Matt Lauer Fails

[haymarket]

Explain it to me.

What is it you need explained in the post you originally replied to? Here it is

from you

Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
Uh Huh. Right. That's all the Democratics want.
To make sure the moderators call attention to Hillary when she lies.
Much as I would enjoy that it wouldn't be a wise use of time.
You know these debates are only an hour and a half.

and my reply

This whole Hillary thing is just eating you alive. You should really step back and try to gain some perspective or it will possess you by the time November rolls around.

What is it you need explained?

 

[JasperL]

An absurd and totally irrelevant "example" that reeks of desperation.

It was a perfectly legitimate analogy.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The FACT is there is as much evidence Trump dreams of sex with Susan and Tim, filmed by Moore, (none) as there is he opposed the Iraq invasion before it happened (none).

You're inventing facts from evidence that doesn't exist in order to fit an extreme ideological conclusion.

No, the simple conclusion is Trump is lying about his opposition to the Iraq invasion, and that conclusion is supported by ALL the evidence. That conclusion requires me to invent nothing, stretch nothing, just weigh the evidence and come to the only possible conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, it's simple - present ANY evidence he opposed the invasion before March 2003.

As I've written before, if the roles were reversed and it was Hillary Clinton in Trumps position, I would be arguing the same point.

If so you'd be equally wrong. But if Bill Clinton declares that his intelligence staff had uncovered the 9/11 plot, the date, place and time, and they told this to W. Bush and he IGNORED!! this advice AND ALLOWED ALL THOSE PEOPLE TO DIE, under your standard we're required to treat that allegation with respect and as plausible because you simply cannot prove it did not happen. That is insane and moronic.

People should remember that being obsessed partisan hacks is no replacement for objective review of any situation.

My irony meter just pegged....

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you will miss the major factor influencing the laive of Americans in the next 15 years.

I don't think his gaffe indicates anything one way or another about how well he would do.

 

[ocean515]

It was a perfectly legitimate analogy.



The FACT is there is as much evidence Trump dreams of sex with Susan and Tim, filmed by Moore, (none) as there is he opposed the Iraq invasion before it happened (none).



No, the simple conclusion is Trump is lying about his opposition to the Iraq invasion, and that conclusion is supported by ALL the evidence. That conclusion requires me to invent nothing, stretch nothing, just weigh the evidence and come to the only possible conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, it's simple - present ANY evidence he opposed the invasion before March 2003.



If so you'd be equally wrong. But if Bill Clinton declares that his intelligence staff had uncovered the 9/11 plot, the date, place and time, and they told this to W. Bush and he IGNORED!! this advice AND ALLOWED ALL THOSE PEOPLE TO DIE, under your standard we're required to treat that allegation with respect and as plausible because you simply cannot prove it did not happen. That is insane and moronic.



My irony meter just pegged....

Yes it has. As a warning to yourself.

You've lost all objectivity, and your analogy is laughable.

Thank you for your opinion. Personally, I will always defer to facts.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes it has. As a warning to yourself.

You've lost all objectivity, and your analogy is laughable.

Thank you for your opinion. Personally, I will always defer to facts.

Said by a guy who's sig is:
Hillary Clinton on Illegal Aliens - In her own words: "Round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses… boxcars, in order to take them across our border.” August 28, 2015

And what she was saying is thats what TRUMP wants to do to them!

The quote in context:

QUESTION: How do you plan on dealing with 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I'm glad you asked me that, becasue some on the other side who are already advocating to deport 11, 12 million people...

I find it the height of irony that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive government effort, which might include national guard and others, to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.

I find that absurd but appalling. And that's why I support comprehensive immigration reform.

If thats not blatant dishonesty and non-factual, I dont know what is.

Hillary Clinton: Republicans Want To Round Up Illegal Immigrants And Put Them In "Boxcars" | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[JasperL]

BS.

They are not unsubstantiated. They are proven. There are far more words and opinions documented from Trump against the war than the four sheepish words he uttered on the Stern show. REALLY lame leftist dog whistles to claim it's the gotcha moment.

That's false, untrue unless you're going to use statements made well after the war began. If you (mistakenly) believe Trump is on record before March 2003 opposing the Iraq war, then cite your evidence. Quote him!

The burden is on you to prove them wrong.

You and Trump assert there are "far more words...." and the burden of proof is on you/Trump to back up your claim. You/Trump cannot....

 

[JasperL]

Yes it has. As a warning to yourself.

You've lost all objectivity, and your analogy is laughable.

Thank you for your opinion. Personally, I will always defer to facts.

Then present your "facts."

 

[ocean515]

Then present your "facts."

Run along JasperL. You're :beatdeadhorse

Have a nice day.

:2wave:

 

[JasperL]

Run along JasperL. You're :beatdeadhorse

Have a nice day.

:2wave:

Well, this discussion has been interesting. The only unknown has been which logical fallacy you'd turn to next, or what other diversion you'd use to cover for the fact that Trump is a liar on this issue and has reduced you to defending the indefensible.

I have to say this last one is pretty weak and disappointing.

 

[Removable Mind]

As long as TV personalities, who have been labeled as journalists or the like, work for corporations that aren't genuine news companies. These personalities will always pander to their employers interests, which doesn't necessarily require their (tsk, tsk, tsk) journalists employees to provide information based on what should be disseminated under the framework of journalistic ethics.

The same corporations that own radio and television news networks also have strong lobbyists which have significant influence over our election process and elected officials used to protect or enhance their various other business component's interests.

These corporations (like GE and Disney) that owns so-called news outlets make mega billions from political related events. So it's in these parent companies best interest to not allow their news network personalities to call out corrupt politicians or wanna be politicians who lie their asses off when running for office and especially once in office. Once in office these corporations own these elected officials. And these corporations don't care if they prop up republicans or democrats, they're all simply a means to an end.

In other words...

Our so-call journalist, pundit personalities who will moderate the debates are puppets and will never step outside of the constraints placed on them by their employers. The debates will be a sham.

 

[Threegoofs]

That's false, untrue unless you're going to use statements made well after the war began. If you (mistakenly) believe Trump is on record before March 2003 opposing the Iraq war, then cite your evidence. Quote him!



You and Trump assert there are "far more words...." and the burden of proof is on you/Trump to back up your claim. You/Trump cannot....

Well, to be fair, Ocean backed up this claim about as much as he's backed most of his claims...which is to say not at all.

 

[Threegoofs]

Run along JasperL. You're :beatdeadhorse

Have a nice day.

:2wave:

I see. When challenged with supporting your claims, you run.

 

[ocean515]

I see. When challenged with supporting your claims, you run.

Already have. You want to start beating a dead horse too, threegoofs?

Too funny.

:2wave:

 

[Threegoofs]

Already have. You want to start beating a dead horse too, threegoofs?

Too funny.

:2wave:

So cite it.

 

[JasperL]

Already have. You want to start beating a dead horse too, threegoofs?

Too funny.

:2wave:

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.

 

[Moderate Right]

Are Hillarys lies blatant? They sure are. And by letting Trump ramble Lauer hurt Hillary, that is the complaint.

I believe Lauer felt that letting Trump ramble would actually be worse for Trump than trying to keep him on topic. In any event, the liberal media are pissed at Lauer for making Hillary look bad.

 

[JasperL]

I believe Lauer felt that letting Trump ramble would actually be worse for Trump than trying to keep him on topic. In any event, the liberal media are pissed at Lauer for making Hillary look bad.

The "liberal media" are in fact pointing to specific failures by Lauer. The one we've been discussing here are not challenging Trump's lies about opposing the Iraq war and military intervention in Libya. Those are important for two reasons:

1) Trump distinguished himself first from the other GOP candidates and now Clinton by claiming superior judgment on those events, but he supported (or at least never opposed) the Iraq war and did support the action in Libya.

2) It's pretty significant that he's willing to continue to lie on both those issues, and people deciding about who to vote for ought to realize that he's doing so on those issues.

It's not by accident a bunch of Trump lemmings tried to claim on this thread that he did in fact oppose the Iraq war. The failure of the press to hold him accountable has allowed those lies to be accepted as truth by big chunks of the electorate.

 

[coldjoint]

The "liberal media" are in fact pointing to specific failures by Lauer. The one we've been discussing here are not challenging Trump's lies about opposing the Iraq war and military intervention in Libya. Those are important for two reasons:

1) Trump distinguished himself first from the other GOP candidates and now Clinton by claiming superior judgment on those events, but he supported (or at least never opposed) the Iraq war and did support the action in Libya.

2) It's pretty significant that he's willing to continue to lie on both those issues, and people deciding about who to vote for ought to realize that he's doing so on those issues.

It's not by accident a bunch of Trump lemmings tried to claim on this thread that he did in fact oppose the Iraq war. The failure of the press to hold him accountable has allowed those lies to be accepted as truth by big chunks of the electorate.

"Accountable" is a word a Hillary supporter should never use.

 

[JasperL]

"Accountable" is a word a Hillary supporter should never use.

Ah, of course, can't talk about Trump without someone jumping in with "But HILLARY DID IT TOO!@!"

And Lauer in fact spent roughly the first half of Hillary's time holding her accountable on the email scandal. That's fine and dandy. See above for what was not.

 

[bubbabgone]

Look up the claim

Who openly brags about buying politicians?
How much does Trump owe the Chinese?
How much is Trump actually worth?

Clintons aren't worth even $100 million. Add in $9 million for the value of the Clintons’ two homes in New York and Washington, and the net worth estimate reaches a high of about $62 million.

Clinton did not sell uranium to Putin.

There is ZERO evidence that Clinton "sold access" despite the efforts of multiple GOP-led investigations

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)

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.

Hillary Clinton Net Worth 2016: How Much is Hillary Worth

 

[bubbabgone]

What is it you need explained in the post you originally replied to? Here it is

from you





and my reply


What is it you need explained?

What you think I misread.
If you'd rather not, that's fine with me.

 

[haymarket]

What you think I misread.
If you'd rather not, that's fine with me.

I produced both posts for you. Are you having trouble reading either?

 

[bubbabgone]

I produced both posts for you. Are you having trouble reading either?

Bet you wish you could take that back.
Funny how that can happen at the worst time.

 

[haymarket]

Bet you wish you could take that back.
Funny how that can happen at the worst time.

You are not making any sense.

You have both posts in my 251. What is it that you do not understand assuming you can read both?

 

[Moderate Right]

The "liberal media" are in fact pointing to specific failures by Lauer. The one we've been discussing here are not challenging Trump's lies about opposing the Iraq war and military intervention in Libya. Those are important for two reasons:

1) Trump distinguished himself first from the other GOP candidates and now Clinton by claiming superior judgment on those events, but he supported (or at least never opposed) the Iraq war and did support the action in Libya.

2) It's pretty significant that he's willing to continue to lie on both those issues, and people deciding about who to vote for ought to realize that he's doing so on those issues.

It's not by accident a bunch of Trump lemmings tried to claim on this thread that he did in fact oppose the Iraq war. The failure of the press to hold him accountable has allowed those lies to be accepted as truth by big chunks of the electorate.

Even the liberal press realizes that what Trump told Howard stern in a quick snippet response fails to prove that he backed the Iraq war. Hillary voted for the damn war! Did Trump vote for the war? Now before you start accusing me of being a Trump lemming, I am not supporting Trump. I didn't vote for him in the primaries and I'm not voting for him in the general. But, when it comes to lying, Hillary has an overwhelming lead. In fact, a poll out the other day showed that only 35% trusted Hillary while 50% trusted Trump.