• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Matt Lauer Fails

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.

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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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

Sheesh, that's not what Trump said. :roll: From the transcript: NBC Forum: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Transcript

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,

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

LOL

If you say so. I guess you are above the legions who say otherwise.
 
Again? No thanks. Do some work yourself. It's in this thread.

Nope.... I think its in your head, not this 300+ post thread.

I mean, surely it must not be too hard to type a sentence to point out what you are talking about.

Unless, of course, it doesnt exist.

And we all know it doesnt, or else you would have been repeating it endlessly.
 
LOL

If you say so. I guess you are above the legions who say otherwise.

I'm not "above" anyone, but I do know with 100% certainty you cannot point to a single quote from Trump from before the war that he was against the war, or that he predicted in advance that the war in Iraq would destabilize the ME, and neither can anyone among his legions, the Trump campaign, or Trump himself.
 
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?
 
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?

My bad- reading too fast.

I was just hoping SOMEONE could produce the quote, since Ocean seems to be running as fast as he can away from the claim...
 
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


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
 
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.

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
 
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".

And you base that on what, exactly? The fact that I'm a progressive? You're making a grand assumption that I would be every be every bit as lenient about Hillary as most conservatives are about Trump. But if you'd check my writings, you would have seen that I have called Hillary a liar on multiple occasions...but I also point out that the frequency and degree of Trump's lies are much greater - it's a molehill-mountain comparison...and the molehill of Clinton's lies is not equal to Trump's mountain of lies.

In other words, I aim to be accurate - and it is accurate to call Hillary a liar (see "a sniper was shooting at us!"), and it is accurate to call Trump a much bigger liar (do I really need to go down the list?)...and I base my support for Hillary on (1) the fact that the only other living diplomat as experienced as her is Henry Kissinger, (2) she knows how to get things done even when under constant attack by the Right (which she and Bill have been under since 1992), and (3) the fact that it's hardly unusual for presidents to lie. I challenge anyone to point out a president who never lied - even Washington did, apparently.

When it comes to Trump, however, never have we had a president who tells such obvious lies so frequently as Trump does. What's more, he just claimed that if he were president, if the Iranian boats came out to harass our Navy ships as they recently did, he'd have the Iranian ships sunk. Even Reagan knew better than to be so easily provoked into violent action - the Soviets harassed us all the time, but he wouldn't take the bait. But Trump is so eager to take the bait...and I don't see how he wouldn't lead us into yet another needless, tragic, and criminal war.
 
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.

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....
 
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

That's not the claim - that he was a "war hawk." He has many times claimed to be a public, vocal, loud, opponent of the Iraq War, loud enough that the WH sent a delegation to his office to try to change his mind or shut him up. He claimed in that interview he predicted the Iraq war would destabilize the ME. Those claims aren't new and they have been fact checked by several major publications and they are FALSE, aka lies.

The Stern interview isn't evidence of much IMO, except that someone who is vocally opposed to something is unlikely to say, "Yeah, I guess" he supports invading Iraq in response to a direct and simple question.

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

Again, the claim he's making is that he bucked overwhelming public opinion at that time, the WH, Congress, the entire foreign policy apparatus of the U.S. and our allies abroad, and was a vocal opponent of the decision to invade Iraq. And in that Lauer interview he uses his lies about his non-existent opposition to the Iraq war as evidence for his 'great judgment.'

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

Of course he could. The fact that he's made these claims and that at least a half dozen major publications have fact checked his multiple statements and found NOTHING was well known. "When did you make those claims? Why can no publication nor your campaign nor any of your supporters find any evidence of ANY statement by you opposing the Iraq war before March 2003?"

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

If he can challenge Hillary he can and should challenge Trump.
 
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....

Oh??? I don't think you actually watched the interviews by Lauer.

https://twitter.com/FacMagnaAmerica/status/773754101272342529/video/1
 
Last edited:
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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

ALL of the net worth numbers for Bill Clinton are "estimated" with no support such as financial statements. The only items we presently have are the Clinton tax returns and the candidate's FEC net worth documents. The FEC does require the inclusion of at least a portion of a spouse's net worth.
 
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.

No there's a reason the two people invited to the forum were the two major party nominees for POTUS. If not the nominee, no way in hell a reality show host and businessman, in particular, is invited. Hillary might have been given her stint as SoS, but doubtful even she would.

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.

This forum is entertainment to me, and I assume everyone else. I happen to enjoy debating but don't kid myself my words affect anything beyond making my day a little more enjoyable, hopefully occasionally I learn something new (I do!), and in many cases I'm forced to confront different opinions and support only to myself what my own conclusions are on a particular issue....
 
Back
Top Bottom