Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Miserably Biased Lester Holt on Trump Clinton Debate
  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 11:58 am
Putting aside who you like and who you'll vote for, how was it even slightly fair to the American voting population, that Lester Holt never once questioned/interrogated/pummeled Clinton on why she chose to risk national security by using private email servers for thousands of emails, and then delete them?

How was it even slightly fair to the American voting population, that Lester Holt never once questioned/ interrogated/pummeled Clinton on why she offered special privileges to donors to the Clinton Foundation?

How was it even slightly fair to the American voting population, that Lester Holt never once questioned/ interrogated/pummeled Clinton on her involvement in eliminating Bernie Sanders as a candidate?

How was it even slightly fair to the American voting population, that Lester Holt never once questioned/ interrogated/pummeled Clinton on her wrongdoing in Benghazi that costed American lives?

The list is long!

How did Lester Holt have the nerve not to question her on all the monumentally important issues, where she wronged the American population, all involving her honesty, trustworthiness and decision-making?

Is Lester Holt by any chance rooting for her?
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:14 pm
To be honest, I felt the same way.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:32 pm
Oh, please.

First and foremost, Holt asked about cyber security. That was Trump's cue to talk about emails. It was a softball. A gift. Trump missed it. Instead, he chose to talk about how he's really really rich, how not paying federal taxes was "smart" and about how wonderful racial profiling is (and that the Court that found it to be unconstitutional really just doesn't like police). Oh, and that it was really bad that Clinton has a plan to oppose ISIS. Because, well, its better to keep it super-secret, like he does. General MacArthur would have liked him being secretive.

How was it fair that Holt allowed Trump to interrupt Clinton 57 times.

How was it fair that Trump was allowed to spout lie after lie after lie.

How was it fair that Holt didn't question Trump about his Foundation's falsification of tax records, to make it appear that it had not made illegal campaign contributions to a candidate who was investigating Trump University, then miraculously decided not to indict.

And didn't ask about Trump University. Or Trump's ties to Russia. Or his statements about how wonderful Putin is. Or not knowing about Russia's incursion into the Ukraine.

Holt was a lousy moderator. He allowed Trump to interject, interrupt, and repeatedly go over his time limit. But not because of the questions that he asked. Don't forget that Lauer didn't ask about much other than the emails, although they had nothing to do with his topic. And there are 2 more debates.

Your candidate didn't prepare. Clinton discussed the issues (for the most part, she avoided a couple of things). Trump was reduced to ranting about Rosie O'Donnell.

Your guy choked. Period. NY Post -- which endorsed him! http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/t.....ters/

And his post-debate rationalizations. That he was being a nice guy not talking about her husband's affairs. Because that's important. But his affairs ... he's the kind of guy who brings his mistress along on a vacation that he took with his wife and kids, but hey, who cares. And he wasn't really sniffling (HONESTLY, who cares that he was sniffling). It was a bad microphone. That picked up all 57 of his interruptions, including the admission that he doesn't pay federal income tax, but somehow made it sound like he was sniffling.

And Benghazi at this point is nothing more than a witch hunt. Investigation after investigation after investigation has failed to show any wrongdoing on Clinton's part. But when you don't have any concrete proposals, you have to make up scandals to tar the other party.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:35 pm
Just to clarify, I'm not "for" Trump; I just agree that the moderator appeared biased in favor of Clinton.
Back to top

Maya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:38 pm
Trum could have brought all that up, if he would have been prepared. There's always a smart way to introduce topics if you work on it in advance. Or at the very least, if you work in advance on not letting her words get under your skin.

The emails were mentioned, he could have really let her have it, yet he got so flustered about his tax returns that he let it go and just blabbered on and on about his lawyers advising not to release tax returns and what not. He was his usual stupid and volatile self.

I also remember reading that Lester Holt is a Republican.

That's a great Post article that SixofWands posted above. Very well said.
Back to top

tichellady




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:39 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Oh, please.

First and foremost, Holt asked about cyber security. That was Trump's cue to talk about emails. It was a softball. A gift. Trump missed it. Instead, he chose to talk about how he's really really rich, how not paying federal taxes was "smart" and about how wonderful racial profiling is (and that the Court that found it to be unconstitutional really just doesn't like police). Oh, and that it was really bad that Clinton has a plan to oppose ISIS. Because, well, its better to keep it super-secret, like he does. General MacArthur would have liked him being secretive.

How was it fair that Holt allowed Trump to interrupt Clinton 57 times.

How was it fair that Trump was allowed to spout lie after lie after lie.

How was it fair that Holt didn't question Trump about his Foundation's falsification of tax records, to make it appear that it had not made illegal campaign contributions to a candidate who was investigating Trump University, then miraculously decided not to indict.

And didn't ask about Trump University. Or Trump's ties to Russia. Or his statements about how wonderful Putin is. Or not knowing about Russia's incursion into the Ukraine.

Holt was a lousy moderator. He allowed Trump to interject, interrupt, and repeatedly go over his time limit. But not because of the questions that he asked. Don't forget that Lauer didn't ask about much other than the emails, although they had nothing to do with his topic. And there are 2 more debates.

Your candidate didn't prepare. Clinton discussed the issues (for the most part, she avoided a couple of things). Trump was reduced to ranting about Rosie O'Donnell.

Your guy choked. Period. NY Post -- which endorsed him! http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/t.....ters/

And his post-debate rationalizations. That he was being a nice guy not talking about her husband's affairs. Because that's important. But his affairs ... he's the kind of guy who brings his mistress along on a vacation that he took with his wife and kids, but hey, who cares. And he wasn't really sniffling (HONESTLY, who cares that he was sniffling). It was a bad microphone. That picked up all 57 of his interruptions, including the admission that he doesn't pay federal income tax, but somehow made it sound like he was sniffling.

And Benghazi at this point is nothing more than a witch hunt. Investigation after investigation after investigation has failed to show any wrongdoing on Clinton's part. But when you don't have any concrete proposals, you have to make up scandals to tar the other party.


THIS.

I don't love Clinton and I'm not sure I'm really agree with a lot of democratic policies but it is very clear to me from the debates what an incompetent candidate trump is. All you had to do was Listen to him. That's not the moderator's fault.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:46 pm
Though I have no love for Hillary at all, I actually wasn't too bothered by it. I figured that the first debate would be kind of general, and those seemed to be the kinds of questions Holt was asking.

If anything, I fault Trump for becoming defensive about his tax returns when it would have provided a great opportunity to segue into the transparency of the Clinton Foundation.

Really, the whole experience was bearable mostly because of the social media jokes and "suggestions" for the candidates:

Quote:
Clinton: Why haven't you released your tax returns?
Trump: I emailed them to you.


or regarding a humorous editing decision on the part of ABC:

Quote:
"Clinton invited several people, including Mark Cuban, a 9/11 survivor and a domestic absue survivor."

Wow! Mark Cuban's really been through a lot!


or for those with a more louche sense of humor:

Quote:
Clinton: Stop-and-frisk didn't work.
Trump: Hey, it always seemed to work for Bill!


Breitbart is reporting that Holt only asked Clinton 2 direct questions, whereas he asked Trump 15. But I'm not sure if I'm more disturbed by the disparity in the number of questions or by the image of a bunch of little Breitbart interns staying up all night reviewing video and counting questions, coughs, drinks of water, and whatnot.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:48 pm
Trump supporters, how do you feel about the tacit admission that Trump doesn't pay taxes:

Quote:
CLINTON: Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax.

TRUMP: That makes me smart.

CLINTON: So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he's not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he's trying to hide.

And then:

Quote:
CLINTON: And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. [APPLAUSE]

And the other thing I think is important ...

TRUMP: It would be squandered, too, believe me.


(Kathy Tur is an NBC reporter)

Quote:
TUR: Do you pay federal income tax now?

TRUMP: My current returns will be released as soon as they [UNINTELLIGIBLE]

TUR: Do you pay federal income tax now?

[TRUMP WALKS AWAY]


And his statement that his statement that rooting for the economy to tank, for millions of people to lose their jobs and homes, is just good business:

Quote:
“People have been talking about the end of the cycle for 12 years, and I’m excited if it is,” he told The Globe and Mail. “I’ve always made more money in bad markets than in good markets.”
When Clinton told viewers that Trump had “rooted” for the recession, Trump shot back, “that’s called business.”
Back to top

Maya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:49 pm
LOL Breitbart. There were barely fifteen questions asked in the entire debate.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:52 pm
Maya wrote:
LOL Breitbart. There were barely fifteen questions asked in the entire debate.


Two humorous takes on Holt:

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....c6c28

https://www.instagram.com/p/BK14JArDCnL/
Back to top

Maya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 12:54 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Two humorous takes on Holt:

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....c6c28

https://www.instagram.com/p/BK14JArDCnL/

That WaPo article is hilarious ! And so on point.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 1:14 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Trump supporters, how do you feel about the tacit admission that Trump doesn't pay taxes:


Let me reiterate that I don't consider myself a rah-rah, MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter, but I will almost definitely be voting for him.

I am not bothered in the least by the fact that he has found ways to minimize his tax obligations. I personally don't know a single person who doesn't minimize his/her tax liability. For most of us, it means simply claiming our children as dependents; deducting allowable expenses such as mortgage interest, etc. But if you are able to legally "zero-out," I don't consider it a sign of moral turpitude.

His companies definitely pay taxes -- far in excess of what he would pay personally. Moreover, the people he employs pay taxes -- the total also exceeding what he would pay personally.

But let's assume that someone like Trump, whose tax liability is significant enough to hire tax lawyers to find ways to minimize it, actually does zero out. What happens to that money? He doesn't stuff it under his mattress! He either spends it or invests it. Either way, the economy wins.

Personally, I have always been in favor of a flat-rate tax. But we've seen how popular that idea is.

SixOfWands wrote:
And his statement that his statement that rooting for the economy to tank, for millions of people to lose their jobs and homes, is just good business.


Okay, we need to go back to Macro Econ 101, Micro Econ 102, and Money and Banking 201. And maybe a dose of Adam Smith.

Trump was referring to the stock market and the federal reserve, not the "economy," and he believes that we are in a bubble right now spurred by the fed's decision to keep interest rates low. There is some evidence that this is true, though most analysts don't think it's a huge problem. There have been corrections along the way since 2008, and everyone expects the fed to raise the prime after the election.

People do not lose their jobs or homes simply because the stock market goes down. Nor does that happen simply because the prime goes up a notch. On the contrary, a hyper-inflated stock market and cheap, easy credit can actually create business conditions that do hurt individuals. The best way to make sure people have jobs and homes is to do everything possible to ensure the business climate favors a modest, consistent rate of growth and that businesses have credit available for expansion -- but not so much credit that they take foolhardy risks.

In fact, if there is a single reason I am voting for Trump (aside for the fact that he's not Clinton), it would be that he actually understands economics. Clinton has never owned a company; never made payroll; never decided whether to take out a business loan or not; never taken a financial risk . . . she has simply cashed paychecks all her life.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 1:20 pm
Maya wrote:
That WaPo article is hilarious ! And so on point.


Absolutely! The jokes are definitely the best part!
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 1:28 pm
Fox wrote:
Okay, we need to go back to Macro Econ 101, Micro Econ 102, and Money and Banking 201. And maybe a dose of Adam Smith.

Trump was referring to the stock market and the federal reserve, not the "economy," and he believes that we are in a bubble right now spurred by the fed's decision to keep interest rates low. There is some evidence that this is true, though most analysts don't think it's a huge problem. There have been corrections along the way since 2008, and everyone expects the fed to raise the prime after the election.

People do not lose their jobs or homes simply because the stock market goes down. Nor does that happen simply because the prime goes up a notch. On the contrary, a hyper-inflated stock market and cheap, easy credit can actually create business conditions that do hurt individuals. The best way to make sure people have jobs and homes is to do everything possible to ensure the business climate favors a modest, consistent rate of growth and that businesses have credit available for expansion -- but not so much credit that they take foolhardy risks.

In fact, if there is a single reason I am voting for Trump (aside for the fact that he's not Clinton), it would be that he actually understands economics. Clinton has never owned a company; never made payroll; never decided whether to take out a business loan or not; never taken a financial risk . . . she has simply cashed paychecks all her life.


Nice try. But he wasn't talking about the stock market. He was specifically talking about the housing market. In 2006, two years before a housing-market collapse brought down the U.S. economy, Mr. Trump was asked about a potential burst of a housing bubble for an audiobook produced by Trump University. “I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know if you’re in a good cash position, which I’m in a good cash position today, then people like me would go in and buy like crazy. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you could make a lot of money.”

But nice try.

In any case, understanding how to make money in business (and Trump largely does that through licensing these days) isn't the same as running the economy. Trump wants to "renegotiate" the debt. First, does he know that 16% of the debt is actually owed to Social Security? And another 12% to Federal Reserve Banks? Another 6% to money markets? 13% other federal government, 3% state and federal government. That's half the debt. And another 17% is The remaining 17 percent is spread among banks and other depository institutions (2 percent), owners of U.S. savings bonds (1 percent), private pension funds (3 percent), state and local pension funds (1 percent), and insurance companies (2 percent), with the remaining 9 percent held by various “individuals, Government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses, and other investors,” according to the Treasury. But really, do you think the US debt can be "negotiated" like in his companies' bankruptcies?

His companies also have a habit of not paying people, to negotiate down debt. Government can't do that.
Back to top

tichellady




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 1:36 pm
Fox wrote:
Okay, we need to go back to Macro Econ 101, Micro Econ 102, and Money and Banking 201. And maybe a dose of Adam Smith.

Trump was referring to the stock market and the federal reserve, not the "economy," and he believes that we are in a bubble right now spurred by the fed's decision to keep interest rates low. There is some evidence that this is true, though most analysts don't think it's a huge problem. There have been corrections along the way since 2008, and everyone expects the fed to raise the prime after the election.

People do not lose their jobs or homes simply because the stock market goes down. Nor does that happen simply because the prime goes up a notch. On the contrary, a hyper-inflated stock market and cheap, easy credit can actually create business conditions that do hurt individuals. The best way to make sure people have jobs and homes is to do everything possible to ensure the business climate favors a modest, consistent rate of growth and that businesses have credit available for expansion -- but not so much credit that they take foolhardy risks.

In fact, if there is a single reason I am voting for Trump (aside for the fact that he's not Clinton), it would be that he actually understands economics. Clinton has never owned a company; never made payroll; never decided whether to take out a business loan or not; never taken a financial risk . . . she has simply cashed paychecks all her life.


trump is not know to be a respectable businessman. many successful business people in the US refuse to do business with or support him.
And that he didn't actually release his tax records so we don't know that it's because he has never paid taxes, it could be for a lot of other reasons. My father is a republican and has studied trump's economic policies and like many others who really have no bias here, have concluded that they would be terrible for our country.

I know I'm Not going to change your mind here. It just really surprise me that intelligent people like you see something so different than I see when looking at trump. It's like you like the idea of trump and ignore anything about who he actually is.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 2:37 pm
Maya wrote:
Trum could have brought all that up, if he would have been prepared. There's always a smart way to introduce topics if you work on it in advance. Or at the very least, if you work in advance on not letting her words get under your skin.

The emails were mentioned, he could have really let her have it, yet he got so flustered about his tax returns that he let it go and just blabbered on and on about his lawyers advising not to release tax returns and what not. He was his usual stupid and volatile self.

I also remember reading that Lester Holt is a Republican.

That's a great Post article that SixofWands posted above. Very well said.


He is indeed a Republican. Trump earlier said he (Holt) was a Democrat. Then claimed it wasn't "lying" because he actually didn't know whether Holt was a Democrat or a Republican, so it wasn't actually lying to say he was a Democrat, because he might have been.

"I don't think he knew what Lester Holt's registration was," [Trump campaign manager] Conway said. "A lie would mean he knew the man's party registration."

I guess that explains every lie he tells about, well, everything. He doesn't do his research, so he's free to make it up as he goes along.
Back to top

doctorima




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 2:38 pm
Fox wrote:
Absolutely! The jokes are definitely the best part!


Somebody today told me the only thing she learned in the debate is that Chris Christie was the one who hacked the DNC! Smile You'll only get it if you watched the debate.
Back to top

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 2:41 pm
tichellady wrote:
trump is not know to be a respectable businessman. many successful business people in the US refuse to do business with or support him.


As opposed to Hillary being a wonderfully talented businesswoman, selling access and favors at the State Department, to big donors to the Clinton Foundation, which was even written about by the liberal media?

tichellady wrote:
It's like you like the idea of trump and ignore anything about who he actually is.


It's like YOU like the idea of H I L L A R Y and ignore anything about who SHE actually is.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 2:59 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Nice try. But he wasn't talking about the stock market. He was specifically talking about the housing market. In 2006, two years before a housing-market collapse brought down the U.S. economy, Mr. Trump was asked about a potential burst of a housing bubble for an audiobook produced by Trump University. “I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know if you’re in a good cash position, which I’m in a good cash position today, then people like me would go in and buy like crazy. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you could make a lot of money.”

But nice try.


Let me give you a tip: sarcasm doesn't come off any better on Imamother than it does in Presidential debates. It suggests that your argument is weak.

I understood you to be talking about Trump's remarks last night.

If you're talking about Trump's remarks regarding buying low and selling high, then I'm truly flummoxed. Of course, anyone in real estate hopes to get a good deal, and often those good deals are a result of other people's problems.

Frankly, I'm not sure anyone would manage life outside such a context. I mean, would you offer to pay more for gas when the price is low because otherwise energy companies won't make as much of a profit and will have to lay off my best friend's husband, who works as a petrochemical consultant? Would you offer more than the market value of a house simply because the previous owner overpaid and wants a profit?

Also, not to nitpick, but the housing bubble didn't "bring down" the U.S. economy. It caused a recession, but the bursting of the housing bubble was a necessary occurence. Yes, it caused heartache for many people (none of whom were totally blameless), but the long-term ramifications would have been even worse for the economy had the market stayed hyperinflated.

SixOfWands wrote:
In any case, understanding how to make money in business (and Trump largely does that through licensing these days) isn't the same as running the economy. Trump wants to "renegotiate" the debt. First, does he know that 16% of the debt is actually owed to Social Security? And another 12% to Federal Reserve Banks? Another 6% to money markets? 13% other federal government, 3% state and federal government. That's half the debt. And another 17% is The remaining 17 percent is spread among banks and other depository institutions (2 percent), owners of U.S. savings bonds (1 percent), private pension funds (3 percent), state and local pension funds (1 percent), and insurance companies (2 percent), with the remaining 9 percent held by various “individuals, Government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts and estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses, and other investors,” according to the Treasury. But really, do you think the US debt can be "negotiated" like in his companies' bankruptcies?

His companies also have a habit of not paying people, to negotiate down debt. Government can't do that.


First of all, if you're looking for a president to "manage" the economy, I suggest you examine the situation in Venezuela, where they are reaping the benefits of precisely such a system. A free-market economy should be "managed" as little as possible to maintain order.

As for renegotiating debt, countries do it all the time! What do you think happened in Greece and Brazil, for example.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:08 pm
Well, if you want a president who openly states that he is glad when people lose their homes, because it gives him a chance to make more money, then I guess you'll vote for Trump. And not worry at all about the inherent conflict between his business interests and the interests of the US.

I hope for better.

And FTR, I'm not "sarcastic." You, however, are condescending.
Back to top
Page 1 of 6   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Trump Item
by amother
1 Sun, Feb 18 2024, 11:09 pm View last post
Censorship: Refusal to Air Trump Iowa Victory Speech
by Cheiny
0 Tue, Jan 16 2024, 2:50 pm View last post
The great toy debate
by amother
27 Fri, Nov 17 2023, 10:00 am View last post
[ Poll ] Please solve a debate 32 Fri, Sep 01 2023, 3:37 am View last post
Anticipating Moshiach S/O debate thread 12 Fri, Aug 25 2023, 2:35 pm View last post