• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary Clinton to use larger podium ...

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Both things I quoted were you saying Clinton was trying to skew optics.
Way to avoid what was actual said in reply.

They were most definitely the same thing.
Stop with the dishonesty.
You provided a quote and made it appear that what the article said was what I said when I did not say it, because you did not distinguish between what was said.

Again.

It is believed that the larger one was built at Clinton’s request to make her appear taller than she is.


Skewing the optics. Figures.
And her using a smaller podium is trying to skew the optics. iLOL Just as others have done.
So Clinton using a larger podium would have been skewing the optics and Clinton using the smaller podium is skewing the optics.

Geez, it's good to see you're not holding an absurdly stupid position on this.

The part emboldened in red is what the article said, not what I said.
Clearly you were unable to distinguish properly as pointed out.



Just because you're embarrassed by posting a source which turned out to be a lie, that doesn't excuse the fact your position is ridiculous.
iLOL
You making something up to believe doesn't fly in debate. But it is funny.


You posted what the article said and used it as the basis to make your claim. There was no distinction.
That is not what I related which I again just pointed out above.

You did not distinguish between what I said and what was provided by the article. Period.


Yes, and whether the article was right or what you "believed" was right, you accused Clinton of trying to "skew' the optics.
Absurdity you have going on.
Having a different sized lectern made is skewing the optics. Period.


In other words, no matter which podium Clinton had, you were accusing her of skewing the optics.
Yay! You got it right.
But for leaving the lectern the same as the other, no matter what size she changed to, is skewing the optics.


And that's why I pointed out how stupid your position was. Even a 7 year old would understand the blatant bias you were openly displaying.
iLOL You pointed out your stupid position is all that is.
Purposely having a different size lectern is attempting to skew the optics. Which has already been pointed out by another.
That you do not recognize this says volumes about your thought processes.


So no matter what, Clinton is wrong, regardless of which podium she used, right? To quote you from the first post, "Figures".
Exactly.
And if Trump had done it I would have claimed the same or agreed with anyone else that pointed it out. But as we all know there is no information that said he had a different sized lectern made.


You're the only one playing this game. I'm merely laughing at your undisguised partisanship. Let this be a lesson to you in not rushing to post dubious articles from the Internet just because they let you attack your political opponents.
iLOL You making things up to believe in your convoluted thoughts does not make for reality.
There is nothing partisan in pointing out that Hillary, like other candidates, purposely skewed the optics, as I showed Dukakis did.
Get back with me when you realize that.





Trump used the larger podium because he's the larger liar. By far.
You again show you know not of what you speak.
Figures.





Isn't Trump using a larger podium also skewing the optics? And if both podiums come up to the respective candidates elbows, as your pucture shows, how are the optics skewed?
iLOL
1. One lectern would be of regular size while the other was made smaller.
Under those conditions the larger lectern was not made to skew the optics.

2. Had Trump had a larger or even smaller lectern made, yes that would be skewing the optics as well, but there is nothing that would suggest that is the case.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Way to avoid what was actual said in reply.
They were your words. I didn't avoid anything.

Stop with the dishonesty.
Says the person who accused Clinton of skewing optic regardless of whether she had the shorter podium or taller podium. :roll:

You provided a quote and made it appear that what the article said was what I said when I did not say it, because you did not distinguish between what was said.
Your comment directly relied on what the article said. You were the one who presented the article. You presented the article and used it to criticize Clinton. They were your words, even if you let someone else say them. It is NOT dishonest to assign to you the position from the article, because you posted it and you used it as the crux of your position.

The part emboldened in red is what the article said, not what I said.
See right above this. Again.

You making something up to believe doesn't fly in debate. But it is funny.
I didn't make it up. Your source that YOU posted was wrong. I know I'd be embarrassed if I posted a source which I used to craft my position was wrong. But, then again, I have integrity and would also apologize for posting a source that was wrong. Of course, I also have intelligence, so I wouldn't post an obviously biased source without fact checking it first in the first place.

That is not what I related
It most certainly is. Are you trying to claim you posted the source, used it to make your statement about "skewing the optics" because you didn't believe the source?

I simply don't understand why people just can't admit their blatant biases.

Having a different sized lectern made is skewing the optics. Period.
So you're claiming now Trump was trying to skew the optics because he wanted a larger podium? So Trump is now the bad guy in this? Or is your criticism only reserved for the person with whom you disagree politically, like any good little partisan?

Having different sized podiums for different sized people is not about skewing optics, it's about comfortable debate. Trump shouldn't have to look down a foot and a half to read or write any of his notes and Clinton shouldn't have a podium at her nose for her debate. Your argument about skewing optics is just nonsense.

Yay! You got it right.


Exactly.
So you are admitting you're being blatantly partisan then?
And if Trump had done it
Wait, what do you mean "if Trump had done it". How do you know Trump didn't do it? How do you know Clinton did it? How do you know the debate commission didn't go to both of the candidates individually and ask what height they wanted? How do you know the debate commission didn't make the podiums a certain percentage of the candidates height?

Do you see why I'm accusing you of blatant partisanship right now? No, you probably don't.

But as we all know there is no information that said he had a different sized lectern made.
:lol:

And there's no information Clinton wanted a different sized one made, except for an article which was proven wrong on its main point of contention, an article you are so desperate to separate yourself from.

Partisans are just so funny.

Get back with me when you realize that.
Oh, I've thoroughly trounced your every position in this thread at this point. I have gotten you to basically admit you are engaging in blatant partisanship.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You sure do type a lot to say nothing of import.

They were your words. I didn't avoid anything.
Dishonesty as well as wrong. You did not differentiate between what I said and what the article said.
That was the point and it still is.
Nothing you can say changes that.


Stop with the dishonesty.

You provided a quote and made it appear that what the article said was what I said when I did not say it, because you did not distinguish between what was said.
Says the person who accused Clinton of skewing optic regardless of whether she had the shorter podium or taller podium.
Your reply is absurdly irrelevant to that which you quoted.


Your comment directly relied on what the article said. You were the one who presented the article. You presented the article and used it to criticize Clinton. They were your words, even if you let someone else say them. It is NOT dishonest to assign to you the position from the article, because you posted it and you used it as the crux of your position.
iLOL Look at you confusing two different things, again.
You did not differentiate between what I said and what the article said. That is dishonesty, especially as your reply was predicated on it being something I said when I hadn't.


The part emboldened in red is what the article said, not what I said.
See right above this. Again.
Your confusion again.
That is irrelevant to the fact that you did not distinguish between the two. I did not say what they said. That is your fault and your problem.
Your reply was predicated on what they said of "larger" (which you wrongly attributed to me), when the totality of what I had said was showing disbelief in the claim of "larger" as smaller made more sense, which bared out to be true.


I didn't make it up. Your source that YOU posted was wrong.
Two different things again. :doh
You were wrong.
And they being wrong is irrelevant to the position I took. It was skewing the optics by her no matter which way you swing it.


I know I'd be embarrassed...
You should be embarrassed.


if I posted a source which I used to craft my position was wrong.
This is a lame statement.
They showed the two lecterns. They were of different size. Period.
The different sized one was attributed to he request.
The only thing they got wrong was which lectern it was.

And as already pointed out ...
A step stool with a regular size podium is understandable.

But a larger sized podium? Her upper body will look diminutive.
Maybe the article got it wrong and the smaller one is for her?

My position was made clear that the smaller one was likely hers as the larger one would make her look diminutive.


But, then again, I have integrity and would also apologize for posting a source that was wrong. Of course, I also have intelligence, so I wouldn't post an obviously biased source without fact checking it first in the first place.
A lame egotistical reply that has absolutely nothing to do with reality
They showed the two lecterns were of different size.
All they got wrong was which one they attributed to her, which is irrelevant to the fact that she did in fact try to skew the optics by having one of a different size.

But of course you are unable to admit that because of your own biases. That is abundantly clear.


It most certainly is. Are you trying to claim you posted the source, used it to make your statement about "skewing the optics" because you didn't believe the source?
This would be you showing you are unable to admit that they showed the two lecterns which were of different size.
This is also you not admitting that I indicated what my position was by the questions I asked in regards to what they were reporting.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that Hillary did indeed try to skew the optics.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I simply don't understand why people just can't admit their blatant biases.
Clearly something you need to be asking yourself, though I doubt you will get an honest answer.


When I said, "A step stool with a regular size podium is understandable." does not show bias. Or do you really not understand that?
And again, had Trump done such I would have also said it would be skewing the optics, just as I pointed out others such as Dukakis skewed the optics as well.

And yet here you sit falsely claiming bias. Your thoughts on this are clearly convoluted and delusional.



So you're claiming now Trump was trying to skew the optics because he wanted a larger podium?
Wow. You truly have severe interpretation difficulties.
Again.
Having a different sized lectern made is skewing the optics.
and
But as we all know there is no information that said he had a different sized lectern made.


So Trump is now the bad guy in this? Or is your criticism only reserved for the person with whom you disagree politically, like any good little partisan?
iLOL
Like I said, YOU are having severe interpretation difficulties.

Do you have any information that Trump had a different sized lectern made? What is that? You don't? Figures.



Having different sized podiums for different sized people is not about skewing optics, it's about comfortable debate.
In this case you are wrong. It is about skewing the optics and is normal for candidates to do.


In other words, no matter which podium Clinton had, you were accusing her of skewing the optics.
Yay! You got it right.
But for leaving the lectern the same as the other, no matter what size she changed to, is skewing the optics.
So you are admitting you're being blatantly partisan then?
iLOL
You finally getting something right is not me admitting any bias in regards to this topic.
JFC, where do you come up with such silly nonsense?

Sonce you didntop get it the first itme.

Again.

But for leaving the lectern the same as the other, no matter what size she changed to, is skewing the optics.
You not understanding that is your problem, not mine.
You thinking that is bias on my part is asinine and is based on nothing but your own convoluted irrational thoughts.



Wait, what do you mean "if Trump had done it". How do you know Trump didn't do it? How do you know Clinton did it? How do you know the debate commission didn't go to both of the candidates individually and ask what height they wanted? How do you know the debate commission didn't make the podiums a certain percentage of the candidates height?
This only makes it obvious that you are playing a game.


Do you see why I'm accusing you of blatant partisanship right now? No, you probably don't.
You have no valid point.
I clearly indicated that if Trump had done the same I would take the same position. Did you really not understand that?

So, do you have any information that Trump did the same?
Never mind. Of course you do not, so this only points to your own bias, but you are clearly incapable of understanding that as you have repeatedly shown.


And there's no information Clinton wanted a different sized one made, except for an article which was proven wrong on its main point of contention, an article you are so desperate to separate yourself from.
Riiiiiight! A smaller one was made, which Hillary used, and you want to suggest that she isn't responsible for having it made?
Suuuureeeeee! Tell that bs to someone else.

The main contention is that she had a different sized lectern made. They showed the difference in the sizes of the two.
What they got wrong was which one.


Partisans are just so funny.
Yes, your partisanship clearly is.


Oh, I've thoroughly trounced your every position in this thread at this point. I have gotten you to basically admit you are engaging in blatant partisanship.
Your arrogance is hilarious. You haven't trounced anything but have instead shown you have an absurd unrealistic opinion about things.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You sure do type a lot to say nothing of import.
I type quite a bit, to be sure. But it was of great import to the topic at hand. At the end of the day, you cited a source which turned out to be wrong and used that source to make a blatantly partisan post against your political rival, whereby you accused her of trying to "skew the optics" regardless of which podium she used, which would be considered stupid by anyone not blinded by partisanship.

You got caught. Just admit it.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,287
Reaction score
21,676
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
1. One lectern would be of regular size while the other was made smaller.
Under those conditions the larger lectern was not made to skew the optics.[/ QUOTE]

What is the standard size? Which candidate had the standard size one? If one is standard size, why were both proporyional to tge height of the candidates?
2. Had Trump had a larger or even smaller lectern made, yes that would be skewing the optics as well, but there is nothing that would suggest that is the case.

Is there any wvidence that Clinton ordered a specific sized lectern?
 

jpn

Retired Navy Commander
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
10,005
Reaction score
8,208
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Quote Originally Posted by jpn
Trump used the larger podium because he's the larger liar. By far.

You again show you know not of what you speak.
Figures.

At this late date, anyone still sticking up for Donald Trump's veracity ends up looking...well, kind of, um... :joke:
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Is there any wvidence that Clinton ordered a specific sized lectern?
Of course there is! Just look at the article in the OP, the article which turned out to be wrong and which Excon is trying very hard to distance himself from. That's all the evidence you need.
thumbsup.gif
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
But it was of great import to the topic at hand.
A manifestation of your own deluded thoughts.


you cited a source which turned out to be wrong and used that source to make a blatantly partisan post against your political rival, whereby you accused her of trying to "skew the optics" regardless of which podium she used, which would be considered stupid by anyone not blinded by partisanship.
Wrong as usual.
The crux of the report is what Rita Cosby reported, that one lectern was taller than the other.
That was coupled with what had been reported earlier, that Hillary's campaign had requested that she be allowed to "use a raised podium to avoid appearing 10 inches shorter than Trump".
The reporter of the article was only wrong in the assumption they made in regards to which lectern was for Hillary. Not that one was constructed for her.

And as we know from the debate, the smaller was for Hillary just like I suggested by question.

In addition.
A person having a different sized lectern made, or even given to them is skewing the optics regardless if it was a larger or a smaller. That is fact. Not bias.
You not understanding that is your problem, not mine.


You got caught. Just admit it.
:lamo
That quote coming from the one who's dishonest and convoluted bs has been busted is hilarious.


Of course there is! Just look at the article in the OP, the article which turned out to be wrong and which Excon is trying very hard to distance himself from. That's all the evidence you need.
thumbsup.gif
So you are trying to suggest that they just made a smaller lectern for her without request? Suuuureeeeee! Try peddling that bs elsewhere, especially after it was reported she had requested to "use a raised podium to avoid appearing 10 inches shorter than Trump."





... ends up looking...well, kind of, um... :joke:
Your extreme bias only makes what you said apply to you.
 
Last edited:

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The crux of the report is what Rita Cosby reported, that one lectern was taller than the other.
:lol:

You are BS'ing so hard right now to hide how utterly absurd your position has been. That was NOT the crux of the article you sourced, nor was it the part you quoted in your post.

The crux of the article you sourced, as well as your post, was the Clinton was going to use the taller podium to make up for a height difference. It's the only thing of the article you quoted and it is literally the headline of your source.

That was coupled with what had been reported earlier, that Hillary's campaign had requested that she be allowed to "use a raised podium to avoid appearing 10 inches shorter than Trump".
But that report was wrong. Clinton didn't use a taller podium.
The reporter of the article was only wrong in the assumption they made in regards to which lectern was for Hillary. Not that one was constructed for her.
You are literally basing this off nothing. I've told you that. You cannot say (paraphrase) "an earlier report says Clinton requested a taller one made" and then claim the report was right except for the fact Clinton didn't request a taller one made. That is ridiculous.

And as we know from the debate, the smaller was for Hillary
Again, how do you know this? How do you know Trump didn't do it? How do you know Clinton did it? How do you know the debate commission didn't go to both of the candidates individually and ask what height they wanted? How do you know the debate commission didn't make the podiums a certain percentage of the candidates height?

That's not "playing games" as you tried to claim earlier by deflecting from the questions. You have ZERO credible evidence. Your sole evidence seems to be "Clinton requested a larger one". But since that report was obviously wrong, then it has no bearing on this. Furthermore, you haven't even TRIED to present evidence to argue against the idea that podiums should be a comfortable size for the debaters to use, which is a far more likely explanation as to the different sizes.

This is just blatant partisanship from someone who has already admitted he was going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used. When you admit to criticizing Clinton no matter which podium she used, because you believe she requested a different size podium based off a report we KNOW was false, then it's obvious you have no intention of objectivity. Just useless and stupid partisanship.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow. You again typed a lot to say absolutely nothing of import.

You are BS'ing so hard right now to hide how utterly absurd your position has been.
Not just wrong but a deluded reflection of reality.

That was NOT the crux of the article you sourced, nor was it the part you quoted in your post.
iLOL Yes it was.
Your failure to discern that falls solely on you.
The crux was what Rita Crosby said. One was taller than the other. The author wrongly assuming for whom the taller one was for is irrelevant to that.


The crux of the article you sourced, as well as your post, was the Clinton was going to use the taller podium to make up for a height difference. It's the only thing of the article you quoted and it is literally the headline of your source.
Wrong.
The crux was Hillary using a different sized lectern.
The author was reporting on what Rita Crosby reported is the crux, not his wrong assumption based on that information.


But that report was wrong. Clinton didn't use a taller podium.
Rita Crosby is the source of the information.
And Hillary did use a different sized lectern.


You are literally basing this off nothing. I've told you that.
Hilariously wrong.


You cannot say (paraphrase) "an earlier report says Clinton requested a taller one made" and then claim the report was right except for the fact Clinton didn't request a taller one made. That is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is you not following what was said or happened and then trying to paraphrase.
Cathy Crosby is the source. She did not say she requested a taller one, that was the author wrongly assuming based on the earlier reports of her requesting a step because of their difference in height.

The fact is that Hillary did in fact have a different sized lectern. Which again is the crux of the report, different sized lecterns, which do skew the optics, not the authors assumption on the information.


And as we know from the debate, the smaller was for Hillary.
Again, how do you know this? How do you know Trump didn't do it? How do you know Clinton did it?
iLOL Again, really?
Did you not see the debate? Did you not see that she indeed did have the smaller one?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How do you know the debate commission didn't go to both of the candidates individually and ask what height they wanted? How do you know the debate commission didn't make the podiums a certain percentage of the candidates height?
iLOL Surrreeeeeeeeeeeee! iLOL
Are there any reports of the committee doing this? No.
Are their reports that Hillary petitioned to have a podium to step on because of her height difference? Yes.
And what did Rita Crosby report? That one is clearly taller than the other.

And now you want folks to think that a lectern fitting a 5'4" individual is somehow not the odd one out. :doh
iLOL


That's not "playing games" as you tried to claim earlier by deflecting from the questions.
Wrong as usual.


You have ZERO credible evidence.
Wrong as usual. She in fact used a smaller lectern.


Your sole evidence seems to be "Clinton requested a larger one".
Wrong again as usual.
Thank you for demonstrating that you make things up to believe.
1. The crux of the report is what Rita Crosby reported. One is larger than the other.
2. The author of this report made an assumption based on the crux of the information.
3. I am already on record questioning this author's assumption and turned out to be right as reflected by Hillary's use of a smaller lectern.


But since that report was obviously wrong, then it has no bearing on this.
iLOL
You seem to be clearly confused.
The information that was being reported on (the crux) was what Rita Crosby reported on twitter, that one lectern was taller than the other. That is indeed true.


Furthermore, you haven't even TRIED to present evidence to argue against the idea that podiums should be a comfortable size for the debaters to use, which is a far more likely explanation as to the different sizes.
I do not need to.
It was already reported that Hillary wanted a step to counter the height difference. It was also reported that this request was denied. We can see what the finale outcome was though, she was indeed given a smaller lectern.


This is just blatant partisanship ...
You have already been corrected on this. That correction hasn't changed. You are still wrong as usual.
I would criticize anyone who attempted to skew the optics this way.



from someone who has already admitted he was going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used. When you admit to criticizing Clinton no matter which podium she used, because you believe she requested a different size podium based off a report we KNOW was false, then it's obvious you have no intention of objectivity. Just useless and stupid partisanship.
Wow, your take on this just shows you do not pay attention and just shows why you are wrong.
This has nothing to do with what you think of what this author said in regards to the taller one.
It has to do with requesting a different sized one to skew the optics. Whether a person requested it be smaller or taller, is irrelevant to that.
It is still skewing the optics.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You sure do post lot to try and avoid admitting you were wrong.
Your failure to discern that falls solely on you. The crux was what Rita Crosby said.
Why would you not post the truth? You didn't source Rita Crosby, you sourced Adam Edelman of the New York Daily News and the ONLY line you quoted was false.

Wrong.
The crux was Hillary using a different sized lectern.
The author was reporting on what Rita Crosby reported is the crux
:lol:

I've dealt with far too many people who do nothing but post lies recently. I've grown tired of it.

You didn't post this article because the podiums were of different size (as evidenced by who you originally sourced and the only line you quoted) and you have ZERO evidence a bigger or smaller one was requested by Clinton and even LESS evidence it was for skewing optics, as opposed to comfortable size for debate. You have done nothing but post lies from the very beginning of this thread, when you sourced Adam Edelman (not Rita Crosby, as you are now trying to pretend), quoted ONE sentence from your Edelman source and said "Skewing the optics. Figures.". Clinton didn't request the taller one as the article YOU SOURCED claimed. And when you admit you do not care which podium Clinton used, despite have ZERO evidence of if anyone requested anything or why, but you are going to criticize her anyways, it's clear you are engaging in blatant partisanship.

I'm tired of lies. Just admit you were fooled by your source because you really wanted to criticize your political opposite and move on. There are worse things than admitting you were taken.
 
Last edited:

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You sure do post lot to try and avoid admitting you were wrong.
iLOL What a stupid comment.
I haven't been wrong so can't admit to being so. But you have been and continue to be wrong, but most likely will not admit it.


Why would you not post the truth? You didn't source Rita Crosby, you sourced Adam Edelman of the New York Daily News and the ONLY line you quoted was false.
Wow. Talk about excuses.
Wrong. I provided an article which sourced Rita Cosby.
The information contained in the report suffices.
If you need to be spoon fed go some place else.


I've dealt with far too many people who do nothing but post lies recently. I've grown tired of it.
I have I, which is why I am tired of your bs.



You didn't post this article because the podiums were of different size ...
Wrong.
Not only wrong, but you have already been corrected on this bs of yours but you refuse to accept the truth.



(as evidenced by who you originally sourced and the only line you quoted)
Wrong as usual.
You should really stop making things up to believe.


and you have ZERO evidence a bigger or smaller one was requested by Clinton and even LESS evidence it was for skewing optics, as opposed to comfortable size for debate.
And again.
The reports were made that Hillary had requested a step because of the height issue. Not because she wanted to be more comfortable.
That request was denied and this is what we are left with, a smaller lectern. It is absurd to suggest she wanted a step with this smaller lectern isn't it? Of course it is. That is why you should stop wasting time with the bs you are spewing.
The fact remains that the smaller lectern for her skews the optics just as the requested step would, and she did use a smaller lectern.



You have done nothing but post lies from the very beginning of this thread,
Wrong as usual. I haven't lied.


... when you sourced Adam Edelman (not Rita Crosby, as you are now trying to pretend),
Holy crap.
What do you not understand about Rita Crosby being the source material of the article?
Huh?
What she said is the crux of the report. Not what the author mistakenly assumed.
Your failure to grasp this speaks volumes.



... quoted ONE sentence from your Edelman source and said "Skewing the optics. Figures.".
iLoL
Wrong as usual.
My comment of figures applies to the fact that it is skewing the optics. Not what the author mistakenly assumed.


Clinton didn't request the taller one as the article YOU SOURCED claimed.
And there you go ignoring the fact that I questioned that. My questioning of that turned out to be correct as Hillary did indeed use the smaller lectern.


And when you admit you do not care which podium Clinton used,
And you again speak ridiculous bs.
Again
A person having a different sized lectern made, or even given to them is skewing the optics regardless if it was a larger or a smaller. That is fact. Not bias.
You not understanding that is your problem, not mine.


, but you are going to criticize her anyways, it's clear you are engaging in blatant partisanship.
Wrong as usual.
What did you not understand when I told you the first first time I would criticize anyone who did such?


I'm tired of lies.
Then I suggest you stop doing so.


Just admit you were fooled by your source because you really wanted to criticize your political opposite and move on. There are worse things than admitting you were taken.
Wow. You really take the cake with this bs.
I wasn't fooled by anything. The only problem here is your deluded thoughts.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wrong. I provided an article which sourced Rita Cosby.
You didn't quote or source Rita Crosby, you quoted and sourced Adam Edelman. You quoted a line which was wrong and used that to commence your political attack, in which you later admitted you were going to criticize her regardless of which podium, despite the fact you have no evidence to support anything you've said regarding who requested anything.

Just stop. I'm so tired of dishonesty.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You didn't quote or source Rita Crosby, you quoted and sourced Adam Edelman.
And again the article sourced Rita Crosby,

She is the source of the information not the author of the article.

Why do you not understand that?



You quoted a line which was wrong and used that to commence your political attack,
Wrong. That is your deluded belief.
I quoted what he believed.
And again, my later question showed what I thought in regards to that. Why is so hard for you to admit that?


in which you later admitted you were going to criticize her regardless of which podium,
Admitted?
More deluded thoughts.
Again
A person having a different sized lectern made, or even given to them is skewing the optics regardless if it was a larger or a smaller. That is fact. Not bias.
You not understanding that is your problem, not mine.

What in the world do you not understand about criticizing any person regardless of party who would do such. Do you really not understand that?


despite the fact you have no evidence to support anything you've said regarding who requested anything.
And again.
The reports were made that Hillary had requested a step because of the height issue. Not because she wanted to be more comfortable.
That request was denied and this is what we are left with, a smaller lectern. It is absurd to suggest she wanted a step with this smaller lectern isn't it? Of course it is. That is why you should stop wasting time with the bs you are spewing.
The fact remains that the smaller lectern for her skews the optics just as the requested step would, and she did use a smaller lectern.


Just stop. I'm so tired of dishonesty.
Then stop posting dishonest bs.

Your failure to answer the questions of what you do not understand or address the substance of the replies just just shows you know your postings are nothing more than deluded thoughts and dishonesty.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,580
Reaction score
22,423
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I couldn't tell on the TV, but did Clinton have a bigger podium or not?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I couldn't tell on the TV, but did Clinton have a bigger podium or not?
I guess you didn't read the thread. :shrug: Had you, you would not need to ask.

Like I questioned on the first page of this thread. Post #10.
But a larger sized podium? Her upper body will look diminutive.
Maybe the article got it wrong and the smaller one is for her?
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,580
Reaction score
22,423
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Had you read the thread, you would have know she had the smaller lectern.

Like I questioned on the first page of this thread. Post #10.

Thanks.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And again the article sourced Rita Crosby,
Doesn't matter, you didn't. You sourced Edelman and quoted one line from him and used that to criticize Clinton. Then when Clinton could have used the smaller podium, you criticized her for that. Partisan.

No, it's accurate. I simply do not understand why you won't admit it.
I quoted what he believed.
And then said "skewing the optics. Figures" which is a political attack YOU launched. Why not just post honestly?

Admitted?
More deluded thoughts.
So no matter what, Clinton is wrong, regardless of which podium she used, right? To quote you from the first post, "Figures".
I simply do not understand why people post lies when they can so easily be pointed out. You most definitely admitted you were going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used.

What in the world do you not understand about criticizing any person regardless of party who would do such.
And you still have no evidence. As I've said over and over.
And again.
The reports were made that Hillary had requested a step because of the height issue.

The "reports"? There was no "reports". There was a completely unsourced blip on the Drudge Report website. Like I have said, you have ZERO evidence anyone requested any sized podium. You are literally making things up.

Then stop posting dishonest bs.
Says the person who has been caught multiple times posting things in this thread which have been untrue.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And again the article sourced Rita Crosby,
Doesn't matter, you didn't.
Wrong.
The source material is what matters.


You sourced Edelman and quoted one line from him and used that to criticize Clinton. Then when Clinton could have used the smaller podium, you criticized her for that. Partisan.
And again the source of the report was what Rita Crosby tweeted. Not anything the author said.
Your failure to grasp that is your problem.
And no, I did not use that line to criticize Clinton. That is what you absurdly made up to believe.
I said; "Skewing the optics. Figures." in reference e to the source information, not in reference to to what the author mistakenly believed.
And again I showed my disbelief in what the author "believed" by the questions I later posed. Your failure to grasp that, or that fact that it makes your allegations look totally silly, is again, your problem, not mine.


No, it's accurate. I simply do not understand why you won't admit it.
This is the results of you making something up to belive. Only you can solve that issue.


And then said "skewing the optics. Figures" which is a political attack YOU launched. Why not just post honestly?
And again.
Having a different sized lectern made is skewing the optics. Period.
It matters not if it is smaller or larger. It is still skewing the optics no matter what party does it.
That you have a hard time admitting that is again your problem.


I simply do not understand why people post lies when they can so easily be pointed out.
This is again your problem for making up a lie to believe as there has been no lie on my part.


You most definitely admitted you were going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used.
Hilarious. What did you think "exactly" meant? Duh!
Having a different sized lectern made to skew the optics is worthy of criticism. Period.
Again; No mater who, or which party does it. Which of course you choose to ignore.


And you still have no evidence. As I've said over and over.
And again.
The reports were made that Hillary had requested a step because of the height issue.
The "reports"? There was no "reports". There was a completely unsourced blip on the Drudge Report website. Like I have said, you have ZERO evidence anyone requested any sized podium. You are literally making things up.
The source material matters to you now? iLOL

The numerous reports referenced Drudge. And? There is no reason to doubt what he reported.
Here is what Drudge reported.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature.


It turned out to be true. She did not use a step stool and instead had a different sized lectern.
The fact that it happened is evidence enough.


Says the person who has been caught multiple times posting things in this thread which have been untrue.
iLOL :lamo
You are only referring to yourself.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wrong. The source material is what matters.
And your source was Adam Edelman. If you thought so much of Rita Crosby, then you should have quoted her. But you didn't.

And no, I did not use that line to criticize Clinton. That is what you absurdly made up to believe.
I said; "Skewing the optics. Figures." in reference e to the source information
:lol:

I simply do not understand why people cannot tell the truth. Just admit you made a partisan comment and were wrong. And you knew there was a good chance you'd be wrong because later in the thread you hedged your position. Which was when I said you were going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used, which you admitted to when you replied "Exactly". But then you later claimed that was just my "deluded thoughts" because apparently telling the truth just isn't what you wanted to do.

Just do the right thing and tell the truth. It's really not that hard.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And your source was Adam Edelman. If you thought so much of Rita Crosby, then you should have quoted her. But you didn't.
How many times does in need to be pointed out to you that, what was being reported on, and the only information it contained, came from Rita Crosby?
That is the source of the information. Not the article.


I simply do not understand why people cannot tell the truth.
When you figure out why you are not being truthful let us know.


Just admit you made a partisan comment and were wrong.
iLOL I wasn't wrong.
When are you going to figure out that you made something up to believe that simply isn't true?.
Even though you have been continually corrected you still can't seem to grasp it.
What a shame that you are stuck with your own absurd beliefs.


And you knew there was a good chance you'd be wrong because later in the thread you hedged your position.
Holy crap.
More made up nonsense to deflect from being wrong.
Do you really think the larger one would have been for Hillary. I truly hope not.


Which was when I said you were going to criticize Clinton no matter which podium she used, which you admitted to when you replied "Exactly".
Wrong.
Your assertion is wrong the way you make it. I did not admit I was going to criticize her no matter what size lectern she used. What I related was that I would criticize anyone who would use a different size lectern to skew the optics. Regardless of party.
What you also absurdly and conveniently leave out of that is if she had used the same sized lectern as Trump there would not be any skewing of the optics to criticize.


But then you later claimed that was just my "deluded thoughts" because apparently telling the truth just isn't what you wanted to do.
Telling the truth comment is wrong as your position was not one of telling the truth. As pointed out above, there would have been no criticism absent the skewing of the optics.
And it is your deluded thoughts that cause you to see and put it into words the way you did.
As I already pointed out, I would criticize anyone who was trying to skew the optics, which does not just apply to Hillary.


Just do the right thing and tell the truth. It's really not that hard.
iLOL
You need to follow your own advice as you are the only one between us not telling the truth, and that is clearly caused by your own deluded thoughts making up bs to believe.
Sadly that doesn't look like it is going to change.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,808
Reaction score
10,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How many times does in need to be pointed out to you that, what was being reported on, and the only information it contained, came from Rita Crosby?
You've said that many times. But you didn't quote her, you quoted Adam Edelman. How many times do I have to say that?

Holy crap. More made up nonsense to deflect from being wrong. Do you really think the larger one would have been for Hillary. I truly hope not.
No, but I wasn't the one who posted the thread. You were.

I did not admit I was going to criticize her no matter what size lectern she used.
So no matter what, Clinton is wrong, regardless of which podium she used, right?
Yes, you did admit that. Why would you claim otherwise, when the evidence is literally in writing?

I would criticize anyone who was trying to skew the optics, which does not just apply to Hillary.
You have yet to provide any real evidence Clinton requested a smaller podium to skew optics, or even that Clinton requested at all.

All you are doing is engaging in partisanship and posting outright lies.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,394
Reaction score
9,053
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You've said that many times. But you didn't quote her, you quoted Adam Edelman. How many times do I have to say that?
Wrong.
1. You framed it as criticizing Clinton when it was clear I would criticize anyone who did it to skew the optics.
2. You left out the lectern remaining the same of which I did not say I would criticize.

These are your failures for not paying attention to what was said and trying to spin that which was.


So stop with your lying bs.


No, but I wasn't the one who posted the thread. You were.
Absurd reply to what was quoted.
You don't believe she would be getting the larger lectern just as I didn't think so either. And even though I pointed that out by question, you still can't accept the reality of that. Or the fact that using a different sized lectern is skewing the optics. Figures.


Yes, you did admit that. Why would you claim otherwise, when the evidence is literally in writing?
More lying spin.
You have been trying to use this to claim partisanship, that is an absurdly ridiculous argument.

Pointing out that I would criticize anyone using a different size lectern, means anyone, not just Clinton, which does not show the partisanship you you made up to believe.


You have yet to provide any real evidence Clinton requested a smaller podium to skew optics, or even that Clinton requested at all.
I provided evidence. You do not like that evidence even though it was confirmed by her getting and using a smaller lectern. Your dislike of the evidence is irrelevant.
Too bad, you fail.


All you are doing is engaging in partisanship and posting outright lies.
What a total failure of an augment.
Pointing out that I would criticize anyone or party for skewing the optics, is not partisanship.
Far be it for you to acknowledge that truth of that and just shows that you continue to be untruthful.
 
Top Bottom