Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Matt Lauer Washes Out In Commander-In-Chief Forum

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
Matt Lauer has been criticized for his handling of the Commander-in-Chief forum in which both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spoke last night on the Intrepid. He failed to challenge Donald Trump on factual errors he made; did not harass him about time as he did Secretary Clinton; and allowed him to interrupt at will. The conclusion has been that Lauer was badly prepared for his role and also that sexism played a role in how he reacted to Trump versus Secretary Clinton.

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM SEPT. 8, 2016

"It was a high-stakes political moment, far from the chummier confines of the “Today” show and, for Matt Lauer, NBC’s stalwart of the morning, a chance to prove his broadcasting mettle on the presidential stage.

The consensus afterward was not kind.

Charged with overseeing a live prime-time forum with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton — widely seen as a dry run of sorts for the coming presidential debates — Mr. Lauer found himself besieged on Wednesday evening by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event.

Granted 30 minutes with each candidate, who appeared back-to-back at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Manhattan, Mr. Lauer devoted about a third of his time with Mrs. Clinton to questions about her use of a private email server, then seemed to rush through subsequent queries about weighty topics like domestic terror attacks.

When an Army veteran in the audience asked Mrs. Clinton to describe her plan to defeat the Islamic State, Mr. Lauer interjected before the candidate could begin her reply.

'As briefly as you can,' he said, one of several moments where the anchor spoke over Mrs. Clinton to remind her that their time was running short.

It wasn’t the first debate, but at least Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were on the same stage on Wednesday, though not at the same time. Here’s how we analyzed tonight’s forum live.

Mr. Trump stormed onstage in his familiar motor-mouth style, often talking over Mr. Lauer and declining to directly answer many of his questions. At times, Mr. Lauer — who has conducted fewer adversarial interviews with Mr. Trump than his colleagues on NBC’s political desk — appeared flummoxed by his subject’s linguistic feints.

Drawing particular ire was the moment when Mr. Trump asserted, with his usual confidence: 'I was totally against the war in Iraq.'

In fact, Mr. Trump initially said he supported the war, a point that Mrs. Clinton had raised earlier in the evening, citing an interview that Mr. Trump had given to Howard Stern. But Mr. Lauer left the assertion unchallenged, zipping along to his next question about Mr. Trump’s professed tendency to 'say things that you later regret.'

Journalists and longtime political observers pounced. 'How in the hell does Lauer not factcheck Trump lying about Iraq? This is embarrassingly bad,' wrote Tommy Vietor, a former aide to President Obama. Glenn Kessler, the chief fact checker at The Washington Post, posted a link to NBC’s check of Mr. Trump’s claim and wrote: '@MLauer should have been prepared to do this.'

'Lauer interrupted Clinton’s answers repeatedly to move on. Not once for Trump,' Norman Ornstein, the political commentator, wrote in a Twitter message, adding: 'Tough to be a woman running for president.'"
 

azstonie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
3,758
Maybe if Hills and Donnie were making omelets and mimosas, that's really Matt's comfort zone :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

BeekeeperBetty

Shiny_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
271
On the positive side, Trump looked like such a buffoon that I think that any minuscule chance that he might win has been completely vaporized. Even though Sec Clinton has kind of a grating personality, she did come off as even tempered, and extremely knowledgeable about foreign policy.

I do agree that Matt Lauer didn't treat them fairly. He was very hard hitting with Sec Clinton and treated Trump with kid gloves. However, I wonder if it was mostly because Trump's responses were so bizarre and vague he didn't really know what to say. How do you counter what is essentially Trump bingo? I'm so great, my poll numbers are tremendous, I have the best plans, I worship Putin, I'm going to make America great again believe me and so on and so forth.
 

mom2dolls

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
143
Do you think it could be that Lauer does not think Trump has a chance in hell to be elected? Hillary will most likely win, therefore she should be questioned and grilled on her answers.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
mom2dolls|1473368824|4074448 said:
Do you think it could be that Lauer does not think Trump has a chance in hell to be elected? Hillary will most likely win, therefore she should be questioned and grilled on her answers.
You could be right, but that was not my take on it. I saw Matt Lauer as overwhelmed by Trump and his whole blowhard personality and I also saw him as too weak and unprepared factually to challenge him when he really could have (for example on the business of whether he had always supported the invasion of Iraq).
 

shaggy1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
146
AGBF|1473372058|4074457 said:
I saw Matt Lauer as overwhelmed by Trump and his whole blowhard personality and I also saw him as too weak and unprepared factually to challenge him when he really could have (for example on the business of whether he had always supported the invasion of Iraq).

I was more shocked when Trump went off on the tangent about firing generals. How could anyone think they are political appointees? And how could Lauer not say something about that?
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

azstonie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
3,758
AnnaH|1473382097|4074487 said:
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think the point of the write up from The NYT was that NBC put a lot of money behind Lauer, who in turn pantsed himself all night long.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
Here's a television review of Lauer. It made for an amusing read.

"The NBC presidential forum on Wednesday night in Manhattan brought together the candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump to try to determine who has the strength, preparation and presence of mind to lead during a time of crisis.

It sure wasn’t Matt Lauer.

In an event aboard the decommissioned aircraft carrier Intrepid, the 'Today' host was lost at sea. Seemingly unprepared on military and foreign policy specifics, he performed like a soldier sent on a mission without ammunition, beginning with a disorganized offensive, ending in a humiliating retreat.

...

In general, though, Mr. Lauer’s questioning of Mr. Trump was like watching one student quiz another to prep for a test neither had done the reading for. The host asked soft open-ended questions that invited the candidate to answer with word clouds.

Mr. Lauer prefaced one question by saying that “nobody would expect you” to have read deeply into foreign policy before running for president. He asked Mr. Trump if he would be “prepared on Day 1,” a yes-or-no question that will elicit only one answer from any candidate not about to drop out.

Most egregiously, Mr. Lauer allowed Mr. Trump to repeat, unchallenged, the false claim that he had opposed the war in Iraq when, as reported by BuzzFeed, he supported the invasion on record in 2002.

Any minimally prepared interviewer would have been ready for that claim, even if Mrs. Clinton had not earlier rebutted it in front of Mr. Lauer’s face.

NBC News has a vast staff of anchors and reporters. Why turn over the grilling to a guy who had a hard enough time questioning Ryan Lochte? Giving a showcase to your top morning host works only if you’re showcasing something the host does well.

Maybe the thinking was that Mr. Lauer would have sufficient training wheels in a format that wasn’t a debate. In fact, he asked each candidate not to attack the other in answers, an absurd request that neither one followed anyway. (Though again, Mr. Lauer criticized only Mrs. Clinton for it.)

But the forum was a sort of introductory skirmish before the debates. It gave the candidates a chance to practice, to scout each other — and above all, to test the current news media waters, to see how willing a network anchor is to challenge and correct.

Mr. Lauer, fortunately, is not going to moderate a presidential debate.

But Fox News’s Chris Wallace is, and he recently said that he did not consider it his job to truth-squad candidates as a moderator. Let’s not mistake who this helps most: the fact-checking website PolitiFact has found far more false statements from Mr. Trump than from Mrs. Clinton.

Why would a journalist be allergic to verifying the truth? On an MSNBC panel, Chris Matthews guessed that Mr. Lauer didn’t correct Mr. Trump on Iraq because of perceptions.

'You have to call the guy a liar when you do that,' he said. 'That’s the difficult thing for a Matt Lauer to do, because it sounds like an opinion.'

But it’s not. When a candidate says he didn’t say something that he did, that’s a matter of fact. Here’s what an opinion looks like: It’s a travesty to be steamrollered by a candidate because you’re worried that doing your job will look bad.
"



Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/arts/television/matt-lauer-presidential-election-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
AnnaH|1473382097|4074487 said:
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I wouln't put it that way. First, of all, I don't use the word "lib", which is substandard English and which I have shunned ever since men attempted to foist it on the women's movement as part of the epithet "women's lib". It is derogatory.

I would rephrase what you wrote to be: Intelligent people complaining about interviews conducted by morons.

AGBF
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Kind of a tangent. Okay, fully a tangent.

The sound of Trumps voice actually bothered me so much today that I had to put my fingers in my ear and hum. It was that or scream. I cannot listen to the man anymore. It is physically impossible for me to do it. If I hear one more insincere self aggrandizing phrase out of that man I cannot be held accountable for my actions. I have never had this reaction to any politician before. Not Mitch McConnell, not George W, not Newt....

I literally want to amputate my ears when I hear him speak.
 

BeekeeperBetty

Shiny_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
271
There is a difference between criticizing how well someone did his job, and claiming the "media" is not "fair." Especially when getting that exact information from the media.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
Below is an excerpt from an editorial in today's issue of "The New York Times".

A Debate Disaster Waiting to Happen

"There was not much of a contest in Wednesday night’s forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Mrs. Clinton answered the questions of the moderator, Matt Lauer, in coherent sentences, often with specific details. Mr. Trump alternated between rambling statements and grandiose boasts when he wasn’t lying.

Mr. Lauer largely neglected to ask penetrating questions, call out falsehoods or insist on answers when it was obvious that Mr. Trump’s responses had drifted off.

If the moderators of the coming debates do not figure out a better way to get the candidates to speak accurately about their records and policies — especially Mr. Trump, who seems to feel he can skate by unchallenged with his own version of reality while Mrs. Clinton is grilled and entangled in the fine points of domestic and foreign policy — then they will have done the country a grave disservice.

Whether or not one agrees with her positions, Mrs. Clinton, formerly secretary of state and once a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, showed a firm understanding of the complex issues facing the country. Mr. Trump reveled in his ignorance about global affairs and his belief that leading the world’s most powerful nation is no harder than running his business empire, which has included at least four bankruptcies.

Mr. Lauer seemed most energized interrogating Mrs. Clinton about her use of a personal email server while secretary of state. Focusing on it meant that other critical issues — like America’s role in Afghanistan and its ties with China — went unaddressed. He was harder on Mrs. Clinton than on Mr. Trump, reflecting a tendency among some journalists to let Mr. Trump’s deceptions go unchallenged. That certainly was the case when he let Mr. Trump attack Mrs. Clinton for voting for the Iraq war and going into Libya when Mr. Trump had supported those actions.

Disputing outright lies may actually be one of the easier challenges for a moderator. The harder task is to pierce fantasies and gibberish. That requires preparation and persistence.

Mr. Trump was asked to explain his qualifications to lead the armed forces. “I have great judgment,” was his response. Fortunately, despite the lack of a follow-up question to that non-answer, Mr. Trump was perfectly able to display his abysmal judgment."

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/a-debate-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
This is not really tangential, because Trump's style (his style of totally misleading his audience through talking nonsense) is behind the difficulty in interviewing him, is part of the challenge in moderating a debate that involves him. Nonetheless, this Op.ed piece by Paul Krugman, who usually confines himself to economic matters, and who, by the way, very much dislikes Hillary Clinton, is about Donald Trump and his lies, not really about Matt Lauer. And I find it very relevant to the topic of how the debates should be moderated; because Trump and his constant lies are a major challenge for a debate moderator.

Link to Paul Krugman Column...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/donald-trumps-big-liar-technique.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
Maybe the people who put him there/hired him knew he'd (likely) be soft on Trump...

I didn't watch it, but what a shame that the opportunity to grill BOTH candidates was lost.
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
AGBF|1473392306|4074509 said:
AnnaH|1473382097|4074487 said:
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I wouln't put it that way. First, of all, I don't use the word "lib", which is substandard English and which I have shunned ever since men attempted to foist it on the women's movement as part of the epithet "women's lib". It is derogatory.

I would rephrase what you wrote to be: Intelligent people complaining about interviews conducted by morons.

AGBF
As I'm not smart enough to be a liberal or use standard English, I was unaware that "libs" was derogatory. It's difficult to keep up with all the hurtful words nowadays.
And this post is still :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
AGBF|1473422220|4074542 said:
This is not really tangential, because Trump's style (his style of totally misleading his audience through talking nonsense) is behind the difficulty in interviewing him, is part of the challenge in moderating a debate that involves him. Nonetheless, this Op.ed piece by Paul Krugman, who usually confines himself to economic matters, and who, by the way, very much dislikes Hillary Clinton, is about Donald Trump and his lies, not really about Matt Lauer. And I find it very relevant to the topic of how the debates should be moderated; because Trump and his constant lies are a major challenge for a debate moderator.

Link to Paul Krugman Column...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/donald-trumps-big-liar-technique.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF
Donald Trump is self aggrandizing and a buffoon. However, the email between Powell and Clinton, IMO, proves intent on her part. I don't care what he did, he is not running for president. He told her how he got around it and she went ahead and did it to a much more secretive extent.

I thought she was lecturing and nasty to the Navy officer who asked the first question about him being in prison if he did not follow protocols. Servicemen and women have been dying to ask this question. Her answer was BS because the FBI stated she had emailed about classified info and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN their classification even if it wasn't marked. She keeps peddling that the emails weren't marked classified only nastier now. If you speak with force people will believe the lie. Isn't that what people are essentially saying about Trump? Well I don't believe her.

Now I really don't care what Donald Trump thought about the Iraq war when he was a private citizen and did not have briefings that Congress did on pertinent info. He said "I guess so" in 2003? I could not care less. Now Hillary Clinton did have the advantage of inside information as a Senator and still voted for the war. She said in the forum that she decided later that it was not a good idea. Kinda like Trump only she had the benefit of more information to make her decision.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
CJ2008|1473425797|4074548 said:
Maybe the people who put him there/hired him knew he'd (likely) be soft on Trump...

I didn't watch it, but what a shame that the opportunity to grill BOTH candidates was lost.
My focus has mainly been on what happened, not why it happened, because I am hoping that there will be some improvement in moderator behavior in the debates, but I like your thinking. I have also heard someone speculate on another possible reason that Matt Lauer was soft on Trump (although I do not buy it). (I simply believe that Matt Lauer is not the sharpest crayon in the pack and has neither the interviewing skills nor the knowledge of the subject matter to pin Trump down.) The other person suggested that since Matt Lauer had contributed to The Clinton Foundation that he wanted to prove he was not showing favoritism to Secretary Clinton.

AGBF
 

momhappy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
4,660
Gypsy|1473397130|4074518 said:
Kind of a tangent. Okay, fully a tangent.

The sound of Trumps voice actually bothered me so much today that I had to put my fingers in my ear and hum. It was that or scream. I cannot listen to the man anymore. It is physically impossible for me to do it. If I hear one more insincere self aggrandizing phrase out of that man I cannot be held accountable for my actions. I have never had this reaction to any politician before. Not Mitch McConnell, not George W, not Newt....

I literally want to amputate my ears when I hear him speak.
I agree. I can barely listen to him any more either, but I feel the same way about Hillary, who's voice is like nails on a chalkboard.
 

CJ2008

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
4,750
AGBF|1473432560|4074583 said:
CJ2008|1473425797|4074548 said:
Maybe the people who put him there/hired him knew he'd (likely) be soft on Trump...

I didn't watch it, but what a shame that the opportunity to grill BOTH candidates was lost.
My focus has mainly been on what happened, not why it happened, because I am hoping that there will be some improvement in moderator behavior in the debates, but I like your thinking. I have also heard someone speculate on another possible reason that Matt Lauer was soft on Trump (although I do not buy it). (I simply believe that Matt Lauer is not the sharpest crayon in the pack and has neither the interviewing skills nor the knowledge of the subject matter to pin Trump down.) The other person suggested that since Matt Lauer had contributed to The Clinton Foundation that he wanted to prove he was not showing favoritism to Secretary Clinton.

AGBF
Well, yes, definitely. If this was truly a mistake (as in poor decision making on whoever put him there) I hope they use this as a springboard for improving the moderator/s and in turn, the debates.

BUT - it is just so baffling to me that with all the supposedly high-ranking, intelligent group of people who get paid to make these kinds of decisions and who sat around discussing who should be the moderator that nobody realized he's not the "sharpest crayon in the pack" or that he doesn't have the knowledge or skills required for a moderator. But yet the general public "knows." So it's either a hindsight is 20/20 thing or it's a when you're "in it" things aren't so clear as they are from the outside. Or some kind of self-interest was at play.

I think there is always a human factor - so yes, if he contributed heavily to her campaign, maybe he set out to prove something, at the expense of everything else.
 

NonieMarie

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
860
redwood66|1473432551|4074582 said:
AGBF|1473422220|4074542 said:
This is not really tangential, because Trump's style (his style of totally misleading his audience through talking nonsense) is behind the difficulty in interviewing him, is part of the challenge in moderating a debate that involves him. Nonetheless, this Op.ed piece by Paul Krugman, who usually confines himself to economic matters, and who, by the way, very much dislikes Hillary Clinton, is about Donald Trump and his lies, not really about Matt Lauer. And I find it very relevant to the topic of how the debates should be moderated; because Trump and his constant lies are a major challenge for a debate moderator.

Link to Paul Krugman Column...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/donald-trumps-big-liar-technique.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF
Donald Trump is self aggrandizing and a buffoon. However, the email between Powell and Clinton, IMO, proves intent on her part. I don't care what he did, he is not running for president. He told her how he got around it and she went ahead and did it to a much more secretive extent.

I thought she was lecturing and nasty to the Navy officer who asked the first question about him being in prison if he did not follow protocols. Servicemen and women have been dying to ask this question. Her answer was BS because the FBI stated she had emailed about classified info and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN their classification even if it wasn't marked. She keeps peddling that the emails weren't marked classified only nastier now. If you speak with force people will believe the lie. Isn't that what people are essentially saying about Trump? Well I don't believe her.

Now I really don't care what Donald Trump thought about the Iraq war when he was a private citizen and did not have briefings that Congress did on pertinent info. He said "I guess so" in 2003? I could not care less. Now Hillary Clinton did have the advantage of inside information as a Senator and still voted for the war. She said in the forum that she decided later that it was not a good idea. Kinda like Trump only she had the benefit of more information to make her decision.
Trump supporters and Clinton haters make it seem like she was beating the drums for war and no one else voted the same as she did. After she voted she said that the Congress was giving the president a lot of power and for him to use it wisely. At that time if anyone spoke out against the war they were labeled unpatriotic. It was a scary time. The vast majority of Congress and majority of the citizens of this country were behind the war in the beginning. We, as a country, were informed with the same flawed information supplied by the CIA that Congress used to make their decision. Don't you remember General Colin Powell testifying, in front of a Congressional committee, about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Bush used him because of his credibility. Powell has since apologized.
As far as the emails, for Lauer to spend so much time rehashing this closed subject (no charges), I would be frustrated, too. Clinton has addressed the emails over and over. I'm not happy with how she handled the server or her explanations. None of the 3 or 4 emails that everyone is in an uproar about, had a header. But remember, this was 2004 to 2008, that was 8 years ago. What is going on now with Russia trying to influence our election by hacking our citizens, was not as prevalent back then. There is no proof that her server was hacked. If it was, Putin would have released anything he had to make sure Trump was elected. Lauer left no time for her to talk about her plan regarding domestic terror and the Middle East. He let Trump get away with bold faced lies, disrespecting our generals, and praising Putin.
Trump and his surrogates lie and lie. They repeat the same thing over and over and the press has grown tired of correcting them. I will be out of the country during the 3 debates but will watch them online. I have every confidence that Clinton will destroy Trump during the debates and reveal him as the con man and liar that he is.
 

rainwood

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,472
AnnaH|1473382097|4074487 said:
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ivanka, is that you?
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
rainwood|1473466609|4074738 said:
AnnaH|1473382097|4074487 said:
Libs complaining about how their candidate is treated by the mainstream media.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ivanka, is that you?
Wish I had her looks and her money, but not in that order. :mrgreen:
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,605
Hi,

I have asked myself often how we got here. Matt Lauer is sort of behaving as most moderators did during the primaries. Do any of you ask yourselves why a moderator didn't just tell Trump to leave the stage when he got so abusive to the other candidates. Trump would have been stopped in his tracks. Where do we allow anyone to speak in that demeaning way to other prominent people. It boggles my mind why he wasn't thrown out. But, no moderator had the presence of mind to do it. Why didn't the networks tell their moderators not to tolerate such behavior? Its hard to confront someone face to face.

Of course the situation is different with the debates, but the moderators will most probably challenge carefully. Speaking up at trumps behavior early on might have prevented this circumstance we find ourselves in.

Annette
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
I watched Rachel Maddow's show last night with my daughter and we both laughed long and hard. Donald Trump didn't know he was on Russian TV, broadcasting to the Russian people, via their state-sponsored television when he did Larry King's interview. Apparently he shared his usual dystopian view of the United States (and the need for him to make America great again-no, I did not watch it) with the Russians. Maybe he doesn't know they are not our allies. This is the man with the great brain who will keep us all from being fooled by other world leaders.

And did you hear what he said about Iran? We can now start a war if men in little boats "make gestures" at at an American destroyer.

One of the commentators said that he may be so sycophantic to Putin because he is afraid Putin will cut off his supply of wives.

Rachel Maddow...http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/rachel-maddow-9-9-16-episode

AGBF
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
NonieMarie|1473465094|4074717 said:
redwood66|1473432551|4074582 said:
AGBF|1473422220|4074542 said:
This is not really tangential, because Trump's style (his style of totally misleading his audience through talking nonsense) is behind the difficulty in interviewing him, is part of the challenge in moderating a debate that involves him. Nonetheless, this Op.ed piece by Paul Krugman, who usually confines himself to economic matters, and who, by the way, very much dislikes Hillary Clinton, is about Donald Trump and his lies, not really about Matt Lauer. And I find it very relevant to the topic of how the debates should be moderated; because Trump and his constant lies are a major challenge for a debate moderator.

Link to Paul Krugman Column...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/donald-trumps-big-liar-technique.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF
Donald Trump is self aggrandizing and a buffoon. However, the email between Powell and Clinton, IMO, proves intent on her part. I don't care what he did, he is not running for president. He told her how he got around it and she went ahead and did it to a much more secretive extent.

I thought she was lecturing and nasty to the Navy officer who asked the first question about him being in prison if he did not follow protocols. Servicemen and women have been dying to ask this question. Her answer was BS because the FBI stated she had emailed about classified info and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN their classification even if it wasn't marked. She keeps peddling that the emails weren't marked classified only nastier now. If you speak with force people will believe the lie. Isn't that what people are essentially saying about Trump? Well I don't believe her.

Now I really don't care what Donald Trump thought about the Iraq war when he was a private citizen and did not have briefings that Congress did on pertinent info. He said "I guess so" in 2003? I could not care less. Now Hillary Clinton did have the advantage of inside information as a Senator and still voted for the war. She said in the forum that she decided later that it was not a good idea. Kinda like Trump only she had the benefit of more information to make her decision.
Trump supporters and Clinton haters make it seem like she was beating the drums for war and no one else voted the same as she did. After she voted she said that the Congress was giving the president a lot of power and for him to use it wisely. At that time if anyone spoke out against the war they were labeled unpatriotic. It was a scary time. The vast majority of Congress and majority of the citizens of this country were behind the war in the beginning. We, as a country, were informed with the same flawed information supplied by the CIA that Congress used to make their decision. Don't you remember General Colin Powell testifying, in front of a Congressional committee, about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Bush used him because of his credibility. Powell has since apologized.
As far as the emails, for Lauer to spend so much time rehashing this closed subject (no charges), I would be frustrated, too. Clinton has addressed the emails over and over. I'm not happy with how she handled the server or her explanations. None of the 3 or 4 emails that everyone is in an uproar about, had a header. But remember, this was 2004 to 2008, that was 8 years ago. What is going on now with Russia trying to influence our election by hacking our citizens, was not as prevalent back then. There is no proof that her server was hacked. If it was, Putin would have released anything he had to make sure Trump was elected. Lauer left no time for her to talk about her plan regarding domestic terror and the Middle East. He let Trump get away with bold faced lies, disrespecting our generals, and praising Putin.
Trump and his surrogates lie and lie. They repeat the same thing over and over and the press has grown tired of correcting them. I will be out of the country during the 3 debates but will watch them online. I have every confidence that Clinton will destroy Trump during the debates and reveal him as the con man and liar that he is.
NM I think my point got lost in translation. I was talking about the article AGBF posted. The media is all up in arms about Trump's flip flop over the Iraq war. He should just stick to the truth about his thoughts on it, yes. But he had several opinions, for or against over the early years. So did Clinton was my point. Who cares what he, as a private citizen without the information Congress received, thought? I don't. If you think that the whole world knew the same info that was provided to Congress to vote at the time, IMO you are mistaken.

As far as emails, I will say it again, I don't care that it did not have a header to tell her it was classified. She should have known based on the content according to Comey. If she did not then she is either stupid or shady. Neither is a quality I want in a president.

So we have two bad choices.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,605
Hi,

I hope we can all agree that Trumps business is all important to him. In the past he has made statements that he met Putin and how Putin was so gracious to him. Of course this meeting never happened. But, Trump has been wanting to build Hotels in Russia, but can't get approval for them. He has been trying for years.

My theory Is that this adulation of Putin will be used for future plans for those hotels he wants to build there. He is ingratiating himself with Russia. Trump is all about money and if loses he will use this platform to make nice-nice with the Russians. Or if he should win, his kids can go ahead with it. Anyone who saw him peddle steaks and water on Tv can see he would stop at nothing.

He is now using campaign funds to pay for events held at his golf properties, when he could get much cheaper venues. Donald Trump will end up with campaign funds in his own pocket.

I do suspect he has mental illness of sorts, delusional aspects being one aspect, but his business he understand. IMO

Annette

Yep, we're screwed on both candidates. Politics must a cushy job. They want them so bad.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
I do not know what you are objecting to as "inappropriate", redwood. And I have never watched Sean Hannity, so I have no idea what he says or does.

AGBF
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
By the way, redwood, while you were finding things about Rachel Maddow about which to complain did you apparently did not feel it was incumbent on you to say something about Donald Trump being willing to start a war because Iranian sailors "in little boats" made gestures that were not respectful to larger American vessels. That would certainly be redefining what is an act of war. This should be front page news, of course. But we have all gotten used to to Trump's utterly insane pronouncements. In the upside down world inhabited by people-who-hear-Trump-regularly his craziness is the new normal and no one blinks when he says the most bizarre, frightening things.

It really should be on every front page in bold letters that Trump would start a war over gestures.

AGBF
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top