• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

excelsiorlef

Member
MIMIC said:
Trump just sounded like a con man that tried to BS his way through a lot of the answers. No real substance and no real answers to anything (except a lot of criticism for Obama and Hillary).

I very much doubt that he's engaging in any actual "research" or "preparation" substantively on the issues to be commander in chief. He just goes on what he already knows or what he has heard.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to when everyone just gives him softball questions so as to level the playing field.

And that's what they are doing. Clinton is so far more qualified that they are kids gloving Trump so he can "stand a chance". Total garbage.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Dany said:
....is this true??
Click to expand...

I don't know about specific numbers, but Lauer did tell Hillary several times to keep her answer brief while he let Trump interrupt him several times without pushing back. Lauer's not a journalist anyways. He's a tv presenter and shouldn't be moderating anything remotely serious.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
royalan said:
Matt Lauer’s Pathetic Interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is the Scariest Thing I’ve Seen in This Campaign

It's strangely refreshing to see a significant chunk of the media reacting appropriately to tonight's forum.

The general takeaway seems to be that while Hillary handled herself well enough, the whole thing was a farce. It really is past time to stop treating Trump with kids gloves. This man could become our president.
Click to expand...

I think Chait is frequently garbage but that piece was on point.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
royalan said:
Are you kidding!?

Anderson is the guy who let Trump ramble about Hillary's "bigoted" policies for nearly 5 minutes, and didn't think to ask EVEN ONCE what policies he was referring to.

Anderson has been shit this election for much the same reason Lauer was shit tonight. He's tough on Clinton, which would be fine if he didn't let Trump steamroll him every single time.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong lol. But I just remember him tying up Trump with the "he started it" defense in regards to getting in a fight over Ted's wife. I can't think of another person who Trump has been interviewed with who even did that much.
 
T

Teggy

Member
This guy should not be allowed on tv.

Hugh Hewitt
Hugh Hewitt‏ @hughhewitt

Be interesting to see how pundits score this but I don't think @hillaryclinton wants that hour replayed and replayed. @realDonaldTrump would
Click to expand...
 
K

kess

Member
I mean, it was Matt Lauer

matt-lauer-costume.jpg
 
J

jiggle

Member
adam387 said:
I mean, not really? Because, Hillary will fact check him on the stage if she has to do it herself. If Trump gets a 90 second question, Hillary is given like 30 seconds or a minute to respond. She would have hit him hard on several of the comments tonight. I'm not 100% sold on Holt, but Lauer was just terrible. So...no, I wouldn't be worried about the debates. The structure is completely different.

I can also guarantee you that NBC is going to be looking at the questions before the first one after this, because Matt fucked up.
Click to expand...
Unless NBC changes the rules
No rebuttal from Hillary
Must smile more
Live physical exam for coughing Hillary
 
U

User 463088

Banned
watershed said:
Since Chris Wallace has already admitted that he doesn't see his role as moderator as someone concerned with facts or the truth, his debate is probably going to be a complete mess.
Click to expand...
I'm of two minds about this. There's an argument to be made that a moderator should be impartial. While the facts are the facts, s/he doesn't need to fact check every little thing that comes out of the candidate's mouth. At that point, the moderator is part of the debate rather than a facilitator of discussion. I strongly feel that it is a debaters job to fact check their opponent. If Trump lies or says something wrong, Hillary needs to be the one to call him out. I think a moderator should settle a factual dispute between the candidates, but that's not the same thing as constantly saying "What you just said is a lie Candidate XYZ."

To me, it boils down to how you frame the question.If you phrase it the right way, you don't have to fact check even if the person lies. For example "Mr. Trump, in an interview on the Howard Stern show in 2003, you said you were in favor of the war in Iraq. Recently, you've said you were opposed to the war in Iraq, which is it?" If Trump says "I never said that" all the moderator doesn't really need to say "You're lying" to get the point across, you know?
 
H

harSon

Banned
I just heard some Trump supporter on CNN say that Obama is putting constraints on the military that are preventing them from winning the war in ISIS, like being able to kill civilians.
 
K

kess

Member
Lauer has always been a vapid piece of journalistic detritus

Mr. HOWARD DEAN: We are going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin. We're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico! We're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, DC, to take back the White House! Yeah!

LAUER: Dee Dee, Howard Dean said on this program this morning he was trying to have some fun for the young people in the crowd. Is it possible, though, that he showed a side of himself in that moment of spontaneity, that is exactly what makes some voters uncomfortable about Howard Dean?

Ms. MYERS: I think that's absolutely true. I think it's clear he is responding to the crowd. He's trying to sort of lift their spirits and fire them up and send them into New Hampshire. But it's what you c--people in television call a hot performance, and I think it makes people very nervous about him. And I think the other mistake he made, from a strategic perspective, is there's no message in that. If you look at Senator Edwards' speech from last night, in a very clear message he talked about the two Americas, which has been sort of the heart and soul of his campaign. A lot of people are watching him, perhaps for the first time. It was all message. We look at Howard Dean and he's something else, entirely different, unsettling and not promoting his candidacy. He should have been talking about--about why people should vote for him...

LAUER: Right.
Click to expand...

Right!
 
W

watershed

Banned
adam387 said:
I'm of two minds about this. There's an argument to be made that a moderator should be impartial. While the facts are the facts, s/he doesn't need to fact check every little thing that comes out of the candidate's mouth. At that point, the moderator is part of the debate rather than a facilitator of discussion. I strongly feel that it is a debaters job to fact check their opponent. If Trump lies or says something wrong, Hillary needs to be the one to call him out. I think a moderator should settle a factual dispute between the candidates, but that's not the same thing as constantly saying "What you just said is a lie Candidate XYZ."

To me, it boils down to how you frame the question.If you phrase it the right way, you don't have to fact check even if the person lies. For example "Mr. Trump, in an interview on the Howard Stern show in 2003, you said you were in favor of the war in Iraq. Recently, you've said you were opposed to the war in Iraq, which is it?" If Trump says "I never said that" all the moderator doesn't really need to say "You're lying" to get the point across, you know?
Click to expand...
I can't remember her name, Martha something who moderated the debate between Biden and Ryan did a great job imo. Her questions were framed well and she called out both debaters. She was serious and tough and she did make herself a part of the debate by holding the debaters accountable. I'd be happy for her to moderate a presidential debate but I think she was too real for some in the media.
 
E

Emarv

Member
watershed said:
I can't remember her name, Martha something who moderated the debate between Biden and Ryan did a great job imo. Her questions were framed well and she called out both debaters. She was serious and tough and she did make herself a part of the debate by holding the debaters accountable. I'd be happy for her to moderate a presidential debate but I think she was too real for some in the media.
Click to expand...

Martha Raddatz. She's doing the 2nd debate with Cooper this year
 
U

User 463088

Banned
watershed said:
I can't remember her name, Martha something who moderated the debate between Biden and Ryan did a great job imo. Her questions were framed well and she called out both debaters. She was serious and tough and she did make herself a part of the debate by holding the debaters accountable. I'd be happy for her to moderate a presidential debate but I think she was too real for some in the media.
Click to expand...
I think there's definitely a right and a wrong way to do it. As much as I love what Candy did....probably the wrong way, just being honest. She inserted herself into the debate, and shouldn't have done that. Now, I have no issue with pushback. I think that's fine. That's the function of a good moderator.
eBay Huckster said:
if i never have to read the word "optics" again after november 8th i will throw a party
Click to expand...
Oh, really?
Please, let me know what's wrong with the word "optics."
Trust, I want to hear your opinion on it.
I, personally, hate the idea, but I think it's a very real thing.
Can't you at least meet me halfway on that? Like, its annoying, but there's a place.
Seriously.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
So I have a crazy theory as to why you have shit like that misleading AP headline and the shit with the NYT.

If I recall, a few weeks ago you had news about Russia hacking US news outlets.

Considering all the shit they have done, perhaps Russian hackers got dirt on some news outlets and black mailed them into hurting Hillary?
 
P

Plumbob

Member
TestOfTide said:
So I have a crazy theory as to why you have shit like that misleading AP headline and the shit with the NYT.

If I recall, a few weeks ago you had news about Russia hacking US news outlets.

Considering all the shit they have done, perhaps Russian hackers got dirt on some news outlets and black mailed them into hurting Hillary?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't a newspaper publish the blackmail though? Wouldn't that be the story of the decade?
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I did enjoy the Alt-Right, Movement Conservatives, liberals, and tankies all joining together to shit on Apple removing the headphone jack today. Drudge, ex-Gawker, Slate, Vox, National Review... everyone.

Finally, there is some piece of news that can break through the partisan divide.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Plumbob said:
Why wouldn't a newspaper publish the blackmail though? Wouldn't that be the story of the decade?
Click to expand...

I would guess for the usual reason that someone might not reveal it: It's dirt that would destroy them so they would rather play nice than risk their careers and reputations.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
I have this weird idea boner that Hillary should just refuse to answer the email question again. The next time it comes up: "No. I have answered this question. I said it was a mistake. I would not do it again." Next question. Just refuse to engage on it anymore. Because, clearly no one wants an actual answer.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
TestOfTide said:
So I have a crazy theory as to why you have shit like that misleading AP headline and the shit with the NYT.

If I recall, a few weeks ago you had news about Russia hacking US news outlets.

Considering all the shit they have done, perhaps Russian hackers got dirt on some news outlets and black mailed them into hurting Hillary?
Click to expand...

No, this is not the reason for Patrick Healy being bad.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
TestOfTide said:
So I have a crazy theory as to why you have shit like that misleading AP headline and the shit with the NYT.

If I recall, a few weeks ago you had news about Russia hacking US news outlets.

Considering all the shit they have done, perhaps Russian hackers got dirt on some news outlets and black mailed them into hurting Hillary?
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the idea that the media cares about ratings mostly and a race where one side will clearly win is bad for ratings. In addition, there's this notion that "being fair" is showing "both sides are the same" or whatever. And if you don't appear "fair," you get criticized.

Don't think we need to go conspiratorial on this. It's rather simple.
 
E

Emarv

Member
TestOfTide said:
So I have a crazy theory as to why you have shit like that misleading AP headline and the shit with the NYT.

If I recall, a few weeks ago you had news about Russia hacking US news outlets.

Considering all the shit they have done, perhaps Russian hackers got dirt on some news outlets and black mailed them into hurting Hillary?
Click to expand...

this is some reddit-type post, dawg
 
U

User 463088

Banned
CrxTNI7WgAAvxwP.jpg
Click to expand...
This is a real thing Donald Trump tweeted.

Also:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
Thank you to our fantastic veterans. The reviews and polls from almost everyone of my Commander-in-Chief presentation were great. Nice!
Click to expand...
WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?! Polls? "Reviews"? The fuck....
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
No, this is not the reason for Patrick Healy being bad.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't simply Patrick Healy. It was someone higher up deciding they don't want a story about tonight that makes Trump look bad, so they switch the original writer out for Patrick.

And it's not just Patrick, it's also Maggie with her BS like trying to tie Anthony Weiner to somehow being Hillary's fault.

I know it's me delving into conspiracy crap, but it's not like Russia hasn't already shown they are currently successful at hacking what they want to hack.


BTW, could someone explain to me what was Lauer's previous scandal you all keep referencing?
 
D

Debirudog

Member
adam387 said:
I have this weird idea boner that Hillary should just refuse to answer the email question again. The next time it comes up: "No. I have answered this question. I said it was a mistake. I would not do it again." Next question. Just refuse to engage on it anymore. Because, clearly no one wants an actual answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think she should follow this advice.
 
S

ShironRedshift

Member
adam387 said:
I have this weird idea boner that Hillary should just refuse to answer the email question again. The next time it comes up: "No. I have answered this question. I said it was a mistake. I would not do it again." Next question. Just refuse to engage on it anymore. Because, clearly no one wants an actual answer.
Click to expand...
I agree. Like, it would have been great if she flat out refused to answer Lauer, simply stating that she has already answered the e-mail question time and time again and has taken full responsibility again, but this forum was for the questions from veterans that don't get asked time and time again for week upon week upon week on national news media, and shame on him for wasting the time of this these American heroes to have their questions answered on well-tread ground (and if she was feeling really sassy, call on him to apologize to them for making her waste even more time having to explain something so basic like that).

Like... I totally understand why she didn't and why she chose to just roll with it, especially since she's used to it. But that would have been amazing.

But yeah, I definitely think that she should just refuse to answer going forward because it's clear the media isn't actually looking for answers or anything at this point and just wants to milk that for what it's worth, so fuck 'em and just refuse to answer and use the opportunity to "talk about what the American people really want to hear" and throw one of her platforms out there every time they do it as an example instead.
 
D

Debirudog

Member
actually no, the media would call her rude, mean and dismissive. Then again, i love it when Hillary gets snarky and mean to people who deserve it.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
adam387 said:
I have this weird idea boner that Hillary should just refuse to answer the email question again. The next time it comes up: "No. I have answered this question. I said it was a mistake. I would not do it again." Next question. Just refuse to engage on it anymore. Because, clearly no one wants an actual answer.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I can't agree. Trump can get away with something like that. Hillary would be shredded all the way up until election day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom