Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
RNC Changes 2016 Debate Rules
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
DeMintConservative
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 823
I like it. About time. We don't need hundreds of debates with amateur fringe candidates being tricked by leftist moderators, allowing the MSM to make their coverage about some outlandish statement on a completely marginal and irrelevant issue.
All those debates two years ago with more than 10 guys on the stage were a complete waste of time and resources.
All those debates two years ago with more than 10 guys on the stage were a complete waste of time and resources.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
I don't think you understand... they are trying to control the approved messaging by being constrictive. The candidates can only participate in "approved" debates?! That's dictatorial.
We need professionals like Jeb Bush, right?
DeMintConservative
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 823
I guess you can call it dictatorial, but how else would they be able to enforce the rules? They don't want unprepared fringe candidates being the target of gotcha questions by liberal moderators and sticking their proverbial foot in the mouth. Some of the stuff two years ago was bizarre - I know people who are still convinced that illegalizing condoms is part of the GOP platform. Otherwise, I don't see how this will lead to message controlling.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
Oh. You mean like what you were doing over in yer conspiracy thread?
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
What rules?! Why should the RNC be hosting debates? Why should the RNC have anything to do with the debates at all?
The only thing the RNC should be doing is running the convention.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
No, see, I am one guy with one opinion. I am not talking about instituting any rules that would change the outcome of the Presidential race like these guys are. Nice try though.
Candidates should be allowed and encouraged to have their own ONE ON ONE debates or forums with only a timekeeper and no "moderator".
The Gingrich-Cain and Gingrich-Huntsman "debates" that they did all on their own in 2012 were more helpful in understanding the candidates than the gameshow debates. They got almost zero media attention though because the candidates were not viciously tearing each other apart with sound bites.
The Gingrich-Cain and Gingrich-Huntsman "debates" that they did all on their own in 2012 were more helpful in understanding the candidates than the gameshow debates. They got almost zero media attention though because the candidates were not viciously tearing each other apart with sound bites.
DeMintConservative
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 823
I've already explained why. Most people don't have time or disposition to follow politics closely. To many, their first serious contact with politics every 4 years are the primary debates. It's bad for ALL Republicans if what is being discussed at that critical time is if Republicans believe vaccinations cause mental retardation or if Republicans believe condoms are hurting the nation's morale.
You might agree or disagree if this is a worthy goal, but it doesn't make sense to keep asking why. It's because of that.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
So anything the RNC leadership deems damaging to the Party should be tightly regulated and controlled?
[mod delete]
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
Like those 8 other candidates onstage (everyone except for Ron Paul and gary johnson) raising their hands to indicate that they approved of torturing people? Or how about that debate where Ron Paul got a whole 89 seconds of speaking time? Or were you perhaps thinking of something else?
I was at that debate. What a disgrace. The RNC will only be satisfied once they can officially and openly just hand pick whoever their preferred nominee is and cut out any public participation in the process. Everything they do is an effort toward that goal.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
Yeah, I was just messing with you anyway. Ever since that nonsense they pulled in Ohio with the disfranchisement of the libertarian candidate and that voting demographic, things like this are predictable.
Last edited:
So-called fringe candidates are generally the source of new ideas. If they're too far out, they usually don't have any credentials to run on and don't make it into the debates. Did you ever see Vermin Supreme in a debate? He ran as a Republican in 2008. The media ignored him.
Without the borderline candidates we end up with nothing but Romney and McCain clones in a static, slowly decaying party.
satchelmcqueen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 7,381
this will put an end to a grassroots guy by cutting him out quick BEFORE he has a chance to get his message going. this is aimed at never letting another ron paul type surge gain ground ever again.
satchelmcqueen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 7,381
also, they have actually discussed allowing the "front runner" in the future debates decide who is allowed to continue with him in the next debates. so imagine romney or mccain just simply saying "nope i dont want ron/rand paul in the next debate". besides, who determines the "front runner"? the media and pollsters that they pay, thats who.
this is no good no matter how you look at it. they want the ability to cut out anyone that they dont agree with and be able to by showing a simple rule. in the past they either laughed at, ignored (paul 89sec debate time), banned (paul at fox news debate/ nader at debate) or mock but the only problem with that is that over time, it starts to show and it makes the debates runners look foolish. the crowd turns on them (audience yelling for ron to get question CNN debate) and they lose control.
with these simple sounding new rules it seems like no one will be hurt. not so. anyone not towing the party line will be out after just 1 debate.
remember, paul had 13 states won before the convention and with rule changes on the fly, delegates stolen/held hostage/locked out of voting rooms, they whittled ron down to 6 at the convention. STILL enough to be brought up for vote. win or lose, this could have shattered the GOP fairy tail convention story on live tv. but even on LIVE TV, the gop changed the rules from 5 states to 8. and just like that ron wasnt put up for vote. then the teleprompter/crowd voice vote thing happened to seal the corruption in concrete forever.
dont fall for the new rules idea. it will not be for YOU, but for the SYSTEM!
this is no good no matter how you look at it. they want the ability to cut out anyone that they dont agree with and be able to by showing a simple rule. in the past they either laughed at, ignored (paul 89sec debate time), banned (paul at fox news debate/ nader at debate) or mock but the only problem with that is that over time, it starts to show and it makes the debates runners look foolish. the crowd turns on them (audience yelling for ron to get question CNN debate) and they lose control.
with these simple sounding new rules it seems like no one will be hurt. not so. anyone not towing the party line will be out after just 1 debate.
remember, paul had 13 states won before the convention and with rule changes on the fly, delegates stolen/held hostage/locked out of voting rooms, they whittled ron down to 6 at the convention. STILL enough to be brought up for vote. win or lose, this could have shattered the GOP fairy tail convention story on live tv. but even on LIVE TV, the gop changed the rules from 5 states to 8. and just like that ron wasnt put up for vote. then the teleprompter/crowd voice vote thing happened to seal the corruption in concrete forever.
dont fall for the new rules idea. it will not be for YOU, but for the SYSTEM!
Similar threads
