attribute it to incompetence rather than malice on the part of CNN.
And I don't think it's even a big deal to use a question from an unaffiliated "supporter" of one of the Democratic candidates. They key being that they are unaffiliated.
The general is another story. Not only is he expressly affiliated with the Hillary campaign, but they treated him differently than they treated the other questioners. When CNN decided (unwisely) to invite him to the debate and give him a rebuttal / follow up they should have made real sure that he wasn't involved in the race.
ask_lesko on
Get free money from the government to open up a coffee shop!
I'll stress, however, that not allowing non-Republicans to ask questions isn't some sort of separatist or elitist exclusionary tactic. We're not saying "You aren't republican, your voice doesn't matter."
The very point of the republican debates is for the republican party to figure out for themselves whom for they'll vote. It didn't really matter, as the questions were still relevant. It wasn't such a mark against CNN as it was against the democrats who submitted questions. They're the ones who should have considered that it shouldn't matter for them yet.
I've got like 3 days of jail left, so I'll be getting my edit button back soon.
I'm finding it hard to care about what questions were asked to who and why. The purpose of these "debates" is just to determine the positions of each candidate, correct?
CNN/Youtube portrayed this as being sort of a questions for the people, by the people sort of thing. Someone within their organization probably knew they were selecting questions from voters who had already 'sided' with someone in the campaign, but they implied the questions were representative of the undecided masses.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Aren't people who already have sided with someone part of the public?
Aren't you supposed to sway them through the debate?
These were rabid supporters of candidates who were about as likely to be swayed as an ingot of steel in a swift breeze.
So should anyone who isn't a registered Republican not be allowed to ask questions?
In a Primary debate, I would limit it to registered members of those parties, yes.
Including vox populi/townhall style debates?
Also, some states don't require affiliation to vote in a primary (I voted in the Republican one last time because I hate my governor) you just have to ask for the ballot. Should debates be prevented from taking place within those state lines?
CNN/Youtube portrayed this as being sort of a questions for the people, by the people sort of thing. Someone within their organization probably knew they were selecting questions from voters who had already 'sided' with someone in the campaign, but they implied the questions were representative of the undecided masses.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Aren't people who already have sided with someone part of the public?
Aren't you supposed to sway them through the debate?
These were rabid supporters of candidates who were about as likely to be swayed as an ingot of steel in a swift breeze.
Barring lateral supports, that's a very likely occurence. A column's k value is huge without bracing at the top or sides almost regardless of height.
CNN/Youtube portrayed this as being sort of a questions for the people, by the people sort of thing. Someone within their organization probably knew they were selecting questions from voters who had already 'sided' with someone in the campaign, but they implied the questions were representative of the undecided masses.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Aren't people who already have sided with someone part of the public?
Aren't you supposed to sway them through the debate?
These were rabid supporters of candidates who were about as likely to be swayed as an ingot of steel in a swift breeze.
Barring lateral supports, that's a very likely occurence. A column's k value is huge without bracing at the top or sides almost regardless of height.
Even if you don't sway this particular column, if you provide a good answer to your harsher critics, I might be more likely to hold you in high regard. And I haven't decided yet.
I think answering Democratic questions is actually quite helpful to Republican primary voters in making a selection.
I mean, if you could get a whole Democratic frontrunner into a debate and see how various Republicans handled it, wouldn't that be valuable to your selection? Because as a Democrat I'd frankly like to see how our candidates would fare against Rudy or Mitt or whoever before I choose someone to go and face them in the general.
Republican primary debates can exclude questions from Democratic supporters once all the candidates agree to not talk about Hillary Clinton or any of the other democratic candidates, focusing solely on their fellow Republican opponents.
I don't have a problem with them mixing in opposing viewpoints but I think some transparency is a good idea. I dislike them picking an avid supporter's question and pretend he's just some random dude off the street.
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
I'm not aware of that. Linky links please.
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?
To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban...
Don't you think if we pulled out [of Iraq] now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain." How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks. I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."
In Cooper's defense I think he did an outstanding job of hosting the debate. However, who ever filtered the 5000 entries should be fired and CNN should give an apology. I'm pretty fucking sure if you saw the same thing during the Democrat debates there would be even more outrage on this board.
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
I'm not aware of that. Linky links please.
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?
To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban...
Don't you think if we pulled out [of Iraq] now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain." How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks. I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."
I don't know if any of these people voted for Kodos or Gore or Nixon but an apology? To whom? For what?
You failed.
I believe he rather proved his case.
When I was five my brother and I were baby sat by Ms. Green. Her son Michael, who was four, would always challenge us to races. We would outrun him, but as he crossed the finish line he would always yell, "I WIN!" and if you protested he would just keep shouting that he won and you lost.
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence, for one. For two, I still don't get how being a Dem supporter impacts the question itself. Especially given some of the shitty, shitty questions that are themselves idiotic regardless of who the questioner likes. For instance, that guy hitting the camera with a bible.
Absence of evidence =! evidence of absence, for one. For two, I still don't get how being a Dem supporter impacts the question itself. Especially given some of the shitty, shitty questions that are themselves idiotic regardless of who the questioner likes. For instance, that guy hitting the camera with a bible.
I read through this thread and I'm just now catching up watching them. In the amnesty for illegal immigrants question, McCain talked about the people being disheartened by the failure with Katrina and Iraq. Wha, wha, Senator McCain???
I don't have a problem with them mixing in opposing viewpoints but I think some transparency is a good idea. I dislike them picking an avid supporter's question and pretend he's just some random dude off the street.
But random dudes off the street can be avid supporters. In fact, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people who bothered to ask a question over YouTube are supporters of one side or the other.
Posts
It matters since it was a debate among the Republicans and it doesn't give them a opportunity to challenge the Democrats back. It's very low of them to pull this shit.
I would have no problem with it if videos declared their affiliation beforehand
My thoughts exactly.
I wonder if CNN will run a story about it? :P
I'm sure FOX will talk about it for the next 20 years
They had the same loaded, zinger questions at the Democratic debate too. Please, spare us your faux outrage and go watch some Fox News to calm you down. Jingoistic patrio-facist cliches for all!
I'm not aware of that. Linky links please.
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?
To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban...
Don't you think if we pulled out [of Iraq] now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain." How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks. I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/cnn-flack-sez-im-pretty_b_74505.html
I don't know if any of these people voted for Kodos or Gore or Nixon but an apology? To whom? For what?
To the Republican candidates, for hurting their wittle feelings
I just think it's disingenuous to the supposed spirit of this debate for them not to say they work actively for another campaign.
Like I mentioned in the AmPol thread, it doesn't invalidate the questions, but it does call into question the fact that our national level of political debates are being influenced by the groups that sponsor them, and that should be something that is transparent. In other words, CNN tried to pull a fast one and be slick, which is contrary to how they portrayed this whole youtube debate nonsense.
Last time I checked, you don't have to vote for someone (or have an interest in their policies) just because they're in your party (or outside of it, for that matter).
Are people here suddenly so naive that the notion of "gotcha" questions are something new? The spirit of the debate.. ha...
Florida's primary is closed. Democrats can only vote on the democratic candidates, republicans for republican candidates. So to me, it seems silly and time-wasting for democrats to ask Republicans questions. They shouldn't care it, as it won't affect anything. Their thoughts shouldn't matter, honestly, because they can't even vote on it yet.
On the other hand, however, it shouldn't matter that they're democrats. The questions, CNN may have felt, were important and legitimate anyhow, even if they didn't know.
You could also argue that the democratic questioners were asking questions in the attempt at some subtle subterfuge, asking particularly damaging questions which would fragment the party and hurt certain candidates more than others.
In a Primary debate, I would limit it to registered members of those parties, yes.
Aren't people who already have sided with someone part of the public?
Aren't you supposed to sway them through the debate?
And I don't think it's even a big deal to use a question from an unaffiliated "supporter" of one of the Democratic candidates. They key being that they are unaffiliated.
The general is another story. Not only is he expressly affiliated with the Hillary campaign, but they treated him differently than they treated the other questioners. When CNN decided (unwisely) to invite him to the debate and give him a rebuttal / follow up they should have made real sure that he wasn't involved in the race.
The very point of the republican debates is for the republican party to figure out for themselves whom for they'll vote. It didn't really matter, as the questions were still relevant. It wasn't such a mark against CNN as it was against the democrats who submitted questions. They're the ones who should have considered that it shouldn't matter for them yet.
I've got like 3 days of jail left, so I'll be getting my edit button back soon.
These were rabid supporters of candidates who were about as likely to be swayed as an ingot of steel in a swift breeze.
Including vox populi/townhall style debates?
Also, some states don't require affiliation to vote in a primary (I voted in the Republican one last time because I hate my governor) you just have to ask for the ballot. Should debates be prevented from taking place within those state lines?
Barring lateral supports, that's a very likely occurence. A column's k value is huge without bracing at the top or sides almost regardless of height.
Even if you don't sway this particular column, if you provide a good answer to your harsher critics, I might be more likely to hold you in high regard. And I haven't decided yet.
I mean, if you could get a whole Democratic frontrunner into a debate and see how various Republicans handled it, wouldn't that be valuable to your selection? Because as a Democrat I'd frankly like to see how our candidates would fare against Rudy or Mitt or whoever before I choose someone to go and face them in the general.
You failed.
I believe he rather proved his case.
When I was five my brother and I were baby sat by Ms. Green. Her son Michael, who was four, would always challenge us to races. We would outrun him, but as he crossed the finish line he would always yell, "I WIN!" and if you protested he would just keep shouting that he won and you lost.
London - are you Michael Green?
"What guns do you own?"