- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,443
- Reaction score
- 47,482
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The "media's" job isn't to let lies go unchallenged, no matter who is telling them. Lauer rightly IMO asked a series of pointed questions of Hillary about her emails, then selected a member of the audience who also challenged her directly on the same topic. That is what is supposed to happen. But when Trump repeated the same lies he's told for months now about opposing Iraq and Libya, he said nothing.
The "media's" job isn't to let lies go unchallenged, no matter who is telling them. Lauer rightly IMO asked a series of pointed questions of Hillary about her emails, then selected a member of the audience who also challenged her directly on the same topic. That is what is supposed to happen. But when Trump repeated the same lies he's told for months now about opposing Iraq and Libya, he said nothing.
So, let's put this all in perspective.
1. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Some people claim that Trump was for it, even though the evidence against Trump is very iffy where she had a concrete vote. But, I'll give you a free pass on this and let's say that Trump lied.
2. Hillary has lied many times over just on the email scandal alone, resulting in the poll which shows that people distrust her more than they do Trump, not to mention she broke the law with the email thing, even though the Democratically controlled Department of Justice eventually decided that ignorance of the law is an excuse after all.
3. So, let's say that Trump lied about the Iraq war and Hillary lied about her email server and breaking the law. Which one is worse, lying about whether you were for the Iraq war or not or Hillary lying about her email server and breaking the law?
Who knows. My point is it is significant that Trump feels comfortable to stand in front of a room full of veterans and a national TV audience and just make up his foreign policy creds and claim a superior judgment based on a lie. If you don't, that's fine and if you don't think the job of the press is to call Hillary AND Trump out, just say so.
let's look back at it from lauer's perspective
when tRump insisted on live TV that he opposed the 'war on terror' in iraq, lauer had no more rebuttal to offer then than any of us do now, many days later. the sole transcript of tRump's support of the war was that howard stern broadcast. to me, that was much too little to be able to offer as rebuttal to challenge tRump's current statement
TRUMP: Well, I think the main thing is I have great judgment. I have good judgment. I know what’s going on. I’ve called so many of the shots. And I happened to hear Hillary Clinton say that I was not against the war in Iraq. I was totally against the war in Iraq. From a — you can look at Esquire magazine from ’04. You can look at before that.
And I was against the war in Iraq because I said it’s going to totally destabilize the Middle East,
I think your anger at Lauer is clouding your judgment. Lauer let Trump be Trump and Trump is his own worst enemy. I don't see where the interview helped Trump look good at all. In the end, I don't think anyone is going to vote for Trump over Hillary just because of the Mat Lauer interview. Now you are beginning to understand how the right feels about the liberally biased media who constantly favor Democrats over Republicans. I think Lauer was actually trying to be fair but maybe wound up being a little too fair.
So cite it.
Well, no you haven't, and neither has Trump, his campaign, nor any of his legions of lemmings who are defending him on this issue.
Again? No thanks. Do some work yourself. It's in this thread.
LOL
If you say so. I guess you are above the legions who say otherwise.
Originally Posted by Somerville
You write: "The media claims they can't find a single comment from him about the war, before we invaded". A statement which is utter nonsense
If this is 'utter nonsense', it seems like you'd be able to actually cite a statement....
My claim is in regards to the statement made by ocean515 in post #243. How can I cite a media outlet saying it hasn't found "a single comment from (Trump) about the war, before we invaded" when there are none I can find that are saying such a thing?
Trump does call attention to how politicians can respond to donations and that he would know because he said he's done it.
Hillary tries to keep her being bought off quiet ... and she's not supposed to be bought off. Especially to foreign sources like Russia, India, Nigeria, Haiti, Sweden, UAE, ...
I have no idea how much Trump's businesses owe anyone or how much he's worth and neither do you.
And yes indeed, she okayed a deal for Russia to buy out a Canadian company and now Russia owns 20% of US uranium resources. And The Russian company is State owned, as usual.
What Hillary did was more than sell access, she sold actions.
Hillary Rodham Clinton · Net worth - $21.50 million USD (2016)
Bill Clinton - $80 million USD (2016)
Hillary Clinton Net Worth 2016: How Much is Hillary Worth
Sheesh, that's not what Trump said. :roll: From the transcript: NBC Forum: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Transcript
He wasn't against the war. He did NOT predict ahead of time it would destabilize the middle east. His "good judgment" is to repeatedly and brazenly lie about his position, in this case on national TV and to an audience full of veterans.
And if Matt didn't know Trump's previous statements on Iraq and that they'd been thoroughly debunked by a half dozen major publications, it just proves the point that he failed in his basic duties as moderator and should have stuck with cooking segments on his morning show. The decision to invade Iraq is the most polarizing foreign policy decision of a generation, and arguably the biggest blunder in generations (that's what Trump argues), so there is no excuse for him not knowing Trump's statements on this question.
The fact is you would call it integrity if Lauer lobbed softballs at Clinton like all of the other media and called Trump out on his "lies".
From what I saw, he kept trying to move along and she just kept on talking. That 15 minutes about her emails was due to her long-windedness.
again, i disagree with your insistenance that material was available to lauer to counter tRump's assertions that he was a vocal opponent of the war
like you and me, the only documented statement lauer could have used to force tRump to acknowledge he was a war hawk prior to the war on terror in iraq was that singular interview with howard stern
in effect, you would expect lauer to challenge tRump's record with only that stern interview. in my opinion, that would have opened lauer up to a charge of bias from the alt-white community. i write that having repeatedly read within this thread, where despite your feeding them the text of the stern interview, they continue to insist it is not definitive support for the war in iraq
i would anticipate you to note that tRump himself said there were multiple occassions where he publicly expressed his opposition to the war. he did make such untruthful assertion and with the benefit of google we know tRump lied about his purported stated war opposition. but there was no way lauer could have asked tRump to produce evidence of such (absent) statements within the brief span of the live interview
in contrast, lauer had access to numerous hillary comments, where she was found trying to shade her email fubar as something less than Comey and the FBI placed in the public record
Oh, BS! She would give an answer, and then he would interrupt her to point out this or that about the emails. What, you're griping about a politician being long-winded? Really? Either way, if Lauer had only asked ONE question and she'd continued on for 15 minutes, you'd have a point. But he asked again and again, interrupting her along the way almost to the point of rudeness.
He interrupted her several times...but he interrupted Trump not even once.
But I guess that's not unusual. I remember when Bill O'Reilly was interviewing Obama...and interrupted the president of the United States so many times I lost count. Of course, if the president had had an (R) behind his name, well, that would require proper manners and decorum....
The source I used, The Daily Beast compared with the source you used, COED.com - hmmmm
The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website focusing on politics and pop culture. The site does not limit coverage to matters that concern only the United States. In a 2015 interview, Editor-in-Chief John Avlon described The Beast's editorial approach: "We seek out scoops, scandals and stories about secret worlds; we love confronting bullies, bigots and hypocrites.
COED is an online entertainment magazine that focuses on college lifestyle. Originally a print magazine, it became a web online publication in 2007. The content is primarily targeted at college-aged men and written by college-aged writers
If these forums don't affect anyone's vote, then why have them?
FWIW, it's not just this interview and it's not just Trump. As I've said before the tendency for the TV media to allow democrats and republicans on their shows to repeat their talking points no matter how dishonest or intentionally misleading without the slightest pushback is why I no longer watch TV news of any kind except when I have no choice (car repair, doctors office, etc.). When they're not doing that, they have some shill for the left and some shill for the right who argue about whether facts are facts or not, and it gives this illusion that 2+2 = 4 if you're a republican, but that the notion 2 + 2 = 5 is equally plausible and legitimate, because the democratic shill is given air time to make that argument! They are acting like PR agents instead of journalists - sort of like those paid advertisements during broadcast dead times that mimic actual news interviews. There is little difference between paid ads now and, e.g., the Sunday shows.
The Daily Beast is a lefty online mag.
As for COED, actually, no.
I didn't use COED for the figures I gave you.
I did a Bing search for The Clinton's Net Worth and it popped up as the answer.
I gave you the COED link in case you cared to read more about it.
Like ... "Over the past 14 years, Hillary and Bill Clinton made over $230 million. It’s just hard to keep track of on their federal filings."
And the rest of what I wrote came from many sources.
I think you are giving the mission of this forum too much credit. It is simply a forum to debate politics (and other things) whether there is an election or not. This just happens to be an important presidential election year.
I don't think they are going to shut the forum down after the election. It sounds like you are on a mission to change other's minds here on this forum. While that is not impossible, I think you have a misguided representation of what you can realistically accomplish. For the most part here we debate each other, rarely changing other's minds, especially on a topic as important as who will be our next president.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?