Posted on 10/28/2015 8:55:23 AM PDT by 20yearsofinternet
While millions will watch the third Republican presidential debate on TV, just 1,000 people will get tickets to see the event in person in the massive Coors Events Center on the scenic University of Colorado campus in Boulder.
CNBC, the cable network sponsoring the debate, didn't respond to questions about why the 11,000-seat arena would remain mostly empty.
"The way it was explained to us by CNBC is the event is meant for a TV audience, not so much for a live audience," said Ryan Lynch, the executive director of the Colorado Republican Party, which will get 200 tickets to split among party donors and elected officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Just curious...
1. are you the CEO of a $3.5 to $10 billion dollar enterprise
2. is it an international enterprise where your Senator or President might be able to help
3. are 22,500 households dependent on your enterprises remaining successful
4. are the elected officials in your state mostly Democrats
5. did you also pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans
6. if you were a Leftist would you pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans if this were purely a politically driven thing
Things you should have thought of on your own
You do realize still using this shibboleth makes you the political equivalent of a petulant tween screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR," right?
Your words:
“Anything he’s said in the past is irrelevant to what he’s running on now.”
You said..
“You do realize still using this shibboleth makes you the political equivalent of a petulant tween screaming “IT’S NOT FAIR,” right?”
So you’re saying he never donated to her?? Wow!!
You said..
“Anything he’s said in the past is irrelevant to what he’s running on now. What he’s saying now are the “terms of the deal” he’s making with the American people.”
Double wow
And?
Don't be obtuse. Of course he donated to her...along with everyone else in a position or potential position to aid his business ventures.
You pimping the fact he donated to her makes you at best, doctrinaire, and at worst, disingenuous.
cruz is screwed too.
so when the media is humiliated the cheers are not there.
remember nbc edited out the boos. Faked exploding trucks with flares. Faked audio in the FL stand your ground case.
NBC (cnbc) has a long history of false reporting.
also remember startups PAY cnbc to appear on their programing.
So what evidence do you have that he won't return to his northeast liberal beliefs once in office? Since he doesn't have a legislative record, we need to go back and look at past statements, donations, ect to get an idea of what he believes. Not what he's telling you in order to get past a primary.
Is that your "thinking people" insight coming to the fore?
They couldn’t find more than 1000 Bush supporters?
This is the most troubling statement I've read from a Trumpamaniac. Based on this, you probabaly weren't troubled by BHO past associates or the church he attended or the fact that at one time he referred to the Constitution as a document of negative liberties. That's all irrelevant, right? What only mattered what he was saying to the people in 2008.Except you see the results now that he's gotten past elections
No it was an expression of my dumbfoundedness to your naivety Really? Just believe what someone running for office tells you at the time he/she needs your vote
Well I'll give you this regarding your other reply: you certainly demonstrate the first part of your descriptor.
That you lack the acuity to distinguish the difference in evaluating a professional pol, and a magnate with the acumen, resources, and persona to viably contend for the highest elective office in the world as his first foray into politics is hardly a credible qualification for evaluating my naiveté.
However, it does make your disdain for those asymmetrically shaped checkers on the board, eminently understandable.
Despite your nonsensical reply, I’m guessing you didn’t know this stuff about Trump before today and now you’re conflicted. However, you have such an emotional investment in him that you’re conflicted. That’s why, in your own words, you don’t care about any statements he’s made,issues or politicians he’s backed in the past when he had nothing on the line. You just want what he says now when he’s competing for your vote. I know. That emotional investment is difficult to part with so time is what’s called for here.
I’ll admit, when he first announced and brought the illegal immigration issue up, I was intrigued. And the fact that he blew all pretense of any political correctness away and still defied the pundits was refreshing. But he had no legislative record and my healthy skepticism kicked in and, when I explored, I became troubled. And when you bring this up to the Trumpamaniacs, I’ve seen a lot of” you just don’t see” and “ well you gave to understand...”
He’s a great businessman. And I understand to a point the need to donate to certain politicians we find distasteful. But that doesn’t mean he needed to praise him and then we are left guessing what his true beliefs are.
“Well you gave to understand=well you got to understand
You wrote, “cruz is screwed too. so when the media is humiliated the cheers are not there.”
Did you watch last night’s debate? The biggest applause line was when Cruz humiliated the media. The cheers were indeed there.
There you go again. How do you find time to consider opposing arguments with all the presuming you do?
Oh, silly me. You obviously don't....
However, you have such an emotional investment in him that you’re conflicted.
Pot...kettle.
The difference is you're trying to "save face" by justifying your antipathy with all manner of vapid "No, the glass IS half EMPTY" contrivances.
Further, you admitted it.
I, on the other hand, immediately recognized the significance and value of a candidate espousing acceptably conservative policies, who more importantly, understood from the outset his need to aggressively dominate the media in order to have any hope of accomplishing even his most modest CONSERVATIVE goals.
What I find most curious about you GOPe types is you never get around to credibly answering the question "Why is Trump waging war against the liberal media if he is a liberal, himself?"
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree in regards to the Trump for President campaign
You would probably agree that the GOP has let down conservatives. In 2010 and especially in 2014 they ran on opposing the Democrats and, more specifically, BHO. And surely, you must agree they’ve not lived up to their campaign rhetoric. Based on experience, you wonder why some of us look back at who and what Trump supported and are skeptical regarding what he’s saying now when he needs the votes of conservatives to get the nomination??
true, imagine if there were 11,000 people cheering.
CNBC would have been beyond recovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.