Miserably Biased Lester Holt on Trump Clinton Debate

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Mevater

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 8:06 pm

Jeanette wrote:

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?

Imho I think Trump is more able to improve the economy. When a country's economy is in shambles and joblessness and hopelessness is high, this is the atmosphere where the country becomes fertile ground for Anti-Semitism, and blaming the Jews for everything becomes popular and acceptable on college campuses and beyond.

Is that not how Nazis gained power pre-Holocaust?

Its very connected to the economy.

marina

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 8:15 pm

Quote:

But I think a Trump presidency will be more responsive to concerns about people's individual rights ....

Wait, what?

What has Trump done or said throughout this campaign to make you think that his presidency will be more responsive to concerns about people's individual rights, beyond the standard campaign platitudes about guns and taxes?

DrMom

Tue, Sep 27 2016, 10:49 pm

I don't see why anyone expects fair coverage from the mainstream media -- including debate moderators -- at this point.

Mevater

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 4:00 am

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/t.....tion/

According to the New York Post, Holt was so clearly biased towards Hillary, by pummeling Trump numerous tomes, and barely making things difficult for Hillary, the New York Post says anti-media bias could help win Trump the election. The favor might be no favor.

Maya

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 4:26 am

Mevater wrote:

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/the-media-loves-hillary-and-it-could-cost-her-the-election/

According to the New York Post, Holt was so clearly biased towards Hillary, by pummeling Trump numerous tomes, and barely making things difficult for Hillary, the New York Post says anti-media bias could help win Trump the election. The favor might be no favor.

It's no big surprise that the NYPost is saying that. They endorsed Trump.

scrltfr

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 4:54 am

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.
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.

Well I for one have done business with the trump organization and found them to be very professional and easy to work with and paid me what I asked.

Mevater

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 5:01 am

Maya wrote:

It's no big surprise that the NYPost is saying that. They endorsed Trump.

Idiots! They should have endorsed Hillary because of her talents in selling State Department access to Clinton Foundation major donors.

Fox

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 8:39 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

But I think a Trump presidency will be more responsive to concerns about people's individual rights ....

Let me emphasize the word "more" -- Trump's record is far from ideal on matters of civil liberties, and as someone with strong libertarian leanings, there are plenty of areas in which I disagree strongly with him. Nevertheless, I think he's stronger on individual rights than Clinton.

Anti-Regulation
While government regulation is obviously appropriate and needed, the proliferation of regulations imposed by government has become oppressive, slowing down job growth and exponentially increasing the cost of higher education. Trump has identified excessive government regulation as a factor that makes it more difficult for individuals, especially those with fewer resources, to succeed.

Business Taxes
Reducing business tax rates is more than a platitude to anyone who owns a business. Clinton sees "corporations" as rich, taxable targets -- she repeatedly calls for getting corporations to "pay their fair share." But the majority of "corporations" are really small businesses, and they create the bulk of job growth, especially in minority and low-income areas. Clinton considers a "small business" to be five or fewer employees!

Death Taxes
Estate taxes have decimated family businesses and farms in this country. Clinton's proposals sound great -- but the categories are incredibly broad and will affect many people whom we don't consider "rich."

School Choice
Trump supports various mechanisms for school choice. This is a critical individual right.

States Rights
Trump explicitly supports states' rights; Clinton has consistently worked throughout her career to undermine states' rights. In general, individual states are more responsive to the concerns and values of their citizens.

Second Amendment
Another platitude, but Trump has a common-sense approach and more accurately identifies the causes of gun violence.

Immigration and Rejecting Radical Islam
Perhaps this seems counter-intuitive, but I consider Clinton's consistent unwillingness to denounce Radical Islam and acknowledge the threat it poses as an infringement on the individual rights of U.S. citizens, including Muslims. Upthread, Sequoia gave me excellent mussar and a reminder about the futility and dangers of placating anti-Semites. The same is true for radical Islam.

I don't know if I'm correct or not, but I have a pet theory: I think Trump increased his appeal to a large segment of voters as a result of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in June.

Clinton (and the Obama administration) fumbled. They responded tepidly. They used soft language to denounce the killer's motivation, and they did nothing to disavow theories that lessened the blame on radical Islam. Trump's response was hard and angry. Whatever the flaws of his actual proposals, he didn't mince words or make excuses.

I think that resonated with a lot of people. Most Americans belong to one or more category that would make us targets for a lone jihadi or a jihadi organization. It takes no great intellect to determine that radical Islam has no more tolerance for the rest of us than it has for gays. The killings in Orlando brought the problem into sharp relief.

Unconsciously, a lot of people who would never have otherwise considered supporting or voting for Trump became more open to the idea. The most critical individual right is the right to life, and while I don't believe it's true, Clinton gave the appearance that she cared more about causing offense to Muslims than about 50 dead and 50 wounded Americans. Regardless of who is elected, I believe a stronger response from Clinton could have prevented Trump from making this a close election.

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 10:59 am

Quote:

Anti-Regulation
While government regulation is obviously appropriate and needed, the proliferation of regulations imposed by government has become oppressive, slowing down job growth and exponentially increasing the cost of higher education. Trump has identified excessive government regulation as a factor that makes it more difficult for individuals, especially those with fewer resources, to succeed.

Trump says whatever the particular audience wants to hear. He often spouts total gibberish. In discussing regulations, he insists he would replace the ACA with "DonaldCare," but no one knows what that is. Except that it's going to be great, believe me.

He also went off on rising CEO salaries and how terrible those are, but he obviously does not believe a word of that. In August he stated that he would put a moratorium on any further financial regulations until the economy improved, but in July, he wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagall Act to break up big banks.

He wants to force all employers to use everify and also intends to deport 11 million people- not exactly steps that would reduce government involvement and spending. One day he wants to eliminate the FDA and the next day, that's removed from his platform.

Most importantly, he has explicitly used government regulations and their loopholes to enrich himself and his businesses, at others' expense. While this is normal for a businessman, I have no idea how you could possibly conclude that he is now concerned about the success of individuals with fewer resources.

Last edited by marina on Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:49 am; edited 1 time in total

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:11 am

Quote:

Business Taxes
Reducing business tax rates is more than a platitude to anyone who owns a business. Clinton sees "corporations" as rich, taxable targets -- she repeatedly calls for getting corporations to "pay their fair share." But the majority of "corporations" are really small businesses, and they create the bulk of job growth, especially in minority and low-income areas. Clinton considers a "small business" to be five or fewer employees!

The above is far from clear. Trump's main small business plan is allowing business to pay not more than 15% in taxes- but most already pay less than that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro.....53905

Hillary's plan is more detailed and could actually be helpful. http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....7582/

Finally, under Obama, small businesses have overall done well, considering what he walked into. He gets relatively good ratings from them. So I'm not seeing Hillary as anything worse. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro.....31879

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:18 am

Quote:

Death Taxes
Estate taxes have decimated family businesses and farms in this country. Clinton's proposals sound great -- but the categories are incredibly broad and will affect many people whom we don't consider "rich."

Not really. I don't know much about this area, but the percent of family businesses and farms that had to pay an estate tax in 2013 was 0.18%.

So that's not decimating businesses and farms. https://www.washingtonpost.com.....mers/

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:28 am

Quote:

School Choice
Trump supports various mechanisms for school choice. This is a critical individual right.

Hillary supports school choice but not vouchers. Vouchers are problematic in many ways because the government ends up supporting not only yeshivos but also madrassahs and catholic schools, etc. It is really a constitutional problem, pitting rights against each other.

Importantly, I haven't seen that school choice improves students' education overall, so not sure why this individual right is that critical.

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:30 am

Quote:

States Rights
Trump explicitly supports states' rights; Clinton has consistently worked throughout her career to undermine states' rights. In general, individual states are more responsive to the concerns and values of their citizens.

In my professional experience, when people want their individual rights protected, they turn to the federal government, not their state. This applies, as I've seen it, to employment discrimination, civil rights laws, special education matters, bullying, etc.

Also your first sentence here is too general. Plse list a few examples, especially where Trump says something concrete and meaningful.

SixOfWands

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:42 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

Oh, absolutely. States always support the rights of their citizens.

North Carolina is certainly looking after the interests of its transgendered citizens in its "bathroom bill." I mean she should ABSOLUTELY be using the men's room. Or holding it in.

And all the states that keep trying to bring back school prayer. I mean, sure, most of you send your kids to yeshiva. So its fine with you if the Jews who don't have to pray to jeezus. I mean, let's be honest. Most Americans are Christian.

Voter ID laws. If your community doesn't allow women to drive, then they shouldn't vote either, right?

marina

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:45 am

Quote:

Second Amendment
Another platitude, but Trump has a common-sense approach and more accurately identifies the causes of gun violence.

Immigration and Rejecting Radical Islam
Perhaps this seems counter-intuitive, but I consider Clinton's consistent unwillingness to denounce Radical Islam and acknowledge the threat it poses as an infringement on the individual rights of U.S. citizens, including Muslims. Upthread, Sequoia gave me excellent mussar and a reminder about the futility and dangers of placating anti-Semites. The same is true for radical Islam.

Both of these issues require balance and nuance; Trump offers us neither. His positions consist exclusively of fear mongering on both topics. Illegal immigrants will take your jobs and Muslims will slaughter your children and you won't have a gun to protect yourself because Hillary took it away.

Deport 11 million people! Get rid of ISIS! Protect the Second Amendment! Win! Win! Win!

From Trump, I've seen zero discussion of our current immigration policy and its successes and failures, our screening procedures and whether they need to be improved at all, our current efforts in addressing homegrown radicalism and what else needs to be done, the fiscal benefits offered by undocumented immigrants, as well as factors offsetting those benefits... zero intelligent discussion of enforcing existing gun laws, of whether some groups of people should be barred from gun ownership (felons, watch list terrorists), etc.

Hillary, in contrast, has spoken about radical islam, she's served as a Secretary of State, she has laid out her position on ISIS intelligently, she is experienced in maintaining key alliances, etc. Gun ownership has increased exponentially over the last 8 years and I have no reasons to be concerned about our second amendment rights under Hillary.

SixOfWands

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 11:51 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

Estate taxes don't kick in until the value of the estate is $5,450,000 in 2016.

There are also special rules to deal with closely held businesses, deferring payments over a 14-year period.

(via google)

So this isn't an issue that faces most small businesses.

chaiz

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 12:19 pm

Fox wrote:

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.

NO! I am very happy he is not Jewish. Really, he would feed into all the stereotypes of Jews. I am really not sure what there is in him to admire.

Fox

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 1:32 pm

The problem I always have with these discussions is that I find myself dragged into defending and/or extolling Trump, and that's not really my position. In fact, I agree with many of your criticisms of Trump, and I can come up with several you didn't mention.

Nevertheless, I'll probably vote for him (barring some major event) because I find Clinton to be so much worse.

Leaving aside the long list of scandals in which Clinton has played pivotal roles, I keep coming back to the fact that her so-called experience is actually pretty weak.

Every single job has either been in the public sector and/or has come about through her husband's political influence. At no time has she ever been called upon to show a profit; answer to investors; compete in a free market; or do anything that every single hot dog vendor on the street has to do on a daily basis.

Now, I might be able to overlook that -- after all, many people in public service had similar resumes -- if she'd actually been successful at any of her roles.

* Her programs aimed at women and children in Arkansas saw modest improvements, but improvement rates lagged improvement rates in the nation in the same time period.

* Her role at the Rose Law firm resulted in missing documents (email wasn't around in the 80s) and accusations of influence peddling.

* Her stint as First Lady -- arguably not a "job" in the usual sense -- saw nothing even as noteworthy as Lady Bird Johnson's campaign to clean up roadways. Despite early promises to be engaged in government, Clinton soon got bogged down in Travelgate and the soft intimidation of her husband's paramours. She blamed it all on a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

* Her term as senator from NY (and I've never understood how that deal went through; since when is she from NY? RFK was widely criticized for the same thing.) resulted in no significant actions or rhetoric. Her reflections on 9/11 are banal in the extreme and she played no significant leadership role in the recovery.

* Her time as Secretary of State has arguably been one of the worst for America. A Secretary of State, however effective, can't solve all the problems in the world. But Clinton has repeatedly misjudged or just ignored the development of ISIS; destabilization following Arab Spring; destabilization of the European Union; trade issues with China and Southeast Asia, etc. Her response to terrorism and Internet-based threats has been to disapprove strongly.

So however flawed Trump is in terms of experience and refinement, it seems like our country has given Clinton multiple opportunities to demonstrate leadership, and she hasn't come through.

That assessment frequently results in someone saying, "Well, what would you consider leadership in any of those roles?" Listen, as a Chicagoan, my standards for public servants aren't high. But I would be a lot more willing to consider voting for Clinton if she had ever taken an unpopular stand that required a smidgen of bravery, even in a minor way. Someone like Dianne Feinstein comes to mind.

But I haven't seen that happen yet, and Orlando was where a lot of people realized that they hadn't seen it, either.

sequoia

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 1:34 pm

It's a good thing I'm voting for marina!

Fox

Wed, Sep 28 2016, 1:47 pm

chaiz wrote:

NO! I am very happy he is not Jewish. Really, he would feed into all the stereotypes of Jews. I am really not sure what there is in him to admire.

He's actually a very good guy who smart-alecked his way into a lot of bad press. I think it's made him grow up a lot and respond to people differently.

I started watching his videos on investing a while ago, and I can't think off-hand of anyone else who might be considered a public figure who is so accessible and funny. I've asked questions and he's given me way more thought-out answers than I would expect. Today he's driving everyone crazy on social media to raise money for the family of a consultant he'd worked with who died suddenly, and he's matching everything.

Not saying he's a tzaddik, but don't let media spin determine your opinion of people.

Which is not to say that I'm willing to babysit his cat.

Page 3 of 6

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next