or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc. - Page 2

post #41 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Why is "America's Going Broke! What will you do?" a "good" example? Does this not involve the pre-supposition that America is going broke?

You see that as a good question because you take it for granted that America is "going broke". It is a pretty dramatic assertion to be offered without evidence and with enough confidence to demand a plan to counteract it.

I already provided one: Are the troops dying in vain?

You don't seem to understand difference between presupposing a fact and a person. If I presuppose you beat your wife, that is very different then stating that your apartment cost $X per month.

America is going broke for example. We have trillions in debt. That is very different though than saying, "Why through your fiscal incompetence, is America going broke?"

Also understand that it doesn't mean I don't think that question, loaded as it is could never be asked of a candidate. However have appropriate forums for that. Investigative journalists can ask any and all sorts of questions to people in crafting their articles about candidates. That is very different from a debate though which is supposed to be a means of presenting and contrasting candidate positions on a range of issues.

You choose questions that point at an unpleasant situation, but do not accuse the person answering it of being the cause or being associated with the cause.

I'll not repeat it again so please understand the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Its equally good for both parties, although the Dems come out ahead as "Tax and Spend" is a heck of a lot brighter than "Tax Cuts and Spend" which is dumb as rocks.

Republicans no longer support fiscal responsibility. And Nick, what's this BS of "the Republicans" vs "we Republicans"? Did you or did you not vote for Bush? Did you or did you not vote Republican the last several elections?

"Oh, I'm a Libertarian" sure has gotten to be a popular saying the last couple years.

As Shetline says...suck it up and grow a pair.

I'll say we Republicans when I am a candidate in the debate. I can't say we when I am referring to the participants of the debate and I am not one of them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #42 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Which "they" are you talking about? "They", the candidates themselves, or "they" as in they're supporters?

I have no problem with a candidate objecting to a question like that. A skillful candidate would skillfully object to that question. To handle a question like that skillfully, you need to spell out what you think is wrong with the question itself, and then state your views on the subject matter behind the question.

What I do have a problem with is the supporters on the sidelines whining about the questions because their sorry candidates couldn't field them better. It's hardly as if every single question was as loaded and your extreme made-up example.

The Republicans having more tough questions to handle than the Democrats is a perfectly fair reflection of the current political situation -- most Americans are angrier at Republicans than they are at Democrats, and Republican candidates have more responsibility for defending the mess Republicans have made over the past several years.

The current Republican platform -- a mishmash of laissez-faire capitalism, crony capitalism, religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism and citizen surveillance marketed as Freedom -- simply opens itself to tougher questions, and is inherently harder to defend.

They as in the candidates and likely their campaigns as well.

As for your claims about anger at Republicans, I've stated already that I would not object at all to each group answering the questions presented to the other. I would love to have Hillary, Obama and Edwards on record as failing to promise not to raise taxes, failing to veto amnesty, naming three programs to be cut, and whether they would eliminate farm subsidies for example. I can see no 'anger' related reason why they couldn't answer those questions or why they should limited to Republicans.

There isn't a single Democratic question I think Republican candidates would mind answering.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 105
Does it matter who asks the questions?

We are NOT comparing republicans to democrats at this stage. We are only comparing Republicans to Republicans and Democrats to Democrats. Even if all of the question askers for the Republican debate were democrats (which I highly doubt is the case), it wouldn't matter. It's about HOW the republicans respond to the questions. And many of the questions were extremely straightforward.

When it comes time to comparing Republicans to Democrats (after the primaries), who asks the questions might be important, but as with politics, when someone asks a politician a loaded question, the politician gives a loaded answer.
post #44 of 105
Question: Half of the questions came from 'democrats?'

Question 2: What fraction of the US population is 'democratic?'

Question 3: Is the process of candidate vetting NOT in the interest of ALL americans?

Question 4: Shouldn't BOTH parties seek to have their candidates represent all americans as opposed to 50%?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #45 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Does it matter who asks the questions?

We are NOT comparing republicans to democrats at this stage. We are only comparing Republicans to Republicans and Democrats to Democrats. Even if all of the question askers for the Republican debate were democrats (which I highly doubt is the case), it wouldn't matter. It's about HOW the republicans respond to the questions. And many of the questions were extremely straightforward.

When it comes time to comparing Republicans to Democrats (after the primaries), who asks the questions might be important, but as with politics, when someone asks a politician a loaded question, the politician gives a loaded answer.

It does matter who asked the questions if you want to understand the motivations behind a loaded question versus an honest question.

Also as for who WE are comparing, keep your views to yourself with that assertion. If I am unhappy with the Republican candidate, I will certainly consider the Democratic candidate or a third party candidate. Also for those of us who are registered Republican, we want answers to policy questions, not a show where we watch who can avoid a game of 'gotcha.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Question: Half of the questions came from 'democrats?'

Question 2: What fraction of the US population is 'democratic?'

Question 3: Is the process of candidate vetting NOT in the interest of ALL americans?

Question 4: Shouldn't BOTH parties seek to have their candidates represent all americans as opposed to 50%?

Good points and I have made them as well. The questions could have been the same for both debates. We could have two more debates where the questions from each of the previous debates could be given to the other candidates.

I mean come on, if the confederate flag is such a 'pressing issue' that we have to ask Mitt Romney about it perhaps we should see how Clinton, Edwards and Obama react to that question as well.

Or we could admit reality, that the reason a Mitt Romney is asked about the confederate flag and a John Edwards is not is because we want to remind everyone that Republicans are 'racists' via liberal media code words.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 105
The Confederate flag isn't an issue for Democratic primary voters.
post #47 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I'll chime in against CNN.

They used to be my primary news source after I moved to Japan. Now that I can follow the Japanese broadcasts I do so (they have an interesting spread) and choose carefully on the net.

Watching the CNN anchors is getting ever more humorous. The international anchors are difficult to sit through, but they are nothing compared to the US-based anchors. It really is horrible.

One of the things that drives me crazy is their body language: none of them can sit up for more than a minute nor refrain from making frantic hand gestures and over-emphasizing things with their facial expressions. If they would stop leaning on the desk while talking it would at least look more professional.

I'm not even sure anchors are chosen for actual reporting experience anymore, just their ability to read the teleprompter.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think it would be nice in the future if they just took all the submitted questions, decided on them and then submitted them to BOTH debates.

Frankly, I'd rather they get the most direct, penetrating, and even personal questions that could be devised from the opposing camps and have them asked in this kind of forum... the point being that you'd get the kind of questioning that will happen after the primaries and we could decide who could really stand up to withering lines of criticism early in the process.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The Confederate flag isn't an issue for Democratic primary voters.

You are right. They don't care at all if it is flown over a state capital and in no fashion care to debate the merits of racist versus historical symbol.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are right. They don't care at all if it is flown over a state capital and in no fashion care to debate the merits of racist versus historical symbol.

Nick

Most liberals probably do think it's a historical symbol (of racism) and that it shouldn't be flown over state capitols. But if that issue is even on the radar for Democratic Primary voters, I'd be surprised. I think the Republican primary voters feel a lot more strongly about it, given the geographical areas of the country and the demographics that party tends to represent.
post #51 of 105
I'd like to hear more about why it matters who asks a question in a debate.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #52 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are right. They don't care at all if it is flown over a state capital and in no fashion care to debate the merits of racist versus historical symbol.

Nick

Did you know that in many schools in the south, students are still taught about "The War of Northern Aggression," the same war the North refers to as the Civil War?
post #53 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Did you know that in many schools in the south, students are taught about "The War of Northern Aggression," the same war the North refers to as the "Civil War."

As someone who went to many schools in the South, I can say that I was never taught that.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #54 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It does matter who asked the questions if you want to understand the motivations behind a loaded question versus an honest question.

It doesn't matter that it's a loaded question – thats politics! When someone asks a loaded question, everybody knows it – you could hear it in the (mostly republican) audience. It's how the candidate response to the loaded question that is important. If I ask you a loaded question you have two opportunities. The opportunity to be embarrassed with your tail between your legs or the opportunity to turn it around giving me a loaded answer. After all, how many times have we, as American citizens, asked politicians honest questions, and received a vague, bull-shit answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also as for who WE are comparing, keep your views to yourself with that assertion. If I am unhappy with the Republican candidate, I will certainly consider the Democratic candidate or a third party candidate. Also for those of us who are registered Republican, we want answers to policy questions, not a show where we watch who can avoid a game of 'gotcha.'

You missed my point. Only registered republicans can vote in primaries, and only registered democrats can vote for democrats. This is not the point in an election where, if you did not like any of the republican candidates, you could vote for a democrat. For now, it is democrats versus democrats and republicans versus republicans. Not democrats versus republicans. What does it matter if a democrat asks a republican a loaded question. The point of a loaded question from a democrat would, presumably, be to make a republican look bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Or we could admit reality, that the reason a Mitt Romney is asked about the confederate flag and a John Edwards is not is because we want to remind everyone that Republicans are 'racists' via liberal media code words.

What about these questions from the democratic debate:
Quote:
Should African Americans be given reparations for slavery?
Would a woman president be taken seriously by an Arab state?
Have we had the same two families in charge for too long?
What does "In God We Trust" mean to you?
Would you treat non-religious Americans equally?
w do you address being "black enough" or "woman enough"?

Are these questions not incredibly loaded?

Make any kind of value judgment about republicans you wish. Associating republicans with racism isn't one I'm willing to make. But I can't understand for the life of me why republicans try to be the moral compass for this country when it's mostly republicans that are having affairs and huge scandals right now.

And me? I'm not much of a party man. I'm about the issues. Quiz me on an issue, I'll tell you how I feel.
post #55 of 105
Yeah, but see, those questions were asked by Democrats, which is apparently really important.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #56 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah, but see, those questions were asked by Democrats, which is apparently really important.

Or asked by people who are acting just like they might as well be Democrats, or by people who've actually associated with Democrats, who may have even once talked to a Democrat!

It's not fair!!!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #57 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Most liberals probably do think it's a historical symbol (of racism) and that it shouldn't be flown over state capitols. But if that issue is even on the radar for Democratic Primary voters, I'd be surprised. I think the Republican primary voters feel a lot more strongly about it, given the geographical areas of the country and the demographics that party tends to represent.

I'd be surprised if it was even on the radar for Republican Primary voters. Do you think having one question about homoesexuals serving in the military openly represents Republican concerns about the Iraq war and foreign policy in general with regard to terrorism? That question is like a caricature in that it represents what a liberally biased person, like yourself for example, would believe a conservative to have as a concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'd like to hear more about why it matters who asks a question in a debate.

It was answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

It doesn't matter that it's a loaded question thats politics! When someone asks a loaded question, everybody knows it you could hear it in the (mostly republican) audience. It's how the candidate response to the loaded question that is important. If I ask you a loaded question you have two opportunities. The opportunity to be embarrassed with your tail between your legs or the opportunity to turn it around giving me a loaded answer. After all, how many times have we, as American citizens, asked politicians honest questions, and received a vague, bull-shit answer?

You must have missed this before.

Agreed, but a question is invalid when it is an accusation posing as a question. That does nothing to help us get the sense of a character of a nominee. Also since the best means of defusing a loaded question is to avoid answering it directly, it allows the norm to become avoiding the question. It allows candidates ducking real questions to appear the same as those ducking loaded questions. That is a process that, again, contributes to cynicism and lack of information.

Quote:
You missed my point. Only registered republicans can vote in primaries, and only registered democrats can vote for democrats. This is not the point in an election where, if you did not like any of the republican candidates, you could vote for a democrat. For now, it is democrats versus democrats and republicans versus republicans. Not democrats versus republicans. What does it matter if a democrat asks a republican a loaded question. The point of a loaded question from a democrat would, presumably, be to make a republican look bad.

I think you should acquaint yourself with open versus closed primary systems because for roughly half the states in the U.S. your assertion if flat out wrong. Sure it is wrong on a case by case basis, but it is not universally true.

Quote:
What about these questions from the democratic debate:Are these questions not incredibly loaded?

No those questions do not hide an allegation in the form of a question.

Quote:
Make any kind of value judgment about republicans you wish. Associating republicans with racism isn't one I'm willing to make. But I can't understand for the life of me why republicans try to be the moral compass for this country when it's mostly republicans that are having affairs and huge scandals right now.

And me? I'm not much of a party man. I'm about the issues. Quiz me on an issue, I'll tell you how I feel.

Perhaps you are not willing to make it, but maybe after we ask them about lynching, how many confederate flags they own, which of their grandparents belonged to the klan, and how much cotton they harvested this year at their plantation, a few more people who are not you WILL be willing to make that association.

As for quizzing you some issues, tell me how you feel about the following. I'm sure will have a much deeper understanding of your political views after you answer them.

Have you stopped having sex with your mom yet?
Have you told the police that you molest little boys?
Have you sought help with your little lynching problem?
Have you told them where the bodies are hidden yet?

Remember answer them directly and honestly or else I will, as a person asking the loaded question, use your lack of honestly to further indict you.

Cheers,

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No those questions do not hide an allegation in the form of a question.

If your're going to make the argument that
Quote:
Mitt Romney is asked about the confederate flag and a John Edwards is not is because we want to remind everyone that Republicans are 'racists' via liberal media code words.

someone else could just as easily argue that "What does 'In God We Trust' mean to you?" is asked at the democratic debate because we want to remind everyone that no matter what they might say, Democrats are really just godless heathens, via media code words.

Personally, I think they're both stupid questions
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #59 of 105
trumpt:

Quote:
America is going broke for example. We have trillions in debt. That is very different though than saying, "Why through your fiscal incompetence, is America going broke?"

Republican campaigns do exploit 9/11; they use fear of terrorism constantly. Do you actually deny this?

Quote:
Also understand that it doesn't mean I don't think that question, loaded as it is could never be asked of a candidate. However have appropriate forums for that. Investigative journalists can ask any and all sorts of questions to people in crafting their articles about candidates. That is very different from a debate though which is supposed to be a means of presenting and contrasting candidate positions on a range of issues.

Where did you get this definition of what a debate is "supposed to be"?

Quote:
You choose questions that point at an unpleasant situation, but do not accuse the person answering it of being the cause or being associated with the cause.

So what do you think of "Are the troops dying in vain?". Does that meet your standard? (Please stop ignoring this one, it is the third time I have presented it to you.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #60 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Have you stopped having sex with your mom yet?
Have you told the police that you molest little boys?
Have you sought help with your little lynching problem?
Have you told them where the bodies are hidden yet?

1) The basis of your question has no foundation in fact. One cannot stop that which has never started.
2) The basis of your question has no foundation in fact. I have done so such thing, so there is nothing to report.
3) With all of those hoods you and your associates wear, it appears that you mistakenly thought you saw me under one of them at your last meeting.
4) You mean the alien bodies? I believe you meant to address your question to Dennis Kucinich.

It's not that hard to deflect such questions, and even make the questioner look like an ass in the process.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #61 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It was answered.

It was?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #62 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumpt:
Republican campaigns do exploit 9/11; they use fear of terrorism constantly. Do you actually deny this?

I will deny it sure. 9/11 made terrorism an issue that played well to Republicans but 2006 made the same issue work against Republicans. I guess it is only exploitation when Republicans win though.

Quote:
Where did you get this definition of what a debate is "supposed to be"?

Knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll complain that my one sentence failed to fully recreate the entire sense of that entire entry, but oh well, limits, life, etc.

Quote:
So what do you think of "Are the troops dying in vain?". Does that meet your standard? (Please stop ignoring this one, it is the third time I have presented it to you.

Is it an allegation posing as a question? It could be close but in answering it yes or no, a person is not accused of taking personally harmful action. It may force them to take an uncomfortable position but they are not forced to accuse someone else or themselves of anything.

If that isn't good enough for you then tough because I'm sure I've typed something similar in response to that before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

1) The basis of your question has no foundation in fact. One cannot stop that which has never started.
2) The basis of your question has no foundation in fact. I have done so such thing, so there is nothing to report.
3) With all of those hoods you and your associates wear, it appears that you mistakenly thought you saw me under one of them at your last meeting.
4) You mean the alien bodies? I believe you meant to address your question to Dennis Kucinich.

It's not that hard to deflect such questions, and even make the questioner look like an ass in the process.

Thank you shetline and now that we know your views on all the issues relevant to the election, people will be able to decide how to vote with regard to you. Now on to our talking heads and panel of undecided Republicans who will all coneniently be discovered to be registered Democratic voters by those darn conservative blogs.

Host/Moderator:Talking heads, how do you feel?

Talking head: I felt shetline was very evasive and defensive tonight. Clearly he didn't want to discuss his past record as he brought up almost nothing about it or his present positions instead going on the attack calling the moderator a klansman, and hitting hard at Dennis Kucinich. Going negative clearly is a sign of desperation on his part.

Host: Let's go see what our panel of independent voters thought:

Host of panel: Well as you can see here, everytime shetline didn't address the question asked of him, the knobs tracking what the response of the panel turned decidedly negative and here, where he is attacking others, it goes all the way to the left in terms undecided voter sentiment.

Host/Moderator: Not his best night?

Host/voters: Not his best night...

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It was?

It was.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 105
trumptman:

Quote:
I will deny it sure. 9/11 made terrorism an issue that played well to Republicans but 2006 made the same issue work against Republicans. I guess it is only exploitation when Republicans win though.

Whether or not it is successful, Republicans use 9/11 as a campaign platform. The word "exploit" is somewhat loaded, but it is actually a fairly apt term when confronted with burning tower images in campaign materials.

Quote:
I'm sure you'll complain that my one sentence failed to fully recreate the entire sense of that entire entry, but oh well, limits, life, etc.

When you look at the list of questions to Democrats you think it more accurately reflects your conception of what a debate is than the list of questions to Republicans.

Quote:
Is it an allegation posing as a question? It could be close but in answering it yes or no, a person is not accused of taking personally harmful action. It may force them to take an uncomfortable position but they are not forced to accuse someone else or themselves of anything.

Who is harmed by the exploitation of 9/11 in campaigns?
Is that harm any different than the harm in saying "your son/daughter died in vain"?

You are making a truly desperate attempt to ignore the simple fact that these "debates" are sideshows either way and that both sides faced questions that could appear to be loaded.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #64 of 105
This is kinda interesting.

The posted "list of questions asked Democrats", which apparently is the basis for deciding that Dems get softball questions and Republicans get questions designed to put them in a bad light, includes this question: "Will my taxes rise if a Democrat is elected?"

Here is a link to the actual question:

"I'd like to know, if a Democrat gets into office, are my taxes going to rise, like usually they do, when a Democrat gets into office?"

Gee, the tone's a little different. I wonder how many other innocuous versions of the questions asked Democrats are bullshit edits, designed to support the theory at hand?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Have you stopped having sex with your mom yet?
Have you told the police that you molest little boys?
Have you sought help with your little lynching problem?
Have you told them where the bodies are hidden yet?

These are all fallacies and therefore cannot be answered. None of the questions asked in either of the debates was a fallacy. Sure some questions from each had political leanings, but ALL of the questions that were asked were about valid issues and concerns, such as racism and economics.

Quote:
Thank you shetline and now that we know your views on all the issues relevant to the election, people will be able to decide how to vote with regard to you.

Are you honestly trying to assert that the candidates didn't talk about issues at the debate? Because they most certainly did. Immigration reform, abortion, taxes, gun control, foreign policy, death penalty, religion, social security, etc.
post #66 of 105
This entire thread is based on a couple of fallacies.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #67 of 105
A trio of breathtaking articles in the LA Times today...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...itics-campaign

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=2&cset=true

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...paulconsp.html

The revolution won't be televised, it'll be streamed, blogged and IM'ed!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

These are all fallacies and therefore cannot be answered. None of the questions asked in either of the debates was a fallacy. Sure some questions from each had political leanings, but ALL of the questions that were asked were about valid issues and concerns, such as racism and economics.
.

You are correct that they are fallacies in that they are loaded questions. Congratulations, you've gotten a point that many others in this thread have not. You can refute an allegation and even do so deftly, however that is not the same things as learning about valid issues and concerns.

So you are about halfway there. If you can now differenciate betweeen a question that asks a policy position, or expresses a concern that voters would care about versus an attack disguised as a question, then you will understand why people looked into the backgrounds of some questioners to see how these loaded questions got into the debate.

Is your campaign exploiting 9/11?
Should Vice-President Dick Cheney have so much power?
A gay Brigadier General asks a question


Now that you can see the fallacy in non-political questions, now perhaps you will acknowledge the presuppositions here that turn these into fallacies.

First question presumes exploitation. Second question presumes some some abuse of power. Third question is not listed in here, but in order to disagree with it, you must call the troops unprofessional. (Why you think, American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?) They are straight up loaded questions.

Quote:
Are you honestly trying to assert that the candidates didn't talk about issues at the debate? Because they most certainly did. Immigration reform, abortion, taxes, gun control, foreign policy, death penalty, religion, social security, etc.

Of course I am trying to assert that. We have multiple military actions occurring. The only question concerning them was why the candidates thought the troops were unprofessional enough to not serve with homosexual soldiers. Do you 'honestly' call that addressing the issue?

5000 submissions, I'm sure loads of them related to the war in Iraq as it is a prominent issue, and the best they could come up with is an undisclosed person working for the Clinton campaign asking about gays in the military and who just happens to be in the audience and given a monologue to lecture all the candidates?

You call that addressing the issues? You call that substantive?

I call it what it is and that is clear bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

A trio of breathtaking articles in the LA Times today...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...itics-campaign

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=2&cset=true

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...paulconsp.html

The revolution won't be televised, it'll be streamed, blogged and IM'ed!

Spam, those links rule and thank you for adding them. The first one makes the most compelling case because it notes, you can be against Republicans, you can be against the war, but no matter what you are for or against, the debate was not on substantive matters.

Something else I find very interesting is when I go to YouTube, I can still go browse all the entries for the Democratic debate. I can go look myself and see if there are substantive questions that I would have placed ahead of others asked. For the Republican debate... well... you can view the winning questions and that is it...

Interesting indeed...
Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #69 of 105
Remember that thread a while back when Republicans were mocking Democrats for boycotting that Fox News debate.

What was that great line they used, "If you can't handle Fox News how are you going to handle the terrorists?"

That was a funny line.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #70 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

A trio of breathtaking articles in the LA Times today...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...itics-campaign

I can certainly go along with the fact that having show's producers pick the questions from a large pool of "the people's" questions essentially turns those questions into the producer's questions. Only if CNN's producers had tallied up the questions and used the popularity of certain types of questions to rank which were chosen and how much time each topic was given would there be a reasonable approximation of conveying "the people's" interests. CNN clearly didn't do that, and they should be called on it.

That still doesn't make ludicrous paranoia about "Democratic operatives" true, nor change my mind that giving the Republican's a tougher time than the Democrats does indeed accurately reflect public sentiment toward the two parties at present.

While I'm also willing to agree with the lack of substance and focus on truly important issues in the questions asked, I wouldn't count asking about Biblical literalism among my complaints. For a lot of Fundamentalist Christian voters, it really is very important to them whether a candidate believes as they do. And for me, I want to know too because I definitely DO NOT want someone who's interpretation of world events is passing through a literal interpretation of the Book of Armageddon to be directing our country's foreign policy and deciding matters of war and peace.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #71 of 105
Ding Ding Ding!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #72 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

While I'm also willing to agree with the lack of substance and focus on truly important issues in the questions asked, I wouldn't count asking about Biblical literalism among my complaints. For a lot of Fundamentalist Christian voters, it really is very important to them whether a candidate believes as they do. And for me, I want to know too because I definitely DO NOT want someone who's interpretation of world events is passing through a literal interpretation of the Book of Armageddon to be directing our country's foreign policy and deciding matters of war and peace.

I think you nailed it there.
post #73 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The Confederate flag isn't an issue for Democratic primary voters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Most liberals probably do think it's a historical symbol (of racism) and that it shouldn't be flown over state capitols. But if that issue is even on the radar for Democratic Primary voters, I'd be surprised. I think the Republican primary voters feel a lot more strongly about it, given the geographical areas of the country and the demographics that party tends to represent.

Oh, you mean in the formerly all-Democratic South? Let me guess, the South got to be racist (really, it JUST happened!) and that's why they turned Republican. Therefore, the issue is more important. I think you are way off base here. It's a stupid question to ask of either side. And guess what? They only asked it of one side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I can certainly go along with the fact that having show's producers pick the questions from a large pool of "the people's" questions essentially turns those questions into the producer's questions. Only if CNN's producers had tallied up the questions and used the popularity of certain types of questions to rank which were chosen and how much time each topic was given would there be a reasonable approximation of conveying "the people's" interests. CNN clearly didn't do that, and they should be called on it.

Agreed.

Quote:

That still doesn't make ludicrous paranoia about "Democratic operatives" true, nor change my mind that giving the Republican's a tougher time than the Democrats does indeed accurately reflect public sentiment toward the two parties at present.

Wow. Ludicrous paranoia? Is that now defined as "being factual?" The general literally was a Democratic operative. Please.

Quote:

While I'm also willing to agree with the lack of substance and focus on truly important issues in the questions asked, I wouldn't count asking about Biblical literalism among my complaints. For a lot of Fundamentalist Christian voters, it really is very important to them whether a candidate believes as they do. And for me, I want to know too because I definitely DO NOT want someone who's interpretation of world events is passing through a literal interpretation of the Book of Armageddon to be directing our country's foreign policy and deciding matters of war and peace.

So which is it, important or not? You're saying it's both.

ice:

Quote:
It doesn't matter that it's a loaded question thats politics!

It matters when it's presented by the network as "questions from regular J6Ps."

Quote:

When someone asks a loaded question, everybody knows it you could hear it in the (mostly republican) audience.

Even if everyone in the audience knew, and I don't think they did...what about people watching? Really this argument is flawed anyway. "It's OK because everyone knows what they are doing?" I wonder how far we could take that one?

Quote:

It's how the candidate response to the loaded question that is important. If I ask you a loaded question you have two opportunities. The opportunity to be embarrassed with your tail between your legs or the opportunity to turn it around giving me a loaded answer. After all, how many times have we, as American citizens, asked politicians honest questions, and received a vague, bull-shit answer?

OK, I agree with that part. However, is it right that one party is asked to think on its feet and make a Reagan-esque comeback ("I will not exploit, for political purposes, the youth and inexperience of my opponent" for example) and the other gets asked the political equivalent of "Do we make enough teddy bears in US?" Of course not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


It was.

Nick

/midwinter goes back and reads the first post in this thread....
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #75 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:
Whether or not it is successful, Republicans use 9/11 as a campaign platform. The word "exploit" is somewhat loaded, but it is actually a fairly apt term when confronted with burning tower images in campaign materials.

You make it sound like four airline jets is just something you can ignore. You play the hand you are dealt. The Republicans had to play the same hand in 2006 and it didn't work out very well for them then.

Now grove it is possible to do what you say and I'm not saying no one in any part has never done it. You can craft a wedge issue that is not fully relevant but helps drive voter sentiment. However I don't think anyone would consider 9/11 a wedge issue.

Quote:
When you look at the list of questions to Democrats you think it more accurately reflects your conception of what a debate is than the list of questions to Republicans.

Absolutely. While it isn't perfect, there were many more instances where substantive issues could be addressed. As a percentage it was better.

Quote:
Who is harmed by the exploitation of 9/11 in campaigns?
Is that harm any different than the harm in saying "your son/daughter died in vain"?

It is different and your next statement will show why this so.

Quote:
You are making a truly desperate attempt to ignore the simple fact that these "debates" are sideshows either way and that both sides faced questions that could appear to be loaded.

All the debates are sideshows now. It is a coursening effect you claim and admit to here. Even when it happens though, we can throw up our hands, shrug our shoulders but it isn't personalized. It just becomes 'the way things are' in our society.

So yes the two questions are different because if you are pacifist, all war deaths are in vain. If you aren't then it has been asked but not personally attributed.

That is still very different than directly accusing someone of what amounts to unethical action in te form of a question.

I can ask you if monies spent on domestic violence prevention are being spent in vain.

I can ask you if you beat your wife.

There is a difference. I can even declare that you voted for the monies and thus attempt to prove you made a mistake, however I care to frame it. I still haven't said you personally are a terrible person.

The second one does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

/midwinter goes back and reads the first post in this thread....

We don't get drafts here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Of course maybe they did screen and screened for exactly the type of questions they wanted. The other conclusion is that their own biases did not allow them to see the bias within the questioners themselves or to even ponder it or seek it out.

Isn't that the sentiment that is getting all the dings two pages later?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We don't get drafts here?

I don't think so. My recollection of this GOP whine-fest is that Malkin and her group of cro-magnon followers started tracking down who these questioners were. Then, when faced with the fact that their complaint was a textbook example of ad hominem and genetic logical fallacies, they started to complain that the questions were biased, which is, of course, a tar pit of discussion that we'll all get bogged down in until the next GOP sex scandal, at which point we'll promptly drop this discussion and move over to that one. And then, 6 months from now, someone will resurrect this thread and we'll pick right back up where we left off.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #77 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I don't think so. My recollection of this GOP whine-fest is that Malkin and her group of cro-magnon followers started tracking down who these questioners were. Then, when faced with the fact that their complaint was a textbook example of ad hominem and genetic logical fallacies, they started to complain that the questions were biased, which is, of course, a tar pit of discussion that we'll all get bogged down in until the next GOP sex scandal, at which point we'll promptly drop this discussion and move over to that one. And then, 6 months from now, someone will resurrect this thread and we'll pick right back up where we left off.

Yes, and our resident lefties will excuse, justify and equivocate an egregious example of media bias until then. CNN's conduct, be it intentional bias or bias through total incompetence, was completely inexcusable...unless of course you're a committed Democrat. Then it's just another GOP whine-fest started by the their wingers. The political affiliation of the questioners doesn't matter. The content of the questions-be they loaded or "softball"-that doesn't matter either. All's fair in love and war. I mean politics and war. No, I mean just politics. As long as it's not John Kerry getting called out by dozens of people he served with on allegations that have never actually been disapproved. That wasn't fair. And he'll prove those allegations are LIES from the RIGHT WING ATTACK MACHINE™
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, and our resident lefties will excuse, justify and equivocate an egregious example of media bias until then. CNN's conduct, be it intentional bias or bias through total incompetence, was completely inexcusable...unless of course you're a committed Democrat. Then it's just another GOP whine-fest started by the their wingers. The political affiliation of the questioners doesn't matter. The content of the questions-be they loaded or "softball"-that doesn't matter either. All's fair in love and war. I mean politics and war. No, I mean just politics. As long as it's not John Kerry getting called out by dozens of people he served with on allegations that have never actually been disapproved. That wasn't fair. And he'll prove those allegations are LIES from the RIGHT WING ATTACK MACHINE

Let's see. Ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam, begging the question. All in one post! Well done!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #79 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I don't think so. My recollection of this GOP whine-fest is that Malkin and her group of cro-magnon followers started tracking down who these questioners were. Then, when faced with the fact that their complaint was a textbook example of ad hominem and genetic logical fallacies, they started to complain that the questions were biased, which is, of course, a tar pit of discussion that we'll all get bogged down in until the next GOP sex scandal, at which point we'll promptly drop this discussion and move over to that one. And then, 6 months from now, someone will resurrect this thread and we'll pick right back up where we left off.

I can understand what you claim with Malkin but the reality is that one just doesn't "look" like a member of the Democratic party. The question from the retired general and his handy appearance in the audience along with his monologue rant at the candidates, all actions, drove the investigation. Sure the investigation wasn't limited to him and to dismiss the questions outright of others would be wrong, but within my first post and within the context of this thread, the majority of discussion has been centered on the questions themselves.

I think it a bit maddening that you don't see how a biased question can lead one to investigate a biased questioner where as a biased questioner asking an unbalanced question isn't inclined to cause much of anything with regard action. The debates were supposed to be substantive, instead we got caricature questions. My second post in this thread contained every question from both debates as a follow-up to the first post. So regardless of what you may assign as motivations to Malkin and others, I hope you will at least concede that I have desired to discuss the questions themselves.

Now as to the broader point about CNN, whether the questioner is biased or not, their own statements about the matter have been all over the place. The bias of the questioner is not pointed out except to note how terrible the claimed controls with regard to insuring a quality debate were with regard to CNN. What is clear is that CNN got the debate they wanted and the questions they wanted.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


I think it a bit maddening that you don't see how a biased question can lead one to investigate a biased questioner where as a biased questioner asking an unbalanced question isn't inclined to cause much of anything with regard action.

Well, in a debate, I would expect questions to have some kind of bias. What the hell is the point of the debate if not to ask candidates questions that force them to speak in specifics? At any rate, I don't think this is a discussion of the questions. I think this is about people being upset because the askers were Democrats, as was the premise of this entire thread. That, as I have pointed out a number of times, is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
The debates were supposed to be substantive.

Not since the 1960s.

Quote:
Instead we got caricature questions, My second post in this thread contained every question from both debates as a follow-up to the first post. So regardless of what you may assign as motivations to Malkin and others, I hope you will at least concede that I have desired to discuss the questions themselves.

The problem, and you know this, is that you could make this complaint about any nationally televised debate after the Kennedy/Nixon debates. So to complain about crappy questions in this particular debate is sort of like pointing out that to see the sky, one should look up.

Quote:
Now as to the broader point about CNN, whether the questioner is biased or not, their own statements about the matter have been all over the place. The bias of the questioner is not pointed out except to note how terrible the claimed controls with regard to insuring a quality debate were with regard to CNN. What is clear is that CNN got the debate they wanted and the questions they wanted.

The bias of the questioner is irrelevant. That is a logical fallacy.

The broader issue, which someone above pointed out, is that this is all a stunt. All of it. The premise of the debate is that real people will ask questions instead of Tim Russert asking questions. But when 5000 questions are submitted and then producers choose the ones they like, they might as well have had Russert and the producers writing the questions. And those questions are no more or less biased than any the Dems were asked, nor were they any more or less biased than in other debates. Were the questions at times bad? Sure. Were they, at times, stupid? Sure.

But incompetence is not bias. And I believe all of us, left and right, agree that there is something horribly, horribly wrong with our mainstream media.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc.