Matt Lauer Fails

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Phys251 said:
Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War | PolitiFact
Donald Trump and the Iraq War

BS blather from two Progressive Machine outlets offer nothing.

The Stern comment was exactly 8 seconds, including Stern's question. He hesistates when asked by Stern about the war and haltingly says "I guess so..."

This is the resounding all out support for the war the frauds on the left are pushing? This is the gotcha moment proving he did indeed support the war?

How pathetic and desperate can the left be?

The liers at the joke factory of the Progressive Machine at Politifact cite Stern's interview? ZERO credibility

The liers at the joke factory of the Progressive Machine at Factcheck/Annenberg can't find evidence he opposed the war, so that's it. The overlords of all things has spoken.

More total BS.

:failpail:

Total BS.

eohrnberger · Sep 9, 2016

Hmm. Looks like Matt Lauer is going to have to step up his game. Isn't he one of the presidential debate moderators?

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Threegoofs said:
Well, he said things multiple times....including wanting to invade Libya before he was against it.

Trump: this Esquire article proves I opposed the Iraq War. Esquire: no, it doesnâ€[emoji769]t. - Vox

And here's a timeline of all his statements about the war in 2003-4. Note, before the war, he never said he was against it, and certainly implied he was for it.

Donald Trump and the Iraq War

Both laughably biased total BS articles proving nothing, and drawing conclusions that wouldn't stand up to a sneeze from 10 feet.

If either source had a shred of credibility they would be excusing away comments based on time. They wouldn't be leaving out context and reply on the pathetic Stern interview.

That lame Stern "gotcha" is 8 seconds in length, including Stern's question. Trump doesn't say 'you bet I support the war', he doesn't say outright 'yes I do'. He hesitates, and then haltingly, in a quieter voice says, "I...guess..so". And then comments about wishing it had been done correctly the first time.

That is the gotcha moment? Maybe 3-4 seconds? From a question blurted out of the blue?

Pathetic attempt by the left to invent what doesn't exist.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

JasperL said:
The problem is that to Stern is the only comment anyone can find on whether he supported or opposed the war before the shooting started, and he clearly and obviously didn't oppose the war before it began, which is his claim. He's been lying about that for a year now, and should be called out on it when he repeats that lie.

BS. Draws conclusions that are not clear at all. To suggest it's clear is a total fabrication.

Threegoofs · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
Both laughably biased total BS articles proving nothing, and drawing conclusions that wouldn't stand up to a sneeze from 10 feet.

If either source had a shred of credibility they would be excusing away comments based on time. They wouldn't be leaving out context and reply on the pathetic Stern interview.

That lame Stern "gotcha" is 8 seconds in length, including Stern's question. Trump doesn't say 'you bet I support the war', he doesn't say outright 'yes I do'. He hesitates, and then haltingly, in a quieter voice says, "I...guess..so". And then comments about wishing it had been done correctly the first time.

That is the gotcha moment? Maybe 3-4 seconds? From a question blurted out of the blue?

Pathetic attempt by the left to invent what doesn't exist.

Nice hand waving of an article almost completely consisting of Trumps verbatim statements and their contexts.

Abbazorkzog · Sep 9, 2016

I like how the OP starts a thread with the title 'Matt Lauer Fails' and then proceeds to several posts later go onto like several posts praising Matt Lauer...

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 9, 2016

justabubba said:
appears i am in a distinct minority. my impression was that lauer did a decent job. he was even-handed

hillary started out conforming to the agreement entered into immediately prior to the interview; that the candidates would respond with their own agendas and proposals rather than attacking their opponent. but she could not hold to the agtreement, and lauer rightfully gave tRump the same latitude

the questions to hillary regarding her email snafu helped her in my estimation. she was able to forcefully communicate that she never violated security protocol by sending a security-tagged email

similarly, lauer persisted with tRump after tRump insisted he would always answer questions truthfully, by quoting the candidate's statement about knowing more about how to deal with isis than the generals. that, in turn, led tRump to disparage the nation's general corps and intimate that he would intrude on the military's flag rank promotion practices by selecting his own general staff

my biggest complaint about lauer's moderation was that his questions were not as narrowly focued on the military and veteran issues as i believe they should have been. for instance, hillary's email issue has almost nothing to do with those topics

the NBC talent responsible to identifying members of the attendees should receive a promotion for her good work. the questions she found from the assembled veterans were the best portions of the discussions

More or less agree.
I think the fact that people are upset, is a clue that he did a good job.

bubbabgone · Sep 9, 2016

Gaea said:
I just realized you're not the same person as justabubba. :3oops:

I don't know how I'm going to keep track of you two. :shock:

justabubba said:
i'm the good looking one

Yeah ... he's definitely the cute one but he should work on his grooming, lay off the fries, and fercrissake does he have to put cheese on everything?

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Threegoofs said:
Nice hand waving of an article almost completely consisting of Trumps verbatim statements and their contexts.

Are they complete? Do they represent every single comment on the subject Trump has ever made? Is it 100% accurate?

As to Stern, have you listened to the audio? Start at 1:39.

According to what I have read, this is the only comment that can be found. 8 seconds total, including Stern's question.

What a pathetic attempt by the left, the corrupt and completely suicidal MSM, and Clintons campaign and minions pushing it.

Tanngrisnir · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
BS blather from two Progressive Machine outlets offer nothing.

The Stern comment was exactly 8 seconds, including Stern's question. He hesistates when asked by Stern about the war and haltingly says "I guess so..."

This is the resounding all out support for the war the frauds on the left are pushing? This is the gotcha moment proving he did indeed support the war?

How pathetic and desperate can the left be?

The liers at the joke factory of the Progressive Machine at Politifact cite Stern's interview? ZERO credibility

The liers at the joke factory of the Progressive Machine at Factcheck/Annenberg can't find evidence he opposed the war, so that's it. The overlords of all things has spoken.

More total BS.

:failpail:

Total BS.

LOL! Ah, the fetid, musky stench of right wing desperation. Since it apparently escaped your notice, words actually do have meanings.

"I guess so" in response to Stern means "yes", no matter how much you have to daintily prance and dance around that fact.

The only fail here is your inability to face reality.

JasperL · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
BS. Draws conclusions that are not clear at all. To suggest it's clear is a total fabrication.

OK, show me the evidence Trump opposed the Iraq war before it began. When you find it and link to it here, you should also tweet it out to Trump because neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign has been able to find this evidence so far.

But in reality, you can't show me any evidence he opposed the Iraq war until well after it started because he didn't, and him saying he did is a lie, a con man using 20/20 hindsight to condemn others for acts he supported or at least did not oppose at that time. And this was a big f'ing deal - the decision to go to war was polarizing - and some people made the right call, most people did not. It's BS to let him get away with claiming he was in the minority who opposed that war from the beginning when he either supported it (as his comment to Stern indicated) or was too much of a coward to take any position on this monumental and incredibly polarizing decision.

Threegoofs · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
Are they complete? Do they represent every single comment on the subject Trump has ever made? Is it 100% accurate?

According to what I have read, this is the only comment that can be found. 8 seconds total, including Stern's question.

What a pathetic attempt by the left, the corrupt and completely suicidal MSM, and Clintons campaign and minions pushing it.

You know, if youd READ the links I posted rather than just whining about them, it might be more efficient.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Ah, the fetid, musky stench of right wing desperation. Since it apparently escaped your notice, words actually do have meanings.

"I guess so" in response to Stern means "yes", no matter how much you have to daintily prance and dance around that fact.

The only fail here is your inability to face reality.

LOL

Yeah, that's all you got to prove Trumps a liar, right?. A couple of seconds on one Radio show. "Yeah...I..guess..so" is a resounding "YES!" to intellectually desperate.

Prancing is most certainly the action to the tune you're dancing to.

That dog whistle may work with the tingly leg crowd, but it ain't playing to the majority.

JasperL · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
BS. Draws conclusions that are not clear at all. To suggest it's clear is a total fabrication.

BTW, here are two of Trump's claims about his position on going into Iraq:

From the CBS debate:

I'm the only one on this stage that said, "Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq." Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn't a politician, fortunately.

That is a lie.

From the CNN debate

Trump: I am the only person on this dais — the only person — that fought very, very hard against us (ph), and I wasn’t a sitting politician going into Iraq, because I said going into Iraq — that was in 2003, you can check it out, check out — I’ll give you 25 different stories.

TRUMP: In fact, a delegation was sent to my office to see me because I was so vocal about it. I’m a very militaristic person, but you have to know when to use the military. I’m the only person up here that fought against going into Iraq.

Those are a series of lies.

Tanngrisnir · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
LOL

Yeah, that's all you got to prove Trumps a liar, right?. A couple of seconds on one Radio show. "Yeah...I..guess..so" is a resounding "YES!" to intellectually desperate.

Prancing is most certainly the action to the tune you're dancing to.

That dog whistle may work with the tingly leg crowd, but it ain't playing to the majority.

Yawn. You just proved my point for me.

"Yeah, I guess so" means 'yes'. "I guess not" would have meant 'no'. Hence, it proves Trump's a liar, despite all your tears of desperation.

Sorry that you embarrassed yoursefl yet again.

vesper · Sep 9, 2016

I think because Clinton did do poorly with answering the questions that Lauer proposed is why the left is going after Lauer for his unfair treatment.
But Lauer allowed Trump to make a fool of himself. He chose questions about things that Trump has for the past 15 months shown his weaknesses in character and judgment. His answers were so convoluted anyone with a neuron still sparking had red flags popping up all over the place.
From his view of acting like an Imperialist over Iraqi oil wells to lying about being against the Iraqi war from the beginning didn't help Trump. Nor did his bromance with Putin or his answer to why he thinks he is qualified to serve as president. Some claim Lauer gave Trump softball questions. But what Lauer did was allow Trump to expose himself. When Lauer asked Trump what he was doing to prepare for the presidency, Trumps reply included that right now he is wearing many hats claiming his business still takes up his time but he is speaking to military personnel and other experts. WTH? Shouldn't a person running for president only be wearing one hat? Might explain the mess his campaign is in.
While those who lean left that think Hillary was not treated fairly, many on the right think Trump's answers were totally embarrassing. I don't think either one hurt themselves with their solid base of supporters who would jump off a cliff with them if asked. But I think neither one helped themselves with those who are undecided. If anything they may have grown the numbers that can't vote for either.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

JasperL said:
OK, show me the evidence Trump opposed the Iraq war before it began. When you find it and link to it here, you should also tweet it out to Trump because neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign has been able to find this evidence so far.

But in reality, you can't show me any evidence he opposed the Iraq war until well after it started because he didn't, and him saying he did is a lie, a con man using 20/20 hindsight to condemn others for acts he supported or at least did not oppose at that time. And this was a big f'ing deal - the decision to go to war was polarizing - and some people made the right call, most people did not. It's BS to let him get away with claiming he was in the minority who opposed that war from the beginning when he either supported it (as his comment to Stern indicated) or was too much of a coward to take any position on this monumental and incredibly polarizing decision.

:lamo

And you think the larger font and bolded letters are going to accomplish what?

Too funny.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Threegoofs said:
You know, if youd READ the links I posted rather than just whining about them, it might be more efficient.

I did read them. Why do you believe I didn't?

soot · Sep 9, 2016

First of all, if you went in to this thing expecting hard-hitting journalism from Matt Lauer then the joke is really on you.

Second, Trump might have waffled on his support for the Iraq war but the guy was a civilian at the time and his opinion had no more real influence over whether or not the Senate authorized the war than your opinion or mine.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was a sitting Senator who voted to authorize the war.

Trump wins this one game, set and match.

cabse5 · Sep 9, 2016

vesper said:
I think because Clinton did do poorly with answering the questions that Lauer proposed is why the left is going after Lauer for his unfair treatment.
But Lauer allowed Trump to make a fool of himself. He chose questions about things that Trump has for the past 15 months shown his weaknesses in character and judgment. His answers were so convoluted anyone with a neuron still sparking had red flags popping up all over the place.
From his view of acting like an Imperialist over Iraqi oil wells to lying about being against the Iraqi war from the beginning didn't help Trump. Nor did his bromance with Putin or his answer to why he thinks he is qualified to serve as president. Some claim Lauer gave Trump softball questions. But what Lauer did was allow Trump to expose himself. When Lauer asked Trump what he was doing to prepare for the presidency, Trumps reply included that right now he is wearing many hats claiming his business still takes up his time but he is speaking to military personnel and other experts. WTH? Shouldn't a person running for president only be wearing one hat? Might explain the mess his campaign is in.
While those who lean left that think Hillary was not treated fairly, many on the right think Trump's answers were totally embarrassing. I don't think either one hurt themselves with their solid base of supporters who would jump off a cliff with them if asked. But I think neither one helped themselves with those who are undecided. If anything they may have grown the numbers that can't vote for either.

Lauer showed inconsistencies in both candidates' answers on their support for the Iraq War. Both possibly changed their minds numerous times.

One has to realize there was a distinct and possibly separate set of 'facts' (read ideologies) that went into each decision, er, vacillation.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

JasperL said:
BTW, here are two of Trump's claims about his position on going into Iraq:

From the CBS debate:

That is a lie.

From the CNN debate

Those are a series of lies.

No they aren't. Posting opinions and representing them as facts is fraud. Why are you embracing fraud and deceit?

Factcheck is a biased partisan noise machine funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which is connected to George Soro's and the myriad of Progressive Machine operations he and his cabal created.

PolitiFact is part of the same animal.

ocean515 · Sep 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. You just proved my point for me.

"Yeah, I guess so" means 'yes'. "I guess not" would have meant 'no'. Hence, it proves Trump's a liar, despite all your tears of desperation.

Sorry that you embarrassed yoursefl yet again.

Oh ok. I'm embarrassed.

LOL

Not in in your wildest fantasies.

JasperL · Sep 9, 2016

Harry Guerrilla said:
More or less agree.
I think the fact that people are upset, is a clue that he did a good job.

LOL, or it could be that he in fact did a bad job and failed in his role, letting down both campaigns.

Besides the premise there is his job or duty as a moderator is to anger both campaigns equally, so at the end of it neither campaign comes out a winner or loser, and that is a fundamentally wrongheaded view. His duty is to be fair, and only by the rarest of coincidences will he moderate a panel in which neither side is a "winner" or "loser." Hillary's camp is upset about the focus on emails, but that's fair game IMO. Where he failed in that setting is to let Trump get away with his lies (and they are lies) about being opposed to the Iraq invasion and our interventions in Libya. Being fair to his viewers is to call out those lies for what they are or at the very least to point out that there exists NO evidence anywhere to support his assertions, which is just a simple statement of the facts as we know them.

It's an aside, but this approach is exactly why I don't watch Sunday political shows anymore. The hosts of all these shows obviously believe it's their job as journalists and moderator to allow democrats and republicans to get on there and repeat their talking points even if those talking points are obvious falsehoods/misrepresentations/half truths intended to deceive, and to let them pass without any follow up.

cabse5 · Sep 9, 2016

soot said:
First of all, if you went in to this thing expecting hard-hitting journalism from Matt Lauer then the joke is really on you.

Second, Trump might have waffled on his support for the Iraq war but the guy was a civilian at the time and his opinion had no more real influence over whether or not the Senate authorized the war than your opinion or mine.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was a sitting Senator who voted to authorize the war.

Trump wins this one game, set and match.

I think if one were to take the hawk angle, Hillary would win hands down. Sorry, dems.

Tanngrisnir · Sep 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
Oh ok. I'm embarrassed.

LOL

Not in in your wildest fantasies.

Sorry that you think anyone would have fantasies about your inability to grasp the meaning of even the simplest phrases in English.

"Yeah, I guess so" seems mean 'no' in your befuddled and rather delusional universe.

Sorry that you embarrassed yourself yet again.

Matt Lauer Fails

ocean515

eohrnberger

ocean515

ocean515

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian

Harry Guerrilla

bubbabgone

ocean515

Tanngrisnir

JasperL

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

ocean515

JasperL

Tanngrisnir

vesper

ocean515

ocean515

soot

cabse5

ocean515

ocean515

JasperL

cabse5

Tanngrisnir