Trump vs. Hillary - the 1st Debate. Live on C4, Sky and BBC News

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

Thing is all the questions you wanted asked of Hillary were about things covered in numerous congressional settings. And this was supposed to be a debate on policy.

As for saying Holt was wrong on Iraq, that's ridiculous, given his position on Iraq is well preserved.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-again-he-was-against-war-iraq/

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

What the debate did get out is Trump is not so pro 2nd amendment if he wants stop and frisk, has no idea how the economy works, and in terms of temperament will go off about the dumbest **** just to save face. He even admitted he would be ok with ordering a military strike on an Iranian boat if it was 'rude' to one of ours. It revealed he expects our allies to "pay their fair share" when he has spent his entire adult life making sure he pays as little as possible, whether that is within the bounds of the law or not, as suggested by some 3,500 lawsuits with his name on them over the last 30 or so years.

Where Hillary stands on the economy, on foreign policy, etc are all pretty plain and we would have heard more about it if Trump didn't interrupt her 51 times, to Hillarys 17. Perhaps that's why Lester Holt had to step in 41 and 7 times during the debate, which was entirely proportional.

Inquitus

Hillary will win narrowly

I have rewatched some of the debate it's abject from both of them, you almost feel embarrassed for the pair of them, Trump is just talking unconnected, waffling, nonsense half the time, and Hillary just does not seem comfortable under the camera in that sort of public glare you get in the debates or at the DNC acceptance speech.

If you presented that to some un-knowning English language students in a few years time and told them this was a debate for the most powerful position on earth they wouldn't believe you.....

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Thing is all the questions you wanted asked of Hillary were about things covered in numerous congressional settings. And this was supposed to be a debate on policy.

As for saying Holt was wrong on Iraq, that's ridiculous, given his position on Iraq is well preserved.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-again-he-was-against-war-iraq/

Policy? Birtherism, Tax Returns? Bull, this was a free-for-all.

At most Trump’s support or non-support of the Iraq War could be considered in the gray area, and therefore should not have been challenged by Holt.

"Judge for yourself. Trump makes three points in less than a minute. One: After months of deliberating about whether to invade, it’s time for Bush to fish or cut bait. Make a decision already. Two, the key line: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.” That’s as firm as he gets. Three: Bush is under a lot of pressure but is “doing a very good job.” When you put that together with Trump’s earlier comment on the Stern show, it seems obvious that the guy simply didn’t have a strong opinion on the war either way. To the extent that he did, he was okay with invading, enough so to give Bush high marks despite the White House having beaten the war drum for the better part of a year. His only hedge has to do with the timing and UN approval and even that’s offered ambivalently. There’s no shame in Trump having held a soft opinion about Iraq; plenty of Americans did, I’m sure, although a heavy majority supported invading in polling at the time. His opinion was softer than Hillary Clinton’s was, in any case. "

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/fox-news-rnc-2003-clip-backs-trump-pre-war-opposition-iraq-invasion/

FA Hayek

Suryavarman wrote: »

Vox have an article challenging this nonsense narrative that Trump won the opening 30 minutes.

This is Vox we are talking about. Do you honestly think they are going to say different? All these media outlets are all biased one way or the other. I am surprised people gravitate towards them to seek some sort of consensus bias. Turn off your CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, Huff post, Vox, Brietbart, Reddit.etc..etc.
They ALL have an angle and fill the air with horse manure.

God people come on like! Why do you eat what they are spooning you!

FA Hayek

Worth a watch especially if you want to hear Dave Rubin take down the current Mainstream media and other websites where they spoon the same people the same baby food. You can skip to 14 minutes and watch the subsequent 10 minutes.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

Worth a watch especially if you want to hear Dave Rubin take down the current Mainstream media and other websites where they spoon the same people the same baby food. You can skip to 14 minutes and watch the subsequent 10 minutes.

Thank you for spoon feeding us this, telling usexactly where to start from. I wont have the "corrupt" media telling me what to do, but you sir, fire away.

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

Thank you for spoon feeding us this, telling usexactly where to start from. I wont have the "corrupt" media telling me what to do, but you sir, fire away.

Im not spoon feeding anything. Simply offering an alternative view, a view outside of the usual idiot cycle perpetuated by the corporate mainstream media and online media outlets. Let us not pretend that you are going to get some actual real truth or analysis from some stooge on CNN or Fox News, or even new media like the Huff post or Breitbart. You don't even have to watch the video to realise how the MSM do anything but actual news and analysis.

Your argument is essentially a nihilist one. An enforcing infinite cycle of the echo chamber. But if you want to buy that and go on the whole, 'Trump is evil, Clinton is god' vs 'Trump is great, Clinton is Satan' bandwagon, then go right ahead.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

Thing is all the questions you wanted asked of Hillary were about things covered in numerous congressional settings. And this was supposed to be a debate on policy.

As for saying Holt was wrong on Iraq, that's ridiculous, given his position on Iraq is well preserved.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-again-he-was-against-war-iraq/

Policy? Birtherism, Tax Returns? Bull, this was a free-for-all.

At most Trump s support or non-support of the Iraq War could be considered in the gray area, and therefore should not have been challenged by Holt.

"Judge for yourself. Trump makes three points in less than a minute. One: After months of deliberating about whether to invade, it s time for Bush to fish or cut bait. Make a decision already. Two, the key line: Perhaps he shouldn t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations. That s as firm as he gets. Three: Bush is under a lot of pressure but is doing a very good job. When you put that together with Trump s earlier comment on the Stern show, it seems obvious that the guy simply didn t have a strong opinion on the war either way. To the extent that he did, he was okay with invading, enough so to give Bush high marks despite the White House having beaten the war drum for the better part of a year. His only hedge has to do with the timing and UN approval and even that s offered ambivalently. There s no shame in Trump having held a soft opinion about Iraq; plenty of Americans did, I m sure, although a heavy majority supported invading in polling at the time. His opinion was softer than Hillary Clinton s was, in any case. "

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/fox-news-rnc-2003-clip-backs-trump-pre-war-opposition-iraq-invasion/

Why don't you just post the transcript instead of a narrative. Here, I will do it for you. When you just read the transcript and not the narrative, it is not as clear cut is it?

Do I care if he was for or against the Iraq war? Nope, not a jot. What I care about is he is taking credit for something he did not say or do. That is the problem with it, not all the other stuff. Just one more lie to add to all the rest.

Cavuto (FOX): If you had to sort of breakdown for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say?
Trump: Well, I m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we re going in, we re not going in, the you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur. He would go and attack. He wouldn t talk. We have to you know, it s sort like either do it or don t do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we re going to attack, what routes we re taking, what kind of planes we re using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I ve never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how telling the enemy how we re going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous.
Cavuto: Well, the problem right there.
Trump: Either you attack or you don t attack.
Cavuto: The problem there, Donald, is you re watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox.
Trump: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different I don t know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don t do it, or you but I just or if you don t do it, just don t talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it.
Cavuto: So you re saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us.
Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He s under a lot of pressure. He s I think he s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

FA Hayek

Do you know what I realised? People like picking sides, even if there is no logic to it. People like being Tribal and being against another person is a much more powerful motivator then being for a person. We are essentially a primitive species. Don't pretend we are anything but. The last few pages prove that point.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Thank you for spoon feeding us this, telling usexactly where to start from. I wont have the "corrupt" media telling me what to do, but you sir, fire away.

Your argument is essentially a nihilist one. An enforcing infinite cycle of the echo chamber. But if you want to buy that and go on the whole, 'Trump is evil, Clinton is god' vs 'Trump is great, Clinton is Satan' bandwagon, then go right ahead.

I am not enforcing that view at all. All news that offers opinion is biased to some degree. Facts should speak for themselves, right?

So lets present a fact. Trump uttered 41 "untruths" last night, Clinton 4. An untruth being something that is not entirely truthful. So on this fact, let us make a determination, who is the greatest liar.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

Do you know what I realised? People like picking sides, even if there is no logic to it. People like being Tribal and being against another person is a much more powerful motivator then being for a person. We are essentially a primitive species. Don't pretend we are anything but. The last few pages prove that point.

What is wrong with picking a side? To be completely glib, would you have said the same during World War Two?

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

Why don't you just post the transcript instead of a narrative. Here, I will do it for you. When you just read the transcript and not the narrative, it is not as clear cut is it?

Do I care if he was for or against the Iraq war? Nope, not a jot. What I care about is he is taking credit for something he did not say or do. That is the problem with it, not all the other stuff. Just one more lie to add to all the rest.

Cavuto (FOX): If you had to sort of breakdown for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say?
Trump: Well, I m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we re going in, we re not going in, the you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur. He would go and attack. He wouldn t talk. We have to you know, it s sort like either do it or don t do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we re going to attack, what routes we re taking, what kind of planes we re using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I ve never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how telling the enemy how we re going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous.
Cavuto: Well, the problem right there.
Trump: Either you attack or you don t attack.
Cavuto: The problem there, Donald, is you re watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox.
Trump: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different I don t know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don t do it, or you but I just or if you don t do it, just don t talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it.
Cavuto: So you re saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us.
Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He s under a lot of pressure. He s I think he s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

Sounds like Trump was against the war.

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

What is wrong with picking a side? To be completely glib, would you have said the same during World War Two?

Yes, lets compare fighting National Socialism to a TV debate with long time liar and a reality TV star. Jesus Wept. This comment is why people are giving up on politics.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Do you know what I realised? People like picking sides, even if there is no logic to it. People like being Tribal and being against another person is a much more powerful motivator then being for a person. We are essentially a primitive species. Don't pretend we are anything but. The last few pages prove that point.

Welcome to Politics.

Being sociable animals humans like to congregate into packs and inevitably the pissing contest to pick a leader.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Why don't you just post the transcript instead of a narrative. Here, I will do it for you. When you just read the transcript and not the narrative, it is not as clear cut is it?

Do I care if he was for or against the Iraq war? Nope, not a jot. What I care about is he is taking credit for something he did not say or do. That is the problem with it, not all the other stuff. Just one more lie to add to all the rest.

Sounds like Trump was against the war.

And the quote to back up your opinion?

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

I am not enforcing that view at all. All news that offers opinion is biased to some degree.

Yes you are. You may think that you are different from the rest of the sheep out there but the entire US political system is built on this perpetual war where two sides are always, always fighting each other. The internet just amplifies this. By all mean watch CNN and read VOX, that will really get you to think for yourself, right? Or perhaps, switch it all off and think for yourself for a change, instead of rushing to be part of the echo chamber.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

What is wrong with picking a side? To be completely glib, would you have said the same during World War Two?

Yes, lets compare fighting National Socialism to a TV debate with long time liar and a reality TV star. Jesus Wept. This comment is why people are giving up on politics.

Was not comparing - rather making a point based on your statement re picking sides. Your comment is why people cant debate anymore if they are not winning the argument

FA Hayek

InTheTrees wrote: »

Welcome to Politics.

Being sociable animals humans like to congregate into packs and inevitably the pissing contest to pick a leader.

Of course. However, these people a few months ago were probably big Bernie supporters and couldn't stand Clinton and her corrupt ways of rigging the DNC contest. Now, they are falling over themselves supporting her. Ha, its hilarious actually.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, lets compare fighting National Socialism to a TV debate with long time liar and a reality TV star. Jesus Wept. This comment is why people are giving up on politics.

"A long term liar"???

So you're showing yourself to be as spoon fed as the worst of trump fans.

There are massive ideological difference between trump and clinton.

If you are a US voter those differences are important.

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

Was not comparing - rather making a point based on your statement re picking sides. Your comment is why people cant debate anymore if they are not winning the argument

What is your argument? That you want to be a Sheep. By all means you are correct on that front!

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Of course. However, these people a few months ago were probably big Bernie supporters and couldn't stand Clinton and her corrupt ways of rigging the DNC contest. Now, they are falling over themselves supporting her. Ha, its hilarious actually.

That's what happens during the primaries. Its bruising but it prepares the winner to face the national election.

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

And the quote to back up your opinion?

...perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

I am not enforcing that view at all. All news that offers opinion is biased to some degree.

Yes you are. You may think that you are different from the rest of the sheep out there but the entire US political system is built on this perpetual war where two sides are always, always fighting each other. The internet just amplifies this. By all mean watch CNN and read VOX, that will really get you to think for yourself, right? Or perhaps, switch it all off and think for yourself for a change, instead of rushing to be part of the echo chamber.

Where did I say I read Vox or CNN or FOX or A.N.Other. What I have issue with is your viewpoint that people cant have an independent thought if they do read or watch any mainstream media outlet. That is an extremely narrow viewpoint and exactly what you say yourself people should not be like.

You can have the "think for yourself" mantra all you want, but even your opinions and viewpoint were derived from somewhere. Unless you are a god, and in that case, I don't believe in you anyway.

FA Hayek

InTheTrees wrote: »

"A long term liar"???

So you're showing yourself to be as spoon fed as the worst of trump fans.

There are massive ideological difference between trump and clinton.

If you are a US voter those differences are important.

Hillary isn't a liar of epic proprotions? This is the problem right here. If you say that Hillary is a liar who will do anything for power, then you are automatically then put into the Trump camp.

Its a black and white world, makes it easy as it does not require people to think. **** debate and analysis, just label and demonise in 140 characters.

I think Trump is a blowhard idiot, a bluffer and is the American Berlusconi. Does that make me in the tank for Hillary? No, I think they are both terrible people and the MSM and associated online media are trying to spoon feed the general population the same crap they have done for years.

FA Hayek

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's what happens during the primaries. Its bruising but it prepares the winner to face the national election.

So you accept that Hillary is not only a liar but also corrupt and a cheat. Tell me again why you think she would make a good president so?

Why do you waste energy on defending her. Oh, right. Trump is the bad guy. Well maybe he is, but as I said they are both terrible candidates. If people stopped for a minute throwing food at each other like apes and started to think, surely we could come up with better candidates for important positions of electoral power.

**** that, MSM tells us the other person wants to destroy America. No time to think, only time to fight.

Its pathetic.

B0jangles

Hillary will win narrowly

FA Hayek wrote: »

Of course. However, these people a few months ago were probably big Bernie supporters and couldn't stand Clinton and her corrupt ways of rigging the DNC contest. Now, they are falling over themselves supporting her. Ha, its hilarious actually.

Not hilarious, pragmatic.

Only an utter fool* would throw their hands in the air and say they aren't voting/voting third party because Bernie didn't get the nomination; Clinton, whatever her faults, is a competent, experienced politician. Trump is a maniac with no experience in politics or diplomacy who appears to make up his own version of reality on an hourly basis, and who is riding high on a wave of open bigotry and racism.

Also gotta laugh at you calling people sheep for taking information from one media source while pushing the opinion of a former stand-up comedian as a valid source of information on how the debate went.

If you don't trust any part of the media, just watch the debate for yourself and make up your own mind.

*or someone who is comfortably aware that a Trump presidency won't personally affect them very much - minority groups in America have many reasons to be very very afraid of what President Trump will mean for them.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

And the quote to back up your opinion?

...perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.

But before that he said that people are getting a little bit tired of the situation, were going in, were not going in. What happened to the days of McArthur, he would go and attack, he wouldn't talk.

So maybe, just maybe, Trump is a man who enjoys sitting on the fence until everything becomes clear and then he can jump on the popular viewpoint. As he did in this case, with the esquire interview, 2 months after the war started.

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

Where did I say I read Vox or CNN or FOX or A.N.Other. What I have issue with is your viewpoint that people cant have an independent thought if they do read or watch any mainstream media outlet. That is an extremely narrow viewpoint and exactly what you say yourself people should not be like.

You can have the "think for yourself" mantra all you want, but even your opinions and viewpoint were derived from somewhere. Unless you are a god, and in that case, I don't believe in you anyway.

If you take the banal analysis by the likes of Vox, CNN, Fox or Brietbart seriously then you have not arrived at your conclusion independently. You have already formed your opinion and seek media to confirm already held beliefs. Confirmation bias right there.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Hillary isn't a liar of epic proprotions? This is the problem right here. If you say that Hillary is a liar who will do anything for power, then you are automatically then put into the Trump camp.

Its just that your bitterness towards hillary is fairly obvious. How come you're giving trump a pass?

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

But before that he said that people are getting a little bit tired of the situation, were going in, were not going in. What happened to the days of McArthur, he would go and attack, he wouldn't talk.

So maybe, just maybe, Trump is a man who enjoys sitting on the fence until everything becomes clear and then he can jump on the popular viewpoint. As he did in this case, with the esquire interview, 2 months after the war started.

Some see it different ways. Therefore I'd say it's a gray area, and Holt should not have attempted to 'fact-check' it. He should have kept his mouth shut and let Hillary try and counter what Trump claimed. Bottom line Holt did everything he could to help Hillary out in the debate.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Where did I say I read Vox or CNN or FOX or A.N.Other. What I have issue with is your viewpoint that people cant have an independent thought if they do read or watch any mainstream media outlet. That is an extremely narrow viewpoint and exactly what you say yourself people should not be like.

You can have the "think for yourself" mantra all you want, but even your opinions and viewpoint were derived from somewhere. Unless you are a god, and in that case, I don't believe in you anyway.

If you take the banal analysis by the likes of Vox, CNN, Fox or Brietbart seriously then you have not arrived at your conclusion independently. You have already formed your opinion and seek media to confirm already held beliefs. Confirmation bias right there.

You sir, have a massive chip on your shoulder about the media. Is it all media, or just American. Are there different levels of media reporting that is ok, or is it a blanket "no-no" on it all.

I watch the news to get, shock horror, the news. If I hear something that interests me, I seek out more information on it, via other publications and the like. I call this "research".

For example, Trump says something during the debate, I want to know is he accurate? Is he telling the truth? So I go to factcheck.org and check.

But no, that is not good enough for you. You hear something, anything and decide "that's not right because it does not conform with what I know to be true.....which is whatever I decide because I think for myself".

FA Hayek

B0jangles wrote: »

Also gotta laugh at you calling people sheep for taking information from one media source while pushing the opinion of a former stand-up comedian as a valid source of information on how the debate went.

The joke is on you actually. If a former stand up comedian can challenge the opinion of MSM and have a large following, then the media is in worse shape then I imagined.

John Stewart is another former stand up comedian. He holds similar contempt for the media. But by all means eat what the dish out. It matters not to me.

I watched the debate live and avoided all media 'analysis' of it for about two days. Gave me time to form my own opinion on the matter.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

But before that he said that people are getting a little bit tired of the situation, were going in, were not going in. What happened to the days of McArthur, he would go and attack, he wouldn't talk.

So maybe, just maybe, Trump is a man who enjoys sitting on the fence until everything becomes clear and then he can jump on the popular viewpoint. As he did in this case, with the esquire interview, 2 months after the war started.

Some see it different ways. Therefore I'd say it's a gray area, and Holt should not have attempted to 'fact-check' it. He should have kept his mouth shut and let Hillary try and counter what Trump claimed. Bottom line Holt did everything he could to help Hillary out in the debate.

Yeah, damn minorities, getting in Trump's way. That will all change after the 8th right?

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

B0jangles wrote: »

Also gotta laugh at you calling people sheep for taking information from one media source while pushing the opinion of a former stand-up comedian as a valid source of information on how the debate went.

The joke is on you actually. If a former stand up comedian can challenge the opinion of MSM and have a large following, then the media is in worse shape then I imagined.

John Stewart is another former stand up comedian. He holds similar contempt for the media. But by all means eat what the dish out. It matters not to me.

I watched the debate live and avoided all media 'analysis' of it for about two days. Gave me time to form my own opinion on the matter.

I am pretty sure that Jon Stewart would disagree with you a lot

FA Hayek

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its just that your bitterness towards hillary is fairly obvious. How come you're giving trump a pass?

Trump is a blowhard, idiot, phoney, populist American Berlusconi. I am not giving him a pass but I suppose I touched a nerve so unless I slate him constantly then I am a supporter of his, dare I say anything I against Saint Hillary.

FA Hayek

irishash wrote: »

I am pretty sure that Jon Stewart would disagree with you a lot

With regards the way the MSM treats its viewers? He has been on about this for 15 years. He built a career on it. I know he is a fairly popular guy around here but his contempt for the likes of CNN is well known. Truth hurts, especially when you buy the MSM bull.

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

Yeah, damn minorities, getting in Trump's way. That will all change after the 8th right?

I don't understand your 'damn minorities' comment, and how it has to do with anything I said.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Trump is a blowhard, idiot, phoney, populist American Berlusconi. I am not giving him a pass but I suppose I touched a nerve so unless I slate him constantly then I am a supporter of his, dare I say anything I against Saint Hillary.

Absolutely. Why not?

I live here in the land of the Americans. I have done for years. As nutty as their media and political system is, there's massive and important differences between the two of them and in 40(?) days people are going to have to decide one way or another.

Personally I think Trump would be a disaster. He is unstable.

I have also witnessed twenty+ years of right wing smear campaigns against clinton.

irishash

FA Hayek wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

I am pretty sure that Jon Stewart would disagree with you a lot

With regards the way the MSM treats its viewers? He has been on about this for 15 years. He built a career on it. I know he is a fairly popular guy around here but his contempt for the likes of CNN is well known. Truth hurts, especially when you buy the MSM bull.

Oh I agree with Jon Stewart almost all of the time. I am sure you do too. But he is not a rebel against the media and all forms of it, like you. No. He just hates bad reporting, like FOX and CNN. I watched his show almost nightly for the past 15 years until last year when he retired from the show. There were many occasions where he praised the media.

So like I said, based on what you have said so far, I am pretty sure he would disagree with you a lot.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Yeah, damn minorities, getting in Trump's way. That will all change after the 8th right?

I don't understand your 'damn minorities' comment, and how it has to do with anything I said.

VeryOwl

irishash wrote: »

So like I said, based on what you have said so far, I am pretty sure he would disagree with you a lot.

John Stewart has consistently made the point that FOX, for example, is uniquely partisan in a way other networks are not.

But some people wish to draw a lazy false equivalence between all of the so-called "MSM".

InTheTrees

irishash wrote: »

I watched his show almost nightly for the past 15 years until last year when he retired from the show.

I heard he has a new one starting on HBO.

B0jangles

Hillary will win narrowly

FA Hayek wrote: »

The joke is on you actually. If a former stand up comedian can challenge the opinion of MSM and have a large following, then the media is in worse shape then I imagined.

John Stewart is another former stand up comedian. He holds similar contempt for the media. But by all means eat what the dish out. It matters not to me.

I watched the debate live and avoided all media 'analysis' of it for about two days. Gave me time to form my own opinion on the matter.

Where did I defend the US media? Overall, I think it's an ethical disaster fuelled by a ferocious need to pursue clicks over the basic journalistic role of presenting the facts to the people. I'm laughing at you mocking someone for watching one media source, then presenting a former stand-up comedian as a viable alternative.

irishash

InTheTrees wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

I watched his show almost nightly for the past 15 years until last year when he retired from the show.

I heard he has a new one starting on HBO.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/2/12351490/jon-stewart-hbo-show-animation-studio

It's been a little less than a year since Jon Stewart signed a four-year contract with HBO, and now we're getting a clearer idea of what that means for viewers. His new show will be an "animated parody of a cable news network," according to Variety. Casey Bloys, HBO's programming president, said at a press tour this past weekend that the currently untitled series would premiere "sometime in September or October."
Bloys also said that Stewart is starting an animation studio within the network, according to Variety. The idea is that with a studio, Stewart and his team will be able to produce online content to comment on the news every day, as well as a weekly TV series.
This past April, HBO announced that it had acquired 3D graphics startup OTOY, and that Stewart was already working with the company to create online-only videos. It's still not really clear what the linear series and the online content will look like, but it seems obvious Stewart still has a lot to say here's hoping his show is ready in time for the election.

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

Silly me. I sometimes forget that some of us here are held to a higher standard.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Silly me. I sometimes forget that some of us here are held to a higher standard.

Well fear not, since you are a hardcore Trump supporter, I wont hold you to that higher standard anymore.

Peist2007

FA Hayek wrote: »

Do you know what I realised? People like picking sides, even if there is no logic to it. People like being Tribal and being against another person is a much more powerful motivator then being for a person. We are essentially a primitive species. Don't pretend we are anything but. The last few pages prove that point.

100%. People in Ireland coming in and telling lies about one side or the other in order to win petty arguments. You question either candidate and you are immediately a fan of the other. No rational debate. Everything reduced to utter childlike simplicity. "He said this, she said that". It's depressing and boring. Add to that the fact that our entire media syatem is completely corrupt and biased and forces propaganda down our throats at every turn. Something which, amazingly, 99% of the population don't see and mindlessly lap up.

Observing the media over the past few years has made me question everything. All those history lessons at school, pretty certain that nothing happened the way it was written down / reported at this point.

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

Well fear not, since you are a hardcore Trump supporter, I wont hold you to that higher standard anymore.

Oh, it's not you who hold some of us to a higher standard.

And it is apparent you know little about me. I’m not a hardcore Trump supporter. I didn’t even vote for him in the primary. And actually, I wish Romney would have run again. But given the choices between Hillary and Trump, Trump is the better choice for America. But like most of our voters I prefer a fair fight. You don’t have that in this election. It’s Clinton, the Democratic Party, the media, and the establishment political class against just Trump and some of the Republicans.

The debate fix on the part of the moderators against Trump was forecast well in advance. And Holt didn’t disappoint. Actually, it’s not just Holt, the vast majority of the media doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased against Trump anymore.

I find it interesting that the Clinton controlled media professionals claimed Clinton won the debate, yet most online polls of viewers had Trump winning.

With two poor candidates as our choices this election might actually be a referendum against the media and its biased role this election. Gallup recently issued the results of a survey that indicated the lowest public trust of the media in history. Only 32% of Americans say they have a great deal, or some trust, in newspapers, TV and radio “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.” Anti-media sentiment could just possibly help decide the election.

If anything, I blame Trump for knowing the moderator would work to make him look bad and Hillary look good, and not preparing good arguments against Holt when he did.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

I’m not a hardcore Trump supporter.

The Presidential Election thread(s) would show otherwise.