Rules of Next Republican Debate Are Unveiled

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Yeah, that's great....They get off by paying 'graft' and agree not to call it what it was...And that is ok with you....corruption at its definition.

So that part that there was no required admission of wrong-doing went right over your head, or past it, or through it without being processed. I'll make a note to self not to bother you with compound or slightly complicated sentences in future. And, of course, you obviously missed the part where it mentions "they" don't have to pay it at all. I fully understand how when your little concoctions of blame end up fizzling out. The smart thing to do is walk away and stop embarrassing yourself but something tells me we'll ever have to worry about you doing that.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

I don't know where you got the arbitrary number of 80% so obviously the 10-15% range is even more arbitrary and obscure in its provenance. I certainly fault Clinton for signing and any Dems who voted for the Bliley-Leach-Gramm bill in 1999 which allowed the investment banks to wreak so much carnage with these tainted mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, etc, etc. But to let Bush, who actually ran on the bubble these rotten instruments created, off with a tiny fraction of responsibility is ridiculous and obviously partisan-based. This is much like blaming the minority of foolish Dems in Congress for Bush/DICK's Excrescent Iraq Adventure. IOW, it smells.

Thought I saw that in another posting in this thread. :shrug: Fine, put whatever number you want on it. That's not really the point anyway.

If it smells or not, it's hard it's to ignore the entire toxic mortgage supply chain from the beginning to the end which manufactured the mortgage bubble just to blame a single person, when so many were involved in that very supply chain.

No, this is not partisan in the least, as there's plenty of blame to go around, both Republican and Democrat, multiple presidents and their administrations and plenty of other people in that supply chain and they all deserve their share of the blame. Not any single one of them could have created the mortgage bubble on their own.

 

[justabubba]

Ted Cruz answered this during the debate for you....

[video]http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000439495[/video]

no, he didn't
he wasted his time on something else, as the moderator aptly noted

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Really?

So far the best debate has been the one hosted by FOX. You may even remember. It was the one where Megyn Kelly asked Trump about his comments regarding women. Hell, even the liberals admitted it was a good, fair and substantive debate.

Personality based politics vs substantive policy politics. Substantive policy politics wins everytime.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

That meme completely ignores the long and complex supply chain, all of whom had a hand in creating and growing the bubble.

Bush has his share of blame to shoulder, this is true, as do both parties in congress who at various times blocked calls and proposals for GSE reform and greater regulation, as do all the people in the supply chain from originating toxic mortgages (remember the NINJA mortgages?), all the way to the banksters who traunched and securitized this bad debt, and the rating agencies who didn't rate their risk properly, and also to include those to set the stage for this bubble with the CRA and ACORN, and the banking deregulation signed into law by Clinton which took the firewall down between the investment high risk tolerant banking and the low risk tolerant main street banking.

With so many steps and so many people involved all growing the bubble, 80% blame for Bush is too large. Call it 10% - 15% maybe.

Well, you certainly have all the fake scandals from the rightwing committed to memory. That pretty much taints what otherwise isn't too far from the mark.

 

[digitusmedius]

Please give me an example of a "tough question" asked by CNBC last debate....

Umm, that's what I've been asking for and no rwer has yet come up with one (or one of the alleged ad hominem attacks either). Are you sure you're all there?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Were Carter/Clinton/Obama supposed to wave their magic wands and make equality happen?

This seems to be the criterion used by rwers to attack dems while every repub's president's massive failure is also blamed on dems. It's a pretty neat closed loop of dishonesty and irresponsibility.

 

[Mason66]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

I'm not referring to past debates. This is about tightening up the future ones in order to protect these goons from themselves. The next moderators will be the tools from FarzBizNooz so we can expect even greater buffoonery from both sides of the lecterns.

Where did you get this idea? Why would Fox want to protect anybody from anything?

 

[j-mac]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

So that part that there was no required admission of wrong-doing went right over your head, or past it, or through it without being processed. I'll make a note to self not to bother you with compound or slightly complicated sentences in future. And, of course, you obviously missed the part where it mentions "they" don't have to pay it at all. I fully understand how when your little concoctions of blame end up fizzling out. The smart thing to do is walk away and stop embarrassing yourself but something tells me we'll ever have to worry about you doing that.

So, all of your snarky, vitriolic word salad here means what exactly? Grow up son....

 

[Kobie]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

That meme completely ignores the long and complex supply chain, all of whom had a hand in creating and growing the bubble.

Bush has his share of blame to shoulder, this is true, as do both parties in congress who at various times blocked calls and proposals for GSE reform and greater regulation, as do all the people in the supply chain from originating toxic mortgages (remember the NINJA mortgages?), all the way to the banksters who traunched and securitized this bad debt, and the rating agencies who didn't rate their risk properly, and also to include those to set the stage for this bubble with the CRA and ACORN, and the banking deregulation signed into law by Clinton which took the firewall down between the investment high risk tolerant banking and the low risk tolerant main street banking.

With so many steps and so many people involved all growing the bubble, 80% blame for Bush is too large. Call it 10% - 15% maybe.

And passed with an overwhelming majority by a Republican-controlled Congress (with a healthy Democratic vote, as well).

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

And passed with an overwhelming majority by a Republican-controlled Congress (with a healthy Democratic vote, as well).

As I've posted. Both parties by far don't have clean hands or a clear conscious when it comes to the mortgage bubble.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Did I ever claim they did a good job. Nope. That's just one of those standard rightwing strawman diversionary tactics you'd hope would derail this and take the heat off. Have you made a list of all these horrible questions the moderators gave the candidates yet? I asked to see some and still haven't had anyone come back with a single one so far.

I watched the debate. The moderators were horrible and exceeded the duties of moderators. Good moderators don't debate and don't ask questions that attack the debaters.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Oh, yeah. I forgot this essential point. Any source with a fact in it is automatically rejected by the rightwing. Thanks for reminding me.

It is amazing to see the left go gonzo when they see Fox News used as a source yet the people on the right are supposed to just buy off on leftist propaganda.

 

[fmw]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

You might has well have posted: "I'm totally spent; got nuthin'"

I have no interest in dealing with you. I was simply wishing you better for the future.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Where did you get this idea? Why would Fox want to protect anybody from anything?

You're kiddin' me, right? Just pretending to be that naive, right?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

So, all of your snarky, vitriolic word salad here means what exactly? Grow up son....

This is just like the whining of the republican candidates. No wonder you like them so much.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

I watched the debate. The moderators were horrible and exceeded the duties of moderators. Good moderators don't debate and don't ask questions that attack the debaters.

Yet, STILL no concrete examples. Admit it; you're just regurgitating the baseless whining of the candidates. It's what passes for substance in the entire republican morass of ugliness and spite.

 

[digitusmedius]

It is amazing to see the left go gonzo when they see Fox News used as a source yet the people on the right are supposed to just buy off on leftist propaganda.

Whenever I give you a "leftist" source it either contains links to other sources or I supply them separately. These are regularly ignored, of course, by rightwingers in order for them to avoid having to actually look at the truth about themselves and the horrible people they vote for.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

I have no interest in dealing with you. I was simply wishing you better for the future.

Understood. If I were in your shoes, I'd be running away, too.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

As I've posted. Both parties by far don't have clean hands or a clear conscious when it comes to the mortgage bubble.

There's a concept in tort law called "last clear chance." The Bush/DICK administration had at least 6 years to view the cumulative effects of the legislative changes which preceded them and not only ignored the warning signs but actively took credit for the bubble that was being created. It is also a fact, which they proudly and consistently run on, that republicans are hostile to government regulation and that largely the reason that almost no effort was made to investigate, much less intervene.

 

[fmw]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Understood. If I were in your shoes, I'd be running away, too.

Have you ever said anything that wasn't an insult?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Have you ever said anything that wasn't an insult?

Have you ever said anything that wasn't complaining?

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

There's a concept in tort law called "last clear chance." The Bush/DICK administration had at least 6 years to view the cumulative effects of the legislative changes which preceded them and not only ignored the warning signs but actively took credit for the bubble that was being created. It is also a fact, which they proudly and consistently run on, that republicans are hostile to government regulation and that largely the reason that almost no effort was made to investigate, much less intervene.

That reasoning doesn't stand up given that the very Bush administration that you hang this on issued multiple formal warnings and concerns to congress which chose to ignore them.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

That reasoning doesn't stand up given that the very Bush administration that you hang this on issued multiple formal warnings and concerns to congress which chose to ignore them.

Really? I'd love to see the content and dates of these "warnings." Mind giving us a link or even a hint where to find them?

 

[fmw]

Re: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/rules-of-next-republican-d

Have you ever said anything that wasn't complaining?

I have my answer. thanks.