• 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

Phys251 said:
Of course they do. That's why nearly half this nation believes in creationism, for example.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Then we are in agreement. :thumbs:
 
Phys251 said:
That is a lie. She has given over 200 interviews in the last year. That's more than one every other day.

Speaking of which, despite the hideous treatment of her last night, she decides to hold another press conference the very next morning. This woman ain't afraid.
Click to expand...

She or her staff picked who she would talk to. Invitations from O'Reilly and others were ignored. Also, her campaigns counts appearances on talk shows where her fat ass is covered in kisses.
 
coldjoint said:
She or her staff picked who she would talk to. Invitations from O'Reilly and others were ignored. Also, her campaigns counts appearances on talk shows where her fat ass is covered in kisses.
Click to expand...

Prove these claims with reputable citations.
 
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
Click to expand...

I agree.
I think the commentary aftermath was intended to be more of a shot across the debates moderator's bow.
Behave or else.
 
Phys251 said:
I watched the forum last night. Lauer put Hillary through the gauntlet and Trump through the royal treatment. He kept cutting Hillary off while letting Trump ramble on. He refused to fact-check Trump's blatant lie about not supporting the Iraq War, among other things. And OMG, that yes/no question at the end--"Are you prepared to be President on Day One?" was one of the softest questions in the history of journalism. Lauer was an absolute joke, not just for himself but for the entire NBC and MSNBC networks.
Click to expand...

Blatant lie about the Iraq war? You mean the blatant lie from the frauds in the media that Trump told Howard Stern he supported the war?

Total BS, as usual. An 8 second sound bite, and the hesitant "I guess so" answer to Sterns question does not make for support for the Iraq war.

Another pathetic attempt to lie, distort, and misrepresent facts by Hillary Clinton, her MSM partners, and the pack who respond to the dog whistles.
 
I believe Matt Lauer was right to go after Hillary on the emails because, frankly, that whole things is tied in with national security, which itself is tied to being a Commander in Chief.

Where Matt Lauer was in the wrong was actually on 2 levels at the same time.

1) He continually cut Clinton off as she was trying to answer, saying that time was short. I never did get a chance to know Clinton's response to a couple of those questions because she was not allowed to give her answers before being cut off.

2) On the other hand, Lauer never asked Trump any hard questions, and gave him time to answer fully what he was asked, instead of cutting him off.

It is clear that Lauer was biased in his treatment of both candidates. As a result, I really don't know if either candidate would be OK as a commander in chief because of the way Lauer ****ed it all up. This would have been a good time for me to see if Trump is better than I believe he is, but I didn't get a chance to find out because Trump was never asked the pertinent questions. As for Hillary, I don't know either because she was never allowed to finish any of her answers.

Here is what I would like to see during the first debate - Each candidate gets grilled by a questioner that is picked by the other candidate. For Trump, it could be Michael Moore asking the questions, and for Hillary, it could be Rush Limbaugh asking the questions. THIS would be way more interesting than what I saw last night. LOL.
 
ocean515 said:
Blatant lie about the Iraq war? You mean the blatant lie from the frauds in the media that Trump told Howard Stern he supported the war?

Total BS, as usual. An 8 second sound bite, and the hesitant "I guess so" answer to Sterns question does not make for support for the Iraq war.

Another pathetic attempt to lie, distort, and misrepresent facts by Hillary Clinton, her MSM partners, and the pack who respond to the dog whistles.
Click to expand...
Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War | PolitiFact
Donald Trump and the Iraq War
 
Phys251 said:
I watched the forum last night. Lauer put Hillary through the gauntlet and Trump through the royal treatment. He kept cutting Hillary off while letting Trump ramble on. He refused to fact-check Trump's blatant lie about not supporting the Iraq War, among other things. And OMG, that yes/no question at the end--"Are you prepared to be President on Day One?" was one of the softest questions in the history of journalism. Lauer was an absolute joke, not just for himself but for the entire NBC and MSNBC networks.
Click to expand...

And now trump knows what it's like to be the queen Clinton. Long live trump!😘
 
ocean515 said:
Blatant lie about the Iraq war? You mean the blatant lie from the frauds in the media that Trump told Howard Stern he supported the war?

Total BS, as usual. An 8 second sound bite, and the hesitant "I guess so" answer to Sterns question does not make for support for the Iraq war.

Another pathetic attempt to lie, distort, and misrepresent facts by Hillary Clinton, her MSM partners, and the pack who respond to the dog whistles.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
Blatant lie about the Iraq war? You mean the blatant lie from the frauds in the media that Trump told Howard Stern he supported the war?

Total BS, as usual. An 8 second sound bite, and the hesitant "I guess so" answer to Sterns question does not make for support for the Iraq war.

Another pathetic attempt to lie, distort, and misrepresent facts by Hillary Clinton, her MSM partners, and the pack who respond to the dog whistles.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
I believe Matt Lauer was right to go after Hillary on the emails because, frankly, that whole things is tied in with national security, which itself is tied to being a Commander in Chief.

Where Matt Lauer was in the wrong was actually on 2 levels at the same time.

1) He continually cut Clinton off as she was trying to answer, saying that time was short. I never did get a chance to know Clinton's response to a couple of those questions because she was not allowed to give her answers before being cut off.

2) On the other hand, Lauer never asked Trump any hard questions, and gave him time to answer fully what he was asked, instead of cutting him off.

It is clear that Lauer was biased in his treatment of both candidates. As a result, I really don't know if either candidate would be OK as a commander in chief because of the way Lauer ****ed it all up. This would have been a good time for me to see if Trump is better than I believe he is, but I didn't get a chance to find out because Trump was never asked the pertinent questions. As for Hillary, I don't know either because she was never allowed to finish any of her answers.

Here is what I would like to see during the first debate - Each candidate gets grilled by a questioner that is picked by the other candidate. For Trump, it could be Michael Moore asking the questions, and for Hillary, it could be Rush Limbaugh asking the questions. THIS would be way more interesting than what I saw last night. LOL.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize that Lauer was going to vote for Trump.
 
I just don't understand why they didn't let a journalist interview these two. NBC just wasted everyone's time by giving a talk show host close to 30 minutes with each candidate. What the hell did they think would happen?
 
Phys251 said:
That is a lie. She has given over 200 interviews in the last year. That's more than one every other day.

Speaking of which, despite the hideous treatment of her last night, she decides to hold another press conference the very next morning. This woman ain't afraid.
Click to expand...

Her interviews have been scripted and controlled. She deserved the scrutiny. The email server "for convenience" story isn't flying with the public. The blame Powell tact isn't working either. She thought she could pull it off. That was pretty short sighted of her.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-hasnt-held-a-press-conference-in-263-days/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
I think he did great. Both sides are pissed. He did his job.
Click to expand...

Well, it's obviously possible to do an incompetent job that angers both sides. But if you watched it and think he did great, fine. I wasn't able to watch all of it, but I thought he was way out of his element and wasn't impressed at all, and I do not understand why the 'media' are hesitant to call out obvious 'falsehoods' such as Trump's well known and debunked claim (aka lie) to have opposed the wars in Iraq and our actions in Libya.
 
It's unanimous. NBC is in crisis mode.

Behind the scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster" - Sep. 8, 2016

One executive, speaking anonymously, was blunt about it: "Disaster."
Click to expand...

The day after Lauer's back-to-back interviews of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, several high ranking sources at the network said they hear the criticism and agree with at least some of it....
Click to expand...


I watched the whole thing. They are right. It was a disaster. Lauer came at Hillary with a whip, and at Trump with a whiffle ball.
 
DiAnna said:
It's unanimous. NBC is in crisis mode.

Behind the scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster" - Sep. 8, 2016

Click to expand...

It's an article from one of NBC's biggest competitors. CNN would love for NBC to have problems of any kind. NBC got fired in the Republican debates and CNN benefited. I am not sure I would believe what CNN says about NBC. The article didn't describe anything going on in NBC other than a one word quote from an anon source in NBC and maked a vague claim about other people at NBC. In total it is about two sentences about NBC. The rest of the article describes how Lauer sucked. The article doesn't live up to the title "Behind the scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster"".
 
vesper said:
Hillary had trouble counting to 4 lives lost in Libya.
Click to expand...

If you paid close attention, she was very nuanced in her statement. She said "We did not lose a single American in that action." Not "No American lives were lost in Libya."

Not that I expect most people to pick up on something so minute, but she didn't lie, technically.
 
bubbabgone said:
I agree.
I think the commentary aftermath was intended to be more of a shot across the debates moderator's bow.
Behave or else.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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:
Click to expand...

i'm the good looking one
 
Yea NBC ****ed up. I don't know what they were thinking as they prepared for the forum and nominated Lauer for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom