The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on October 16, 2015, 11:17:54 am
-
Trump, Carson threaten boycott of CNBC debate
Candidates complain of length, 'criteria'
Published: 56 mins ago
The two top-tier Republican candidates for president, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, who are leading the GOP pack in polls, have both sent out threats to boycott the next party primary debate set for Boulder, Colorado, on CNBC because of length and format.
“The criteria that was outlined by CNBC was never discussed with any of the candidates or the campaigns,” said Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager for Trump, in the New York Times. “So what CNBC did was send out a memo and said, ‘Here’s the criteria as you have approved them’ and that went out to all the campaigns. We said we never agreed to this criteria.”
Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!
Specifically, the candidates said the planned debate was too long. It started at two hours but then rose to three – a change in plans that Trump said was aimed at generating more advertising revenue for the network.
“It’s unfair to the viewers because it’s too much, it’s too much to watch,” Trump said, during a Fox News interview.
Carson and Trump, in a letter to CNBC Washington bureau chief Matthew Cuddy, also took issue with the failure of the debate to include opening and closing statements.
The joint letter stated, NBC News reported: “Neither of our campaigns agreed to either the length you propose or your ban on opening or closing statements. In fact, neither of our campaigns were even consulted.”
Ed Brookover, one of Carson’s campaign aides, said opening and closing statements were crucial.
“It’s the fairest way to ensure that any candidate has an opportunity to be heard both early and late in the debate and not to rely on the good graces of the moderators,” he said, referencing the CNN debate in which Gov. Chris Christie was not asked a question for 30 minutes, the Hill reported.
Brian Steel, CNBC spokesman, said the network was considering the candidates’ concerns.
“Our goal is to host the most substantive debate. Our practice in the past has been to forego opening statements to quickly address the critical issues that matter most to the American people. We started a dialogue yesterday with all of the campaigns involved and we will certainly take the candidates’ views on the format into consideration as we finalize the debate structure,” Steel said in a statement reported by NBC News.
Who do you love? Get your favorite presidential bumper sticker here! Check out WND Superstore’s mind-blowing and hilarious selection
Not all the Republican candidates see the three-hour stage event or the lack of opening and closing speaking time as a negative, however.
Carly Fiorina criticized her GOP colleagues’ concerns on Fox News, saying: “I think apparently they’re worried about answering questions for three hours. For heaven’s sake, we have 10 candidates on the stage. I don’t think three hours is too long.”
The debate is scheduled for October 28.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/trump-carson-threaten-boycott-of-cnbc-debate/#l1EFIALj7rJWyLLi.99
-
At 2-hours I would watch. At 3-hours I would DVR it, and watch later fast-forwarding through commercials or stopping only on hot topics, or notable '"he said what?" moments.
-
And CNBC immediately caved. Perhaps the GOP Leaders should make note of this.
-
And CNBC immediately caved. Perhaps the GOP Leaders should make note of this.
The art of the deal. Sounds like Carson has been watching and learning too.
-
The art of the deal. Sounds like Carson has been watching and learning too.
Have to add Cruz in their? It is nice to start Winning even the little things. Trump, Cruz, Carson see what happens when you fight back other than the standard RINOGOP of Caving :amen:
-
Questions posed to all:
Can you imagine Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich or Chris Christie demanding -- and then GETTING -- the changes that Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson wanted?
Can you imagine those establishment guys above going after "the media" in such a manner?
This little episode demonstrates the difference between those who will push their agenda forward, and the G.O.P. milquetoasts who will lap up what the media dishes out to 'em.
It demonstrates the difference between winners.... and losers.
-
Questions posed to all:
Can you imagine Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich or Chris Christie demanding -- and then GETTING -- the changes that Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson wanted?
Can you imagine those establishment guys above going after "the media" in such a manner?
This little episode demonstrates the difference between those who will push their agenda forward, and the G.O.P. milquetoasts who will lap up what the media dishes out to 'em.
It demonstrates the difference between winners.... and losers.
Exactly. The RINO' have been made insignificant and shown to be incompetent by the DEMS. It is time for the outsiders and anti-establishment candidates to lead this country towards restoration. Enough is enough!
-
No doubt they want a ban on detailed answers that address the facts too.
-
Questions posed to all:
Can you imagine Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich or Chris Christie demanding -- and then GETTING -- the changes that Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson wanted?
Can you imagine those establishment guys above going after "the media" in such a manner?
This little episode demonstrates the difference between those who will push their agenda forward, and the G.O.P. milquetoasts who will lap up what the media dishes out to 'em.
It demonstrates the difference between winners.... and losers.
Maybe. Or maybe MSNBC wants their viewers to see the kind of men Trump and Carson are.
One thing is certain. Money and ratings have never held any meaning to MSNBC in the past as their daily line up of programming will attest
Donald Trump
Donald T.
Don T.
Don't
-
I move that we start a fund, using $ 1 from every time somebody uses RINO and any variations, for lack of imagination, creativity, specificity, political maturity and vocabulary.
The fund will help defray the site's operating costs.
-
RINO = Republican In Name Only - aka Republican establishment; a term often used to indicate those "Republicans" who vote and side with the left thereby betraying not only the Republican party, but their constituents and this country. Typing RINO is just so much darn quicker and much simpler! RINO has been a term used now for years. Some interesting "facts" from Wikipedia on the term "RINO":
In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt, then-President William Howard Taft, and Senator Robert LaFollette fought for ideological control of the Republican Party and each denounced the other two as "not really Republican".[citation needed] The phrase Republican in name only emerged as a popular political pejorative in the 1920s, 1950s and 1980s.
The earliest known print appearance of the term RINO was in the Manchester, New Hampshire newspaper then called The Union Leader.
Bill Clinton would have been proud of what was happening on the third-floor Senate corner at the State House this week.... The Republicans were moving out and the Democrats and "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) were moving in.
— John DiStaso, "Merrill Taps Scamman, Strome and a Thomson". New Hampshire Union Leader. 31 December 1992.
The word "RINO" inside a circle, with a red slash indicating negation. The "No RINOs" button design. Buttons featuring the red slash through an image of a rhinoceros were spotted in the New Hampshire State House as early as 1992. In 1993, former Marine and future California Republican Assembly President Celeste Greig distributed buttons featuring a red slash over the word RINO to express opposition to Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan. The term came into widespread usage during subsequent election cycles....
...During Republican primary campaign season, some conservative organizations target RINO Republicans who fail to adopt their stances. National Federation of Republican Assemblies started the "RINO Hunters' Club", whom they believe to be too moderate on such issues as taxes, gun rights, and abortion. The fiscally conservative 501(c)4 organization Club for Growth invented the "RINO Watch" list to monitor "Republican office holders around the nation who have advanced egregious anti-growth, anti-freedom or anti-free market policies"; other conservative groups published similar lists...
While the term RINO is of recent coinage, the concept of being an inauthentic member of the Republican Party by not representing its more conservative faction is a recurring theme in Party history...
Other political "terms":
Blue Dog Democrat
Boll Weevil Democrat
Democrat In Name Only
Half-Breed
Nixonian
Obama Republican
Ripon Society
Rockefeller Republican
Stalwart
Perhaps rather than using RINO or GOPe, and for purposes for those in the current administration the RINO should be called Obama Republicans; and using the acronym OMREP would be much easier! :silly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
-
Questions posed to all:
Can you imagine Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich or Chris Christie demanding -- and then GETTING -- the changes that Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson wanted?
Can you imagine those establishment guys above going after "the media" in such a manner?
This little episode demonstrates the difference between those who will push their agenda forward, and the G.O.P. milquetoasts who will lap up what the media dishes out to 'em.
It demonstrates the difference between winners.... and losers.
Very good point! It said a lot about the TRUMP, Carson and CRUZ vs the pretenders? :beer:
-
I move that we start a fund, using $ 1 from every time somebody uses RINO and any variations, for lack of imagination, creativity, specificity, political maturity and vocabulary.
The fund will help defray the site's operating costs.
Have a great solution for you? Don't read or respond to the POST? :chairbang:
-
But you are a RINO.
You vote Republican candidates (down slate, at least - and you BETTER be doing that!) despite disagreeing with the party. Since they are the ones called Republicans, and you support them (reluctantly) you are therefore the RINO here.
-
But you are a RINO.
You vote Republican candidates (down slate, at least - and you BETTER be doing that!) despite disagreeing with the party. Since they are the ones called Republicans, and you support them (reluctantly) you are therefore the RINO here.
Guess that makes me one, too, as I prefer to win, not be powerless because I chose to be a martyr primping and preening on one or two extreme principles.
-
Count me a RINO as well I guess, because I'm going to vote for the Republican ticket, even if my favorites are not on that ticket. But until then it's my job as an electorate to have the man or women who I think will represent our party the best, and best for America get the nomination.
-
Count me as well as a RINO...
-
I'm for sure a RINO as I only vote for Republicans.
Which means I won't vote for Trump in a primary.
-
I'm for sure a RINO as I only vote for Republicans.
Which means I won't vote for Trump in a primary.
:amen:
-
I will vote every election, Republican from top to bottom, unless something very unusual is involved.
The Republican will simply be more close to my political philosophy and have the best chance of winning, compared to any democrat or 3rd party attention seeker.
-
I'm for sure a RINO as I only vote for Republicans.
Which means I won't vote for Trump in a primary.
:amen: He can throw out all the red meat he wants, he will never convince me he is a Republican. This "red-meat" can easily be explained in his books, on how to influence people so you can get past them and to what you really want.
The next President in office will likely replace 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices effecting that court for decades to come, not to mention Federal courts, court of appeals and district judges that the president appoints. We seriously need to look beyond stump-speech red meat, and think about the consciences of our decision.
-
Guess that makes me one, too, as I prefer to win, not be powerless because I chose to be a martyr primping and preening on one or two extreme principles.
I like your avatar, my friend.
-
I like your avatar, my friend.
Thanks! I borrowed it from a wise friend.
-
:amen: He can throw out all the red meat he wants, he will never convince me he is a Republican. This "red-meat" can easily be explained in his books, on how to influence people so you can get past them and to what you really want.
The next President in office will likely replace 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices effecting that court for decades to come, not to mention Federal courts, court of appeals and district judges that the president appoints. We seriously need to look beyond stump-speech red meat, and think about the consciences of our decision.
Also I would like to know the following: Will Donald Trump respect the Constitution and the process or will he be like Barack Obama bypassing Congress by doing Executive Actions??
-
Also I would like to know the following: Will Donald Trump respect the Constitution and the process or will he be like Barack Obama bypassing Congress by doing Executive Actions??
I would damn well expect him to use EOs....if only to hear the screams and wailing of the Left.
As I've stated, IMO, the GOP House and Senate will/should have a veto proof majority. Especially with Democrat assistance.
-
I would damn well expect him to use EOs....if only to hear the screams and wailing of the Left.
As I've stated, IMO, the GOP House and Senate will/should have a veto proof majority. Especially with Democrat assistance.
Sorry two wrongs don't make a right.
-
:amen: He can throw out all the red meat he wants, he will never convince me he is a Republican. This "red-meat" can easily be explained in his books, on how to influence people so you can get past them and to what you really want.
The next President in office will likely replace 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices effecting that court for decades to come, not to mention Federal courts, court of appeals and district judges that the president appoints. We seriously need to look beyond stump-speech red meat, and think about the consciences of our decision.
Yes you are right. Supreme court justices, judges, etc., something to seriously think about and to keep in mind. Trump isn't first on my list and I won't be voting for him either in the primary.
-
I would damn well expect him to use EOs....if only to hear the screams and wailing of the Left.
As I've stated, IMO, the GOP House and Senate will/should have a veto proof majority. Especially with Democrat assistance.
So process and the Constitution don't matter? All that matters is that you get your way?
-
Sorry two wrongs don't make a right.
Meh.....so I suppose it's perfectly fine for a Democrat to rule like a king and piss on the Bill of Rights and Constitution...with the mainstream media's, Academia's and Hollywood's total blessing.
But if one of our guys adopts the same tact to reverse everything the Kenyan has done in order to "Make America Great Again", your answer is simply "Two wrongs don't make a right".
You sir, demonstrate exactly what's wrong with the Republican's image out there.
This isn't a 60 minute CSI episode we're living in, where the bad guys ALWAYS get punished and the good guys look like they stepped out of GQ.
-
So process and the Constitution don't matter? All that matters is that you get your way?
Exactly how does "I would damn well EXPECT him to use EOs....." translate into my condoning it?
I'm simply saying that I understand why he would...in the event he didn't have the full cooperation of his identified Party.
-
Exactly how does "I would damn well EXPECT him to use EOs....." translate into my condoning it?
I'm simply saying that I understand why he would...in the event he didn't have the full cooperation of his identified Party.
So then you should have no problem understanding why Obama used them as he did.
-
Meh.....so I suppose it's perfectly fine for a Democrat to rule like a king and piss on the Bill of Rights and Constitution...with the mainstream media's, Academia's and Hollywood's total blessing.
But if one of our guys adopts the same tact to reverse everything the Kenyan has done in order to "Make America Great Again", your answer is simply "Two wrongs don't make a right".
You sir, demonstrate exactly what's wrong with the Republican's image out there.
This isn't a 60 minute CSI episode we're living in, where the bad guys ALWAYS get punished and the good guys look like they stepped out of GQ.
Sorry, unlike you I respect the Constitution. I also happen to like the Checks and balances that our Founding Fathers put in place. If Trump won't respect the Constitution and how this Government is suppose to function, then he should be run as a Democrat.. They hate the Constitution. Yes the Constitution is a suicide pact.
-
So then you should have no problem understanding why Obama used them as he did.
Read my post again, Oceander.
Obama HAD and HAS to this day, the total support and cooperation of the Democrat Party.
I said that I would empathize with Trump in the event the Republicans try to restrain him on matters he's not willing to yield.
-
Sorry, unlike you I respect the Constitution. I also happen to like the Checks and balances that our Founding Fathers put in place. If Trump won't respect the Constitution and how this Government is suppose to function, then he should be run as a Democrat.. They hate the Constitution. Yes the Constitution is a suicide pact.
Don't tell me I don't respect the Constitution. Or checks and balances.
But Obama and by extension, 50% of the nation has shown me that sh*t don't work any longer.
Once upon a time, when two gentlemen got to a certain point, they would challenge each other to a duel. Take ten steps, turn and shoot.
Then it evolved into who had the fastest draw with them facing each other.
Today, one party would simply ambush the other and double tap them.
-
Read my post again, Oceander.
Obama HAD and HAS to this day, the total support and cooperation of the Democrat Party.
I said that I would empathize with Trump in the event the Republicans try to restrain him on matters he's not willing to yield.
Sorry I want a President of this country to be Restrained!!!! We are electing a President not a dictator..
-
Read my post again, Oceander.
Obama HAD and HAS to this day, the total support and cooperation of the Democrat Party.
I said that I would empathize with Trump in the event the Republicans try to restrain him on matters he's not willing to yield.
There isn't a scintilla of difference between you and the democrats on that score, no matter how badly you want there to be. You either accept, or you do not, the use of executive orders to circumvent Congress. And if you do, then you've made your bed and you can no longer complain about who stitched the sheets.
-
There isn't a scintilla of difference between you and the democrats on that score, no matter how badly you want there to be. You either accept, or you do not, the use of executive orders to circumvent Congress. And if you do, then you've made your bed and you can no longer complain about who stitched the sheets.
:amen:
-
There isn't a scintilla of difference between you and the democrats on that score, no matter how badly you want there to be. You either accept, or you do not, the use of executive orders to circumvent Congress. And if you do, then you've made your bed and you can no longer complain about who stitched the sheets.
I want to ask something..
Did Washington get what he wanted?
Did Jefferson get what he wanted?
Did Lincoln get what he wanted?
Did Teddy R get what he wanted?
Not all of the time, but at least they worked with Congress..
-
The problem with ruling by EO is that they may be undone with the flick of a pen too. How many candidates are going to nullify the Worm's EOs on day one?
Now imagine that EVERY SINGLE TIME the presidency changes. You think the government is a dysfunctional money pit now? Wait and see what a shit storm that will be like.
-
Sorry I want a President of this country to be Restrained!!!! We are electing a President not a dictator..
I'm enjoying your posts, sir. Carry on.
-
In 2008 the democrats added the Presidency to the congressional majorities they already had.
IOW close to a dictatorship. About the only thing that stopped them was not having 60 Senators.
The GOP has been clawing its way back from that catastrophic situation.
The narrow but loud faction of the GOP talks big, but doesn't have the firepower to execute their wishes. So instead they beat up on each other, in their poorly focused frustration.
The GOP does NOT have veto proof majorities, so Obama can veto anything they pass and they can't do anything about it.
-
I'm enjoying your posts, sir. Carry on.
Thank you..
-
Sorry, unlike you I respect the Constitution. I also happen to like the Checks and balances that our Founding Fathers put in place. If Trump won't respect the Constitution and how this Government is suppose to function, then he should be run as a Democrat.. They hate the Constitution. Yes the Constitution is a suicide pact.
I agree with the checks and balances BUT in order for the unconstitutional actions of the last 7+years to be overturned by the next administration playing by the rules and making chage requires several assumptions:
1. The new president is a republican
2. The new president has the guts to take the action.
3. The house and the senate remain in republican control
4. The house AND the sanate have the guts to take the actions.
If any of the 4 assumption above are not true, we stay where we are and live with the cancerous liberal social rules we have now.
-
The problem with ruling by EO is that they may be undone with the flick of a pen too. How many candidates are going to nullify the Worm's EOs on day one?
Now imagine that EVERY SINGLE TIME the presidency changes. You think the government is a dysfunctional money pit now? Wait and see what a shit storm that will be like.
Good point, but my real purpose in responding is to ridicule your avatar comment.
Befuddled?
You are so English. Do you realize that word has not been used by an American in over 40 years? Just stop it already.
also stop using words like crisps, lift, gob, tosser, chap, boot(car trunk), balmy, and kerfuffel. :laugh:
-
kevindavis wrote above:
[[ Also I would like to know the following: Will Donald Trump respect the Constitution and the process or will he be like Barack Obama bypassing Congress by doing Executive Actions?? ]]
No matter who the next Republican president may be, I hope he issues a SLEW of "executive actions" -- that repeal not only those issued by obama but also by G.W. Bush and Clinton as well!
No apologies for that statement.
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant!
-
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant!
An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent!
-
Sorry two wrongs don't make a right.
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12108911_728920060572158_3402319102349587514_n.jpg?oh=01beb15c6ebe59cf2ece589287f38c48&oe=56CD4844)
Thanks for playing, Kevin! :laugh:
-
I want to ask something..
Did Washington get what he wanted?
Did Jefferson get what he wanted?
Did Lincoln get what he wanted?
Did Teddy R get what he wanted?
Not all of the time, but at least they worked with Congress..
And congress worked with them.... 2 way street