Damn, I was trying to evolve into a smurf.Originally Posted by Bryan
I am the spoon.
I haven't watched it yet. Hoping it's 16 episodes this season like Mountain Men instead of the usual 10-11.
I am the spoon.
Ha! Me too!
I am the spoon.
My take on the moderator
He spent 90mins attacking Trump and tossing baby questions to Hillary. Listen to the questions he asked Trump, totally biased and often based on lies! The audience was allowed to cheer for her. He was often interrupting Trump but never Hillary?He was constantly trying to "fact-check" Trump. He was always saying Trump isn't answering the question even though he just spent a full minute answering it.
To the average mindless pawn they don't understand what is actually happening.
At the very end I thought Trump wasn't going to shake Lester's hand. At first he totally walked away. Then walked back and shook hands.
Last edited by Mordan; 09-27-2016 at 01:29 AM.
Trumps questions were weighted heavily on public perception. The debate was basically designed to have a conversation about the things the Trump has been avoiding. $#@! you can't say no to in a debate but you can in a interview. Frankly his responses to the birther questions and Iraq have been the most lackluster and that's we are not entertained. Trump won't be the entertainer in chief at this rate.
What about a question to Hillary? How can you trust a president that uses a private server to store classified info? Why Lester didn't ask that to Hillary for a balanced "things that have been avoided". The media is propping the puppet of their velvet tyranny
Why didn't Trump call Clinton a criminal? He was too nice to her for my taste. This is where he went wrong, he wore his kid gloves. Trump tried to bring the argument to Clintons level and argue policy. Clinton is terrible on policy, but Trump sounds like an idiot when he tries to argue policy because he has been on every side of every issue.What about a question to Hillary? How can you trust a president that uses a private server to store classified info? Why Lester didn't ask that to Hillary for a balanced "things that have been avoided". The media is propping the puppet of their velvet tyranny
He acted Presidential and kept ammo for the next debates. Did Trump say anything to hurt him last night? No. Was every softball given to Hillary? Yes. Did Holt shill for Hillary and not ask her a single tough question? Yes. Did he interrupt Trump 10x the amount he interrupted Hillary? Yes. Did Trump get good points across? Yes. Did she sound like a robotic $#@!? Yes. There is plenty of time to bring up the scandals. This debate helps prove the claim the media is biased against Trump.
In the medical field, we call it Trumpus Hillary-ous Regurgitatous
In other news 67.2 million Americans showed up hung-over at work today.
If we're going to be stuck with this two party bull$#@! system, could we at least require the winner to publicly execute their opponent by his/her own hand? I mean, everyone accepts that they're voting for the lesser of two evils, right? That way you end up with one less evil person and we're all better off, right?
I believe that the cognitive dissonance in the core American voter for both sides has never been stronger than right now.
I am not talking about RPF members we are a different type.
But as I pondered the debate, even as Pro-Trump person I had to admit that he lost, just as if your scored a boxing score card fairly and without favoritism.
Yet look at this....
People are largely voting by who they want to see win, they don't give !@#$ who won the debate.
Trump and Ron Paul have two things in common they won internet polls and the MSM went after them.
The MSM does not like grassroots populism from the GOP side.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
Exactly. If Trump had gone all in guns blazing on Hillary at once, the media would have given him the Lazio treatment, and would be calling him un-Presidential. Clearly Team Clinton "got to" the moderator, possibly even threatening his job hosting the NBC evening news if he didn't play ball. A check of associated stories listed at the top of Drudge this morning tells the story:
LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER...
Asked Trump 6 follow-up questions, did not ask ANY of Clinton...
Interrupted Trump 41 times, Clinton 7...
'Fact-checking' becomes opinion journalism...
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Did the moderator cause Trump to ramble incoherently for 90 minutes?
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
When you combatively interrupt somebody over 40 times in the roughly 40 minutes Trump had time to speak, yes, you are trying to make him incoherent. Selectively applied frequent interruptions are a classic technique of media bias.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
The one remark I really appreciated from Trump, "When you try to play holier-than-thou, it really doesn't work." He deserves a handshake for that, at least. I am so tired of Hillary's whining voice lecturing me on how to be a better person. She doesn't have a clue, for sure, and I'm glad someone finally said it out loud.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
I already said this on another thread, but I'll recap here just because I don't think you can blame the moderator here for Trump's bad performance. Was he biased? Yes, he was. However, Trump chose to stay on the defensive side whereas it would have been so, so easy to turn this thing around and bring it back to Hillary. As I've said before, Trump is easily goaded, full of ego, and extremely predictable, so his opponents can play him like a fiddle. He's like a fish who bites at any hook in the water and never learns not to take the bait when it's presented! His rudder is always visible and a few words can steer it in any direction you want it to go, and Hillary used this weakness to her full advantage. It's like she knows Verbal Aikido!
Most candidates can side-step this bias problem by highlighting the issues and deflecting the attacks back at Hillary, but Trump has an insatiable desire to defend his own ego against any and all attacks. What's worse, he does this through anectodal evidence (just ask Sean Hannity!) and not through the record, so it can't really be fact-checked easily. He allegedly called a Latino woman Ms. Piggy and a housekeeper. What does he do next? Shrug his shoulders and say, "That's just show biz!" and proceed to point out Hillary's own race problems? No, he attackes Rosie O'Donnel (again) and proceeds to whine about how mean Hillary has been to him in her ads. He looks immature and unable to own up to his own actions and words, citing his own lack of smear ads as positive proof that he's an all-around nice guy.
Hillary knew that her best defense against her questionable record and easily deconstructed arguments was to have a good offense. Poke at Trump and keep him preoccupied with himself. You don't have to even be a masterful debater to pull that off, as Trump's skin is so thin it's practically translucent. Moreover, when he does go on the attack, it's almost always on superficial things. When Rand pointed it out, Trump's defense against his accusations was weak and only seemed to prove his point further. There are so many things to criticize Hillary over, but stamina and looks just weren't what he should have gone for.
The facts are simple. Donald Trump did very poorly this debate. He believes in the message as opposed to the actually policy details. He claims that voters don't care about the nitty gritty and just want to know the message. It's like someone who dreams of walking on the moon, but has no idea how to build a rocket and only rudimentary knowledge of outer space. They can see Point B and dream about it, but they have no idea how to reach it. However, they believe that the very fact that they can see Point B means they're worthy of respect. At least that's how he came across last night.
Hillary, unfortunately, is such a Washington insider that she knows policy inside and out. She stuck to arguments on policy and sounded way more professional than Trump, even if you could easily point out the flaws in her reasoning. It was almost like watching an adult debate a child. The child, you could argue, has a better big-picture plan (although I personally don't think Trump is much better than Clinton), but the adult will win every time, no matter how awful he is.
Hillary might be a crooked politician with a long body count in her wake, but she can hold it together, and Trump's poor temperament will get the best of him every time. He speaks without thinking and others can call him out later. Hillary made herself look diplomatic and peace-loving (somehow) and made Trump look like a crazed lunatic ready to start war the moment someone flips him the bird.
The candidates are supposed to combat each other, including frequently breaking the other's flow. The moderator is not supposed to do so.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
You can clean it up all you want to but the true, main fact is even simpler: It's easy to lose, and be thrown off your game when you're being double teamed. It's easy to win, if you get the softballs while the other candidate gets the hardballs, with follow-ups. Hillary didn't get asked about her real/alleged scandals or flaps, but Trump got hammered on his. Despite this, viewers saw through the unbalanced charade and found Trump reasonable, as indicated by the preponderance of the online polls (including liberal sites like Slate).
Hillary proved she could win on debate points when the issues presented are deeply tilted towards her. All Trump had to do was prove he could survive being double teamed, while not making a fatal gaffe, not prove that he was optimally prepared. He just needed to show he could weather Hillary's best engineered storm, and he succeeded.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 09-27-2016 at 09:00 AM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
"Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.
They both sounded pretty similar (not great). Interrupted each other. A little annoying. Both just repeating the same stuff they always say, for the most part.
Anyway, no slam dunk (on the surface). Pretty even match. The girl was more composed and poised (though she seemed to fake-laugh a little too much every time it was her turn). Keep in mind I was only listening, not watching.
Here's something interesting: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened. However, in methodically going through the moderator's questions and statements afterward, it actually is quite clear that he was very biased.
That doesn't matter, though. Facts and rationality don't really matter in this case. No meaningful number of people is going to rationally and analytically pick apart the moderation after the fact like that. That's the brilliance of getting the mod in the bag on your side. It's invisible. He's automatically seen as unbiased and neutral, by the nature of the format. It was a smart move by the girl -- take every advantage you can get. (That's if one is not opposed to cheating -- I am, by the way). Everyone will perceive it as I initially did: I didn't notice any particularly big bias against either one as I listened.
Now the important points.
One was respectful, always (almost always) calling the other "Secretary". The other always called the first by his first name in a condescending way.
One brought up lots of numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. 20 trillion dollars, 230 years, 7-1/2 years to be kind of exact, we pay 73 percent, 2,200 murders, almost 4,000 shootings, on and on, almost every single answer had numbers, wherever he could fit them in. Lots and lots of boring statistics no one really (emotionally) cares about.
This was a switch. Switheroo! Switching places. One of these people was known for being bombastic, rude, and "making it up"? Who would have thought that last night he would be more respectful, formal, boring, full of policy details and statistics than his opponent?
Why this switch? And what will come of it? The switch means this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077...e-first-debate
That's my debate analysis.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-27-2016 at 09:20 AM.
Your graphic counter left out one of the debaters.
LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER...
There seems to be a dubious trend among neoconish lobbies that does not seem all that accidental, in recent years they seem to pick minorities for some of the dirtiest jobs without any regard for damage it does to the credibility of the folks they pick to make a public face of their agenda. Years later sometimes public gets to read leaks from soneone like Colin Powell protesting, "I'm not reading this ****" but others seem to read their scripts to propagate a lyin agenda of puppet masters quietly. It is sad and abusive to an extent as not following such direction could put their livelihoods in jeopardy.
MAGA Allies: 'Bully Israel with undeclared nukes steals land'
Dangerous conspiracy theories on Right claim MAGA fake frontgroup
Poll: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 80s?
Obama-Clinton Years: A Violent Chapter in World History
Trump: If (Neocon) Adelson Backs Rubio "He'll Have Total Control" Over Him
Delta variant, death of 9 Chinese engineers in terror attack led to airport chaos & quick Kabul fall?
Such an important question too. It will really effect future policy and actions. It will be key to the economy, terrorism and foreign policy. Yes, we were fortunate to spend so much time in this debate on the important question of Obama's eligibility to be President.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
^^THIS^^
Trump would not stop talking- especially about himself.
If Judge Nap even says that Trump made Clinton look good, and Tyler Durden says don't blame the mod- then it's time to really look at how things really went down.
There is no spoon.
It was both the moderation being one sided for Hillary and Trump not even attempting to win the debate or the election.
I am the spoon.
If you were a mod and you had a candidate that would not shut up, cut into the other candidate's time, and rambled on and on about himself, what would you do?
There is no spoon.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us