Miserably Biased Lester Holt on Trump Clinton Debate

ectomorph

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:11 pm

I thought Trump was okay. He couldn't be too hard on her or he'd be called a bully. He came across as tough talking and relatable. She came across as smug and insincere.

He wasn't prepared well enough.

tichellady

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:12 pm

Mevater wrote:

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

I don't actually like Hillary so this conversation is just getting silly. I'm just baffled how people are not embarrassed about how little trump knew last night and how he flat out lied about the many idiotic statements he has made ( about global warming, mocking women, etc.) . I am embarrassed and I am not voting for him...

I should have never started this conversation. It's not going to go anywhere. Have a good day everyone. I have a lot of praying to do this Elul

Mevater

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:23 pm

Those who want to see the country continue to decline to the tune of multi millions in GROWING debt, or is it billions?, which I believe doubled or more, during Obama, with China wiping our economy out, and dont care or need any hope for more jobs in the USA, sure, vote for Clinton. Politics as usual. You must have your own plan for your personal economic survival, because it sure aint coming from Hillary.

Hillary certainly doesnt have a plan for anyone's finances except her family's financial growth! In that area she has accomplished a$tronomically!

Last edited by Mevater on Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

treestump

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:25 pm

Mevater wrote:

If you want to see the country continue to decline to the tune of multi millions in GROWING debt, or is it billions?, which I believe doubled or more, during Obama, with China wiping our economy out, and dont care or need any hope for more jobs in the USA, sure, vote for Clinton. Politics as usual. You must have your own plan for your personal economic recovery.

Hillary certainly doesnt have a plan for anyone's finances except her family's financial growth! In that area she has accomplished a$tronomically!

We get the point without size 24 bold red lettering in the font that was designed for cartoons.

MiracleMama

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:26 pm

I thought both candidates did poorly, for different reasons. Yes, Holt showed some bias, but what did it matter? The two toddlers kept talking over him and each other anyhow.

Mevater

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:30 pm

treestump wrote:

We get the point without size 24 bold red lettering in the font that was designed for cartoons.

Youve got a point. So sorry. As sorry as Hillary was for using private email servers and erasing thousands of emails and deal-making at the State Department, etc etc etc. Very sorry. That she got called out for it.

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:32 pm

tichellady wrote:

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.

Actually, you'll be surprised to learn that I agree with you in part.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not really a rah-rah Trump enthusiast.

However, based on what I read; the podcasts I listen to; and the events I attend, I don't think it will matter all that much to the governance of the country whether Clinton or Trump is elected. I recently attended a day-long seminar given by Fisher Investments at which Ken Fisher spoke. He outlined all the economic scenarios and how he thinks the various stock markets will react to Clinton's or Trump's election. The bottom line is that it will make relatively little difference for most of us.

So why will I be voting for Trump?

Because I believe this election is about culture, not governance.

I believe that the progressive left -- with the acquiescence of and sometimes assistance from the Democratic Party -- has become frighteningly aggressive in trampling on civil liberties, especially freedom of speech. People lose their jobs and their reputations for simply disagreeing with ideas held dear by the left. And, of course, it figures that anyone who publicly questions a progressive position is automatically a racist, sexist . . . add the specific bigotry of your choice.

There are plenty of specific examples: Erika Christakis and Lucian Wintrich come to mind immediately, along with more university presidents and deans than I can name.

Moreover, I believe that the progressive left has become profoundly anti-Semitic, and in a way that is far more disturbing than the so-called alt-Right. While it is obviously awful for some 4chan troll to post swastikas online, I think there's less actual threat there than a university student government association telling a young woman that, as a Jew, her questionable loyalties make her unfit for office.

Do I think a Trump presidency will solve these problems? No. That's ridiculous. But I think a Trump presidency will be more responsive to concerns about people's individual rights and will be less accepting of bigotry and intimidation from leftists. I will feel far safer with Trump in the White House.

octopus

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:32 pm

Did anyone else hear lester holt's faux pas at the end? Where he thanks debaters and said how they didn't cover a lot of ground, and then he quickly corrects himself and said they covered a lot, or something to that effect. Were my ears hearing correctly or was I majorly tired???

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 3:40 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

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.

Sorry, but I found "nice try" very sarcastic.

Not sure how I was condescending. However, I apologize if I came off as so.

Do I think Trump is a nice person? Not necessarily. However, I'm significantly less disturbed by his opportunistic purchase of real estate owned by people who speculated on the market unsuccessfully than I am by the treatment by the Clinton Foundation of Haitians who lost their homes due to an earthquake.

allthingsblue

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 4:10 pm

As a republican who is not voting for a presidential candidate this election, I think everyone who is insisting that the debate was unfair and that trump was mistreated sounds like the losing team in camp color war 😃

SixOfWands

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 4:11 pm

Fox wrote:

Clinton, rather obviously, is not a part of the far left. The far left dislikes her. Nor is either she or Obama responsible for the idiotic anti-Semitic policies and statements that have come out of universities.

But I'm shocked that anyone would think that Trump would be "less accepting of bigotry and intimidation ..." Just last night, he touted the stop and frisk program that was found unconstitutional because it was, in essence, racial profiling. (Interestingly, the NYC Police were live tweeting corrections to Trump's statement, citing evidence that crime in NYC has DECREASED since the end of stop and frisk. Oops.) He attacked the integrity of Gonzalo Curiel on the basis that "he's a Mexican." (He was born in Indiana, but hey, his skin is brown.) His companies have repeatedly been sued for racial discrimination; interesting that he didn't deny that his company refused to rent to blacks. The former president of Trump Castle Hotel and Casino has quoted him as stating, "I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” The whole birther thing. The lumping together of ethnic groups as if they were monolithic. Eg, he told a group of Jews, "I'm a negotiator, like you folks." And on and on and on. And, of course, he called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US. (He's since backpedaled. Maybe.) Because, you know, who cares about the Constitution.

I'm also concerned about the virulent Antisemitism of some Trump supporters.

MiracleMama

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 5:19 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Clinton, rather obviously, is not a part of the far left.

This is the sort of statement that is in no way "rather obvious", but a matter of opinion, depending very much upon where you are standing. To a die-hard Sanders supporter maybe Hillary is not far left. For anyone ranging from moderate to far-right, she is pretty far to the left.

In any case it's been amusing listening to the media today. The left is touting Hillary the clear debate winner. The right is claiming Trump did great last night. Both sides are claiming the debate was really exciting. I feel like I must have watched a different debate than they did. Personally, I think the only winners are the ones who skipped it and went to bed.

Last edited by MiracleMama on Tue, Sep 27 2016, 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 5:25 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

No, they are not responsible for every nutty idea produced by the progressive left, but they proudly claim some of its architects as their inspiration and they have shown absolutely no judgment in endorsing, either tacitly or explicitly, many of the ideas or people who currently represent the progressive left.

For example, the Democratic Party endorsed Black Lives Matter early on -- and Clinton lectured us all on our white privilege. We even had a lively debate here on Imamother, and some people were quite quick to label others as racists. Yet here we are a few months later, and BLM has embraced highly anti-Semitic language that is extreme even for the BDS movement.

It's obvious that true racists would object to BLM. But that's not the problem: the progressive left and the mainstream Democratic Party immediately jumped on a bandwagon wherein anyone who had reservations about BLM was, ipso facto, a racist. Being called a racist is a heavy-duty accusation, and that's a big leap to make on the back of a loose organization such as BLM. They could have easily expressed concern for racial issues in law enforcement without immediately climbing in bed with BLM, but they chose to ally themselves instead.

You seem to be more sanguine than I about what comes out of universities. What comes out of universities, IMHO, are the people who will be leaders in the future. And they are being hit with a huge amount of anti-Semitic rhetoric that receives a "ho-hum" from leftists and Democrats.

Were it a single university or a single organization, it would be regrettable but predictable. However, it has become almost a trope: anti-Israel groups receive significant funding and use it to sponsor activities that routinely cross from simply criticizing Israeli policies to advocating genocide. Courses in a variety of disciplines routinely have students critique Israel as a colonialist entity or compare Palestinian causes with various civil rights or independence movements.

That might not be a big problem when it happens at Brooklyn College. Such a class probably has a few Jewish students in it, and even if it doesn't, you can easily find Jewish students on campus. But at University of Kansas or Louisiana State University, it's quite possible to go through college without knowing a single Jew or hearing anything to counter what's being taught in class.

These are the people who will be in charge in 25-40 years, and they're being taught to hate Jews and Israel now.

SixOfWands wrote:

But I'm shocked that anyone would think that Trump would be "less accepting of bigotry and intimidation ..." Just last night, he touted the stop and frisk program that was found unconstitutional because it was, in essence, racial profiling. (Interestingly, the NYC Police were live tweeting corrections to Trump's statement, citing evidence that crime in NYC has DECREASED since the end of stop and frisk. Oops.) He attacked the integrity of Gonzalo Curiel on the basis that "he's a Mexican." (He was born in Indiana, but hey, his skin is brown.) His companies have repeatedly been sued for racial discrimination; interesting that he didn't deny that his company refused to rent to blacks. The former president of Trump Castle Hotel and Casino has quoted him as stating, "I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” The whole birther thing. The lumping together of ethnic groups as if they were monolithic. Eg, he told a group of Jews, "I'm a negotiator, like you folks." And on and on and on. And, of course, he called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US. (He's since backpedaled. Maybe.) Because, you know, who cares about the Constitution.

You seem to be making the point that Trump is crass and obnoxious. Point taken. However, I don't have to eat dinner with him.

History has demonstrated that leaders' personal refinement doesn't always match their actions. For example, Richard Nixon was a virulent anti-Semite in conversation, using all kinds of slurs and stereotypes against Jews. Yet he opened up the Department of Justice to Jewish job applicants -- something that had never happened under a number of Presidents from both parties. And, of course, he put Jews in public positions of power within his administration.

FDR, on the other hand, behaved much better in public, but aggressively pursued policies in the U.S. that made Jewish life difficult and avoided any wartime actions that might have saved Jewish lives.

Did Trump's business discriminate against blacks in 1970? I'm sure they did. I don't know if you were alive in 1970, but I was, and I can assure you that almost anyone who owned real estate discriminated against blacks at that time. I won't say it's not relevant, but times have changed a great deal.

Nor do I believe that calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration is racist. Banning all Muslim immigration is ridiculous and unpractical, but placing restrictions on immigrants coming from areas of high radicalization and/or monitoring travel to/from those areas is a reasonable response at the current time, and many Muslims support a tougher system. They don't want to get dragged into the conflicts they fled.

SixOfWands wrote:

I'm also concerned about the virulent Antisemitism of some Trump supporters.

I lurk on some pretty right-wing forums and boards, and 95 percent of the anti-Semitism I see is based on the assumption that all Jews are liberal Democrats who don't take religion seriously.

On a couple of occasions, I've jumped in and explained that not all Jews are anti-civil rights; pro-abortion; anti-2nd amendment; big government secularists, and that some of us are very religious. I usually expect people not to believe me or argue, but I'm often surprised. A few usually half-heartedly apologize, saying that they thought all religious Jews lived in Israel or whatever and even asking questions about observant Jews.

Are there crazy neo-Nazis who will be voting for Trump. Of course! America has plenty of crazies, and we apparently provide candidates for all of them!

Mevater

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 7:34 pm

Fox, if youre not a speaker/lecturer/writer, you ought to be!

+100000

sequoia

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 7:50 pm

Fox, even if we all were, that is no excuse for anti-Semitism. I cannot believe this must be said, after our history.

My friend Julia Ioffe is most of those things, so it was GOOD she was attacked by Trump supporters? She DESERVED it, as a "bad Jew"?

No. And no.

The Nazis also thought we were too integrated, too secular, too successful. But everyone was gassed and burned and shot equally. Liberal. Conservative. Religious. Secular.

Your response to these anti-Semites should not be to explain how religious, politically conservative, and pro-gun you are, in the hope that they will make an exception for you and see you as a "good Jew."

Because you see, it never lasts.

Yesterday, Petrenko was saying, "I'm not an anti-Semite! That nice Rabinovich is my friend! He's not like the rest of them."

And today -- 75 years ago -- he was helping the Germans divest Rabinovich of his valuables, strip him naked, and throw him into the pit of Babiy Yar, to be shot along with his family.

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 8:41 pm

sequoia wrote:

Fox, even if we all were, that is no excuse for anti-Semitism. I cannot believe this must be said, after our history.

Agree 100 percent.

My take on it is that there are two kinds of anti-Semites we regularly encounter in the U.S.

There are the truly hard-core for whom hating Jews and blaming everything on Jews is part of their ideology. Truthfully, I don't go anywhere online where these folks hang out or are at least willing to publicly espouse their views. I've run into them IRL, usually on college campuses. They tend to be Muslims and/or black supremacists. Eisav soneh Yaakov.

Then there are the anti-Semite-lite types. These are the people who live in areas with very few Jews and almost none that are even nominally observant. Their only experience with Jews is whatever idiot Jewish celebrities say. So they read an interview in People with Sarah Silverman or Jerry Seinfeld and think, "Well, that's what Jews are all about."

They're not stupid; they know anti-Semitism is wrong. But their exposure to Jews has skewed their opinions. When pressed to do so and given adequate information, they are willing to contemplate the possibility that not all Jews conform to the stereotype of the liberal elitist with a NY accent.

Needless to say, I don't go around attempting to change the thinking of online anti-Semites. It would cut into my time on Imamother too much. When I do, it's a middle-aged lady version of trolling -- more Christina Hoff Summers than 4chan.

In the final analysis, though, it is rare for neo-Nazis to have tenured positions or be allowed to develop courses where they can mask their anti-Semitism as academic inquiry. For hard-core anti-Semites who've aligned themselves with the left, it's almost automatic.

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 8:51 pm

Just as an aside, it is a true tragedy that Martin Shkreli isn't Jewish. He could take on the online anti-Semites while conning them into babysitting his cat via livestream.

sequoia

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 8:53 pm

AGAIN, what's wrong with being a liberal elitist with a New York accent? That describes nearly every single person I know and love.

It's totally irrelevant WHY anti-Semites don't like Jews. Do you know what the Weimar Republic was like? Dance, zex, partying, drinking, drugs. Plenty of Sarah Silverman and Jerry Seinfeld types. Then the Nazis came along and said, "How long are you going to put up with these immoral, liberal Jews?"

Are you truly missing the point?

I'll repeat it:

Liberal elitist Jews do not deserve to be murdered, persecuted, or hated.

Even if every single Jew on the planet were Sarah Silverman Squared, anti-Semitism would still be wrong.

When you reply to these people, "Look at me, I'm not like that! I love guns! I hate NYC!", you are sadly and delusionally missing every lesson in our history.

Jeanette

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 9:32 pm

Fox wrote:

In the final analysis, though, it is rare for neo-Nazis to have tenured positions or be allowed to develop courses where they can mask their anti-Semitism as academic inquiry. For hard-core anti-Semites who've aligned themselves with the left, it's almost automatic.

So what do you think Trump is going to do about this scourge of anti-semitic leftists masquerading as university professors? Is it even on his radar?

Or is Trump just this huge (huuuuuuuuugge) blank screen on which everyone can project their dearest political hopes?

Fox

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 11:06 pm

sequoia wrote:

I'll repeat it:

Liberal elitist Jews do not deserve to be murdered, persecuted, or hated.

Even if every single Jew on the planet were Sarah Silverman Squared, anti-Semitism would still be wrong.

When you reply to these people, "Look at me, I'm not like that! I love guns! I hate NYC!", you are sadly and delusionally missing every lesson in our history.

Look, I agree with you. But in my defense, that's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm simply calling them out on their stereotypes and giving them a bit of a hard time by insisting that they stick to facts.

I don't harbor any illusions that I'm preventing or reversing their innnermost hatred of Jews. We're in galus, and they're going to hate us.

But when some Imamother poster says, "I grew up in a neighborhood where all the black people were socially dysfunctional criminals," everyone jumps to provide evidence that her experiences aren't necessarily representative. The point we make is, "The evidence that you based your conclusion on was incomplete."

Does that approach actually lessen racism? Very little, according to everything I've read. But the alternative is to simply shriek at people that they're being racist, anti-Semitic, or whatever and huff and puff that we "can't even." We do that on Imamother, too, and not only does it not cause people to question their conclusions, it actually makes them dig in their heels.

Occasionally pointing out to anti-Semite-lites that their data is flawed won't cause them to love us or prevent catastrophic oppression. But it will throw a little cognitive dissonance their way for whatever it's worth.

Jeanette wrote:

It's only on his radar in the most general sense. However, it is most definitely on the radar of people he surrounds himself with. Peter Thiel started battling the academic powers-that-be as an undergrad at Stanford and has written extensively about it.

Trump's college-age supporters are absolutely rabid on the topic, and they will be the interns and worker-bees who will be groomed for future leadership roles during a Trump presidency. Within 20 years, they will be in positions to actually restore the idea of classical liberal education in universities.

I keep hearing this business about Trump being a blank screen on which people can project their pet ideas, but the only place I hear it is on Imamother. As I said upthread, I don't think the candidates will respond significantly differently to governance issues. The difference is in the tone each one sets and the message that the government sends to citizens.

A perfect example is today's news about the DOL lawsuit against Palantir Technologies. It seems that 44 percent of their new hires were Asian-American. But since 73 percent of the applicants were Asian-American, the DOL is alleging racial discrimination. Even leftist legal scholars agree that it's basically a nuisance lawsuit that gives every appearance of being politically motivated. The message that it sends to business is that you can't win -- somehow you will run afoul of identity politics and be branded a racist. It seems to me to be a particularly stupid message to send to Silicon Valley, where support for Clinton is very deep. But the tone and implied threat is unmistakable.