Trump and Carson get the debates limited to two hours

[Israel Chai]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/16/cnbc-caves-to-demand-from-trump-and-carson-agrees-to-limit-next-gop-debate-to-two-hours/

Or rather, CNBC caved to the demand from Trump. Carson co-signed the letter that Trump sent to the network, but it ain’t Dr. Ben who’s delivering an extra 10 million viewers or so to these things.

Pretty simple calculation for CNBC: Enjoy two hours of boffo ratings with Trump as your star or three hours of middling ratings for special guest star Jeb Bush. Easy call.

    CNBC has agreed to limit its forthcoming Republican primary debate to two hours and allow for opening and/or closing statements, acquiescing to the demands of Donald Trump and other GOP campaigns, CNN has confirmed.

    The Republican National Committee began calling the campaigns on Friday morning to inform them that CNBC had agreed in principal to limit the debate to two hours, including commercials, and to allow for opening and/or closing statements, according to two sources with knowledge of the decision.

    “They said those conditions are ‘all but certain’,” as they still needed all the campaigns to sign off on the new format, a source with one of the campaigns told CNN.

Why we need openings and closings for candidates who’ve already addressed gigantic TV audiences twice, I’m not sure. The answer, I suppose, is that “we” don’t need them. The candidates want them, simply because it’s their best way to summarize the case for their candidacy for the benefit of anyone new tuning in — even though, with a few exceptions, the differences between them that you might glean from a one-minute statement are marginal. Anyway: With 10 candidates on stage, figure a minute for each opening and closing statement plus 20 minutes for commercials each hour and you’ve got one hour of actual Q&A — which includes the time needed by the moderators to actually pose the questions. Not including their openings and closings, each candidate should end up with … four minutes of speaking time, maybe? Five? (Then again, how many would they have in a three-hour debate? Seven?) And that assumes that the time will distributed evenly, which it won’t be. A marginal candidate like Rand Paul will be lucky to get three minutes total to answer questions posed to him. A six-man debate, say, would be a much better fit for a two-hour format. But Trump and Carson, as the two big draws, have all the leverage here and it’s in their interest to answer as few policy questions as possible, so that’s what’s going to happen. They’re playing a prevent defense, enabled accidentally by the RNC.

Here’s Carly Fiorina on Megyn Kelly’s show last night accusing Trump and Carson of being, ahem, low-energy in preferring to give canned statements instead of fielding questions for three hours. “Here are two outsiders, supposedly,” she says. “They sound a lot like politicians tonight to me.” Exit question from Matt Lewis: Given his influence over the ratings, what lines are the cable news network prepared to draw in resisting future Trump demands? If he insists that the November debate be an hour long with five candidates, will Fox Business have no choice but to agree? What if it’s 90 minutes with seven candidates?

[angryChineseKahanist]

Despite him being a crappy affirmative action doctor who left a sponge in someone's brain case, he would still make a better president than obongo. Still I would prefer a full human being over a negro mutt who is part white.

[Israel Chai]

Despite him being a crappy affirmative action doctor who left a sponge in someone's brain case, he would still make a better president than obongo. Still I would prefer a full human being over a negro mutt who is part white.

OK if you're implying that I exaggerated in what I said to you, I should have said I don't have any idea if that's what you believe because I won't presume to know who you are as a person over a forum outside very superficial ways. The same applies to everyone else that sees it, and what you say gets taken in very specific ways. Since you have nazis on the black hate camp, you have to make sure you're saying something factual and intellectual if you want to actually do anything to improve that. Black people had near 100% 2 parent family rate, had nowhere near the crime today, and there were many great black people in the 60s and before, because American culture was rigorous and encouraged morality, hard work and innovation. Then all of a sudden, it was decided that moral decadence, violent crime and entitled shame-begging life was black culture and it grew. If their natural state is this guy trying his best to be a walking stereotype, then they recently evolved into that recently. Margaret Sanger, the open Nazi and founder of planned parenthood, got her plan to make black people vote democratic worked. White Americans have a lot of strong social groups like for business, church, regions, even golf and school alumni organizations that helped them to resist the leftist brainwashing. The left has infiltrated a lot well enough now for many of them to be counted as detrimental, but black people didn't have the same level of inter-citizen cooperation in their areas, so the left was able to subvert their culture without resistance. It's promoting for you to be that way too ACK, and you see parentless kids with no education becoming that stereotype too, you just can resist it.

What do you want black people to do? All show up to check themselves into jail or the next flight to Africa? I think if you're not encouraging the right kind of change, it's either complaining or just ignorant comments. Black people worked great with American culture, with this "gangsta" counter-culture, which really amounts to "the more bad the thing you do is, the more good it is" in every situation where it benefits or amuses you, they behave way worse than any place in Africa where muslims aren't involved. So like Nineveh that was doing lots of bad things, you can't say "all kill yourselves", you have to say "what you're doing is bad, don't". It's not that you feel bad for them, it's not required or even helpful. You say "measure up to this or you'll be an outcast", instead of "we accept you as you are and it's horrible anyone should say a bad thing about you", and then they will want to join the culture instead of make a counter culture that is worshiped for the reason that Americans hurt it. Say "you are apes" and they will look for someone else to side with against you to spite you.

[angryChineseKahanist]

Take a deep breath. I'm not your enemy. We're all on the side of JTF remember?
How do you expect anyone to answer you that way? especially on a phone.

[Israel Chai]

Take a deep breath. I'm not your enemy. We're all on the side of JTF remember?
How do you expect anyone to answer you that way? especially on a phone.

Didn't say I thought u were a bad guy, I said the terms you use will tell others that you are. I don't understand the second question.