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

Suryavarman

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

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.

What an absolutely incredible post. It's incredible that somebody could think that Holt (a registered Republican) was biased against Trump when any objective observer could see he went easy on him. Trump continuously interrupted Clinton, spoke over Holt, refused to give a straight answer to any question, often refused to address the question, preferring to ramble on about his 10 year old son being great with computers, and lied through his teeth while doing so.

I can't wait to see what ludicrous excuses you come up with when Clinton wins on November 8th.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

But given the choices between Hillary and Trump, Trump is the better choice for America.

The debate fix on the part of the moderators against Trump was forecast well in advance.

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

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

So Trump, a man who tells a lie or untruth on average every 3 minutes and 15 seconds is a better choice than Clinton to be POTUS.

When you talk about the debate fix, can you link to a source published before the debate. Also had the debate gone well for Trump, then there would have been no fix?

Online polls are about as trustworthy as Nigel Farrage when it comes to the real position on anything.

So you blame the moderator for making Trump look bad but then accept that Trump did not prepare for the debate at all.

Go right ahead and buy into the theory that the election is all a fix, but dont pander the crap that Trump is a better choice just because you hate Hillary so much.

Christy42

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

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.

Except Hillary is held to the higher standard. She can't interrupt as much as Trump because she as a woman would be seen as shrill. In Trump it is seen as strong in spite of him generally spouting utter lies.

Holt didn't make Trump say he paid no taxes (and then promptly deny that statement), Holt didn't make Trump lie about claiming that global warming is a Chinese hoax. Holt was not there to interrupt or correct both candidates the same number of times. It is not Holt's fault that Trump has no idea about the effects of international trade agreements or that one of the candidstes spouted a racist lie for the last 8 years. Holt was there to correct them when they go over time or spout complete and utter bull. It is not Holt's fault that this includes damn near everything coming out of Trump's mouth.

Those are Trump's issues and the reason he went to pieces. Well that and the fact that Hillary knows she can needle him about the size of his personal wealth and Trump will lose the plot entirely.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Except Hillary is held to the higher standard. She can't interrupt as much as Trump because she as a woman would be seen as shrill. In Trump it is seen as strong in spite of him generally spouting utter lies.

Holt didn't make Trump say he paid no taxes (and then promptly deny that statement), Holt didn't make Trump lie about claiming that global warming is a Chinese hoax. Holt was not there to interrupt or correct both candidates the same number of times. It is not Holt's fault that Trump has no idea about the effects of international trade agreements or that one of the candidstes spouted a racist lie for the last 8 years. Holt was there to correct them when they go over time or spout complete and utter bull. It is not Holt's fault that this includes damn near everything coming out of Trump's mouth.

Those are Trump's issues and the reason he went to pieces. Well that and the fact that Hillary knows she can needle him about the size of his personal wealth and Trump will lose the plot entirely.

Don't take my word for it. Experts agree Holt cheated for Hillary.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/debate-numbers-lester-holt-heres-proof-the-debate-was-rigged/
https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/09/26/debate-wrap-up-media-bashing-of-lauer-has-desired-effect-as-lester-holt-lets-his-bias-fly/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/six-ways-lester-holt-spun-debate-clintons-favor
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lester-holt-debate-moderator-2016-9

ebbsy

While I feel Holt was all over Trump I also feel Trump could have prepared a lot better.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

Don't take my word for it. Experts agree Holt cheated for Hillary.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/debate-numbers-lester-holt-heres-proof-the-debate-was-rigged/

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/

I'll just leave the front page of this website for other posters to click on and gauge the reliability of this source for themselves.

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/09/26/debate-wrap-up-media-bashing-of-lauer-has-desired-effect-as-lester-holt-lets-his-bias-fly/

Laughing stock of an outlet owned by Aubrey Chernick, who is the chief funder of such wonderful things as JihadWatch and Horowitz Freedom Centre, both of which are identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the Anti-defamation League. The Centre for American Progress did likewise, and Horowitz responded by accusing them of having joined the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/six-ways-lester-holt-spun-debate-clintons-favor

Fox News. Nuff said

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lester-holt-debate-moderator-2016-9

Donald Trump is not an 'expert'. Donald Trump is running against Clinton. That is what this story is about - something Trump said.



Moral of the story: be highly skeptical of any source used by this poster. It's been an ongoing theme of theirs for the entire election cycle.

irishash

ebbsy wrote: »

While I feel Holt was all over Trump I also feel Trump could have prepared a lot better.

But he wasnt all over Trump. He was not there to fact check, but when he asked a question and was given an answer he knew to be a lie, he called that person on it.

Also there were 2 moments during the debate last night which were telling. One was when Holt asked Clinton if she would like to address the email issue. She did, she apologised and said if she had the chance she would do things in a different way. Trump when asked about the birther movement, his answer "I did a great thing".

Leonard Hofstadter

I finally managed to watch this debate.

I have watched political debates in Ireland, the UK and the US over the years, and it's quite some time since I've seen such a one-sided debate.

Clinton didn't just beat him, she absolutely destroyed him.

She was calm, cool and collected. She knew a lot of facts (most of which were shown afterwards to be correct) and she had a great understanding of the major issues. She also sounded remarkably healthy, and I loved the way she just let him dig his own grave.

Trump, even with a registered card carrying Republican as a moderator, was a disaster. He actually started off OK at the start, but after about 20 minutes his (relative) restraint evaporated and we saw his trademark bluster, bombast and spoofery. Clinton (and the moderator) got him easily rattled. He ranted and raved. He talked over her constantly, I can't see that playing well with female voters (or an increasing number of male voters). It was also amusing to hear him mention Hillary's health, when he sounded so congested, and coughed a lot. It's also worth noting that Clinton never once touched the glass of water provided, Trump was constantly sipping between whatever it was he was ranting about.

I'd love to know what those who thought Trump did better were smoking, by any objective standard Clinton was miles ahead.

She dealt with the awkward questions professionally and apologised, Trump's response to his refusal to disclose his tax returns was something else to behold.

The only thing I'm not sure about is how this played out with the American electorate. I suspect Trump's supporters don't care, they see this all as a 'liberal conspiracy' or whatever else it is. I worry that despite Clinton doing miles better than Trump, it might not be enough. After all, the polls said there would be no Brexit, and there is Brexit. Most of the opinion polls suggested Fine Gael would do much better than they did in the election, fair enough they detected the trend away from them to other parties, but they still had FG up to 4% ahead of where they ended up (only one or two called it accurately, indeed the last poll to be released had FG on 30 as opposed to the 25.5% they got). So, this is certainly not over. The other thing to caution is that Trump could hardly do as badly as he did in the next two debates, she won't win the next ones so decisively, either. I'm more confident now than I have been for a while that we will soon be seeing the first female president of the US, but I'm certainly not going to be counting my chickens before they've hatched.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

captainspeed wrote: »

After all, the polls said there would be no Brexit, and there is Brexit.

This is a lie that has been spouted out so often that it has become a great example of Trump's method - lie, lie, lie until it becomes 'truth'. Not calling you a liar or a Trump fan by the way, just pointing out one of the greatest recent examples of 'lying until it becomes truth' which can be seen even here in certain posters with complete detachments from reality (and again, not you!! ).

The polls were strong for 'remain' initially, but for a good month or so had gone decisively to 'leave'... right up until the white supremacist terrorist attack. After that, they did shift to 'remain' but that was only in week or so before the vote. In the 2-or-so months leading up to the referendum, they also consistently showed it would be an extremely tight vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016

Anyway kind of off topic, but just wanted to mention it.

The_Captain

Trump will win big

Personally I think Clinton would be annihilated by a competent Republican candidate. She's like a robot, no charisma, no emotion, no going off script.
She didn't so much destroy Trump as Trump just rambled on and imploded.

Trump was so out there in the beginning that he sucked up all the attention and headlines, leaving the other republicans to pick up scraps. In a media circus he was always going to win purely for the outrageous nonsense he comes out with

Now that it's a two horse race, he's forced to take on Clinton on an equal footing, she gets just as much media attention as him and it shows that behind it all, he's a piss poor politician. He can work a crowd but he has no diplomacy, no gravitas, no clever word play. Imagine him trying to negotiate with someone like Putin, Merkel or Jinping, he'd be torn to shreds.

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

Don't take my word for it. Experts agree Holt cheated for Hillary.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/debate-numbers-lester-holt-heres-proof-the-debate-was-rigged/
https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/09/26/debate-wrap-up-media-bashing-of-lauer-has-desired-effect-as-lester-holt-lets-his-bias-fly/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/27/six-ways-lester-holt-spun-debate-clintons-favor
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-lester-holt-debate-moderator-2016-9

Well we aren't exactly asking so-called experts about the specific details of a news event, and experts of politics rarely agree. Case and point, other experts would disagree

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lester-holt-donald-trump_us_57e9c8c6e4b0c2407cd8ffb5

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/lester-holt-review/

Christy42

Hillary will win narrowly

Overheal wrote: »

Well we aren't exactly asking so-called experts about the specific details of a news event, and experts of politics rarely agree. Case and point, other experts would disagree

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lester-holt-donald-trump_us_57e9c8c6e4b0c2407cd8ffb5

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/lester-holt-review/

I think the fact that one of Amerika's so called experts was Donald Trump himself says everything you need to know.

MeatTwoVeg

The thing that struck me most is that they're both waaaaaaay too old to be running for President.

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

The thing that struck me most is that they're both waaaaaaay too old to be running for President.

There's no cutoff and they both don't appear handicapped by their age. At worst, Hillary might require hearing aids and glasses, but that's about it; Trump probably has a few undisclosed health issues, though nothing severe either. If either's judgement was to become impaired (imo, Trump's is already) or they were otherwise unable to execute the office, section 4 of the 25th amendment would come into play, and the VP would assume the role of the acting POTUS.

MeatTwoVeg

Overheal wrote:

There's no cutoff and they both don't appear handicapped by their age. At worst, Hillary might require hearing aids and glasses, but that's about it; Trump probably has a few undisclosed health issues, though nothing severe either. If either's judgement was to become impaired (imo, Trump's is already) or they were otherwise unable to execute the office, section 4 of the 25th amendment would come into play, and the VP would assume the role of the acting POTUS.

I'm projecting 4/8 years into the future of what may be one of the most stressful jobs in the world.
Have you compared Obama now to 8 years ago?
They're both too old. No question.

FA Hayek

Peist2007 wrote: »

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.

Yes, its rather worrying.When I put forward the viewpoint of someone telling us to not watch the usual mainstream media analysis or buy the crap they try and feed us on the huff post of breitbart, the response is. 'Your doing the same thing' Gets lots of thanks and likes but essentially sheep just want to be sheep, which is fine, I get that.

John Stewart has been at this for years and is going to be doing a new comedy show with this theme as its core tenant, yet somehow he would disagree with me and my opinions about the sad state of the media. You could not make this up.

alastair

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

The thing that struck me most is that they're both waaaaaaay too old to be running for President.

Hillary is the same age as Reagan was when he first ran. Trump is two years older. Neither is likely to be a two-term president, unlike Reagan, and he didn't seem to age as much as Bill Clinton or Obama did (possibly because of all the 'power' naps?). I wouldn't worry too much about their ages. I fully expect Hillary to win, but the Democrats to opt for a different candidate in 2020.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

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

Report the post to help us out please instead of commenting in thread, much more helpful.

@Irishash
No picture only posts please, and we can delete pictures that are beneath the standard.

K-9

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

The thing that struck me most is that they're both waaaaaaay too old to be running for President.

Late 60's or 70 isn't that old these days.
What affect 4 years as President would have on them next time out though... It's hard to see either get re-elected.

nc6000

K-9 wrote:

Late 60's or 70 isn't that old these days. What affect 4 years as President would have on them next time out though... It's hard to see either get re-elected.

I think whoever wins will definitely only serve one term. They are both so unpopular already and it's hard to see either of them winning a second election as hopefully a couple of decent candidates are discovered before the next election.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

alastair wrote: »

Hillary is the same age as Reagan was when he first ran. Trump is two years older. Neither is likely the a two-term president, unlike Reagan, and he didn't seem to age as much as Bill Clinton or Obama did (possibly because of all the 'power' naps?). I wouldn't worry too much about their ages. I fully expect Hillary to win, but the Democrats to opt for a different candidate in 2020.

He had Alzheimers for the last 4-5 years of his presidency by many accounts (including his own son's).

alastair

Billy86 wrote: »

He had Alzheimers for the last 4-5 years of his presidency by many accounts (including his own son's).

And? What's that got to do with aging?

Reagan - start and end of presidency:


Clinton - start and end of presidency:


Obama - start, and not quite there yet:


Moral: get your kip.

Amerika

Moderator Lester Holt pulled two Candy Crowleys in the debate. He was wrong with his ‘fact-checking’ in regards to Trump’s assertion that he never supported the Iraq War, and the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk.

CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC's Martha Raddatz will moderate the next presidential debate. They’ll probably go for three Candy Crowleys each, so as not to be outdone.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

alastair wrote: »

And? What's that got to do with aging?

Did you just ask what has alzeimhers got to do with aging?

By the way, Clinton looks pretty similar in those two photos. Obamas ageing is infamous of course, though.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

Moderator Lester Holt pulled two Candy Crowleys in the debate. He was wrong with his ‘fact-checking’ in regards to Trump’s assertion that he never supported the Iraq War, and the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk.

CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC's Martha Raddatz will moderate the next presidential debate. They’ll probably go for three Candy Crowleys each, so as not to be outdone.

Its just sad to read at this stage... Wouldn't be if the instance of Trump supporting the Iraq war had not been pointed out to this poster multiple times by now. My guess is they'll claim "oh I didn't see it" if someone points it out, before making the same accusation in a few weeks time. Nothing if not predictable.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

Moderator Lester Holt pulled two Candy Crowleys in the debate. He was wrong with his fact-checking in regards to Trump s assertion that he never supported the Iraq War, and the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk.

CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC's Martha Raddatz will moderate the next presidential debate. They ll probably go for three Candy Crowleys each, so as not to be outdone.

Lester Holt asserted quite rightly that there is nowhere Donald Trump is on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq is a bad idea or that he is against it. There is a record of him saying AFTER the invasion had taken place.

The FOX interview is not presentable as evidence as Donald Trump does not state during that interview that he is against the invasion or that it is a bad idea. He does state that maybe Bush should wait until after the UN meeting. That means nothing.

He did state on the Howard Stern show, before the invasion, to a question of "should we invade" the following - "Yeah, I guess so".

That's the truth, regardless of what Trump says himself, because it is traceable and on record. He can say all day and all night he was against the war, but there is nowhere he is on record to back this statement up.

irishash

Billy86 wrote: »

By the way, Clinton looks pretty similar in those two photos. Obamas ageing is infamous of course, though.

I don't know about that - The picture posted (which I was told is not allowed, so I cant show a different photo) is of a perfect photo Vs a less than flattering one. Look at the official headshots for each year of his tenure and you can see apart from the greying hair (which he could have dyed if he wanted to) and a few more lines, he still looks good for his age.

alastair

Billy86 wrote: »

Did you just ask what has alzeimhers got to do with aging?

I did. because they're unrelated issues. Old age is neither a prerequisite for, nor a cause of, Alzheimers.

Amerika

irishash wrote: »

Lester Holt asserted quite rightly that there is nowhere Donald Trump is on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq is a bad idea or that he is against it. There is a record of him saying AFTER the invasion had taken place.

The FOX interview is not presentable as evidence as Donald Trump does not state during that interview that he is against the invasion or that it is a bad idea. He does state that maybe Bush should wait until after the UN meeting. That means nothing.

He did state on the Howard Stern show, before the invasion, to a question of "should we invade" the following - "Yeah, I guess so".

That's the truth, regardless of what Trump says himself, because it is traceable and on record. He can say all day and all night he was against the war, but there is nowhere he is on record to back this statement up.

“No one calls Sean Hannity!” “I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox,” “He and I used to have arguments about the war,” “I said it’s a terrible, stupid thing. It’s going to destabilize the Middle East, and that’s exactly what it’s done.”

Donald Trump stated during the debate when pressed by ‘fact-checker’ Lester Holt.

And Sean Hannity is corroborating Trump’s statements that the two had disagreed on the issue of the Iraq War, with Trump opposing it.

Unlike Hillary Clinton who actually voted for the Iraq War and therefore concrete in her record to backing it, Trump’s opposition to the war, before it happened, is ambiguous at best. And therefore should not have been attempted to be fact-checked by Holt. Holt should have kept his mouth shut and let Hillary dispute it.

Billy86

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

“No one calls Sean Hannity!”

They do. Sean Hannity just doesn't want to talk about it. Strange, that.

I'm guessing him and Donald needed a bit of time to get their 'story' straight about these 'arguments' they had that somehow never got mentioned or talked about, or caught in audio or visual despite being in a TV studio the whole time, and went completely against everything Trump was saying publicly at the time. To the shock of... exactly nobody.

irishash

Amerika wrote: »

“No one calls Sean Hannity!” “I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox,” “He and I used to have arguments about the war,” “I said it’s a terrible, stupid thing. It’s going to destabilize the Middle East, and that’s exactly what it’s done.”

Donald Trump stated during the debate when pressed by ‘fact-checker’ Lester Holt.

And Sean Hannity is corroborating Trump’s statements that the two had disagreed on the issue of the Iraq War, with Trump opposing it.

Unlike Hillary Clinton who actually voted for the Iraq War and therefore concrete in her record to backing it, Trump’s opposition to the war, before it happened, is ambiguous at best. And therefore should not have been attempted to be fact-checked by Holt. Holt should have kept his mouth shut and let Hillary dispute it.

You are kidding right?? No??

Getting something on record is the only thing that matters. If you want to say you said or did something, you should be able to prove it. Trump cant. That is the issue here.

As you say his opinion on the war prior to the invasion is ambiguous at best. So the fact that he has been anything BUT ambiguous since then should and is scuntinised by everybody. And nobody has ever been able to come up with any proof he said he things he is saying now before the invasion.

Hillary voted for invasion, as did the majority of the senate. Great, that is proof of her position at that moment in time. With hindsight and time we also know her position now. She is not trying to paint a different picture. She is being upfront (hard not to be I guess).

Finally, Obama also voted against the invasion. Would you like to praise him for that?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

No one calls Sean Hannity! I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox, He and I used to have arguments about the war, I said it s a terrible, stupid thing. It s going to destabilize the Middle East, and that s exactly what it s done.
Donald Trump stated during the debate when pressed by fact-checker Lester Holt.
And Sean Hannity is corroborating Trump s statements that the two had disagreed on the issue of the Iraq War, with Trump opposing it.

You really think trump crying "go as hannity", is some kind of proof?

Are we twelve years old???

Give us concrete proof he was opposed to the invausion not some childish anecdote about having some conversation with someone. That's just pathetic.

ebbsy

Thing is, how many people over there actually give a **** about his tax returns or whether he supported the Iraq war ?

We will find out soon.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

Moderator Lester Holt pulled two Candy Crowleys in the debate. He was wrong with his ‘fact-checking’ in regards to Trump’s assertion that he never supported the Iraq War, and the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk.

CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC's Martha Raddatz will moderate the next presidential debate. They’ll probably go for three Candy Crowleys each, so as not to be outdone.

The Iraq piece has already been de-bunked (before and after the above post)..

As for Stop & Frisk.. No, Trump mostly wrong there too (and by extension Holt was mostly right)

From Politifact

Our ruling

Responding to the assertion that stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, Trump said "no, you’re wrong."

Trump has a point that a judge’s ruling in a 2013 case did not declare stop-and-frisk as a general practice unconstitutional in New York. Stop-and-frisk is still legal and still takes place in New York and across the country.

But his claim ignores that a judge did decide that the manner in which New York previously conducted stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional and that her ruling still stands. Trump had argued that stop-and-frisk was working effectively in New York City to reduce crime during the time period covered by the lawsuit.

Trump’s statement has an element of truth but leaves out critical context that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

You really think trump crying "go as hannity", is some kind of proof?

Are we twelve years old???

Give us concrete proof he was opposed to the invausion not some childish anecdote about having some conversation with someone. That's just pathetic.

Take you blinders off and look at what I had said. Is it proof he opposed the war? I’d say about as good as any proof that he supported the war. Maybe if I capitalize it and bold it, people won’t miss it, although ignoring things seems to be rampant here... ... AMBIGUOUS AT BEST. AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED TO BE FACT-CHECKED BY HOLT. HOLT SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT AND LET HILLARY DISPUTE IT.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Take you blinders off and look at what I had said. Is it proof he opposed the war? I’d say about as good as any proof that he supported the war. Maybe if I capitalize it and bold it, people won’t miss it, although ignoring things seems to be rampant here... ... AMBIGUOUS AT BEST. AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED TO BE FACT-CHECKED BY HOLT. HOLT SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT AND LET HILLARY DISPUTE IT.

You're missing the point. Probably deliberately, but you're missing it.

You could argue that Trump was for the war; you could argue that he was against it. The problem is that he has claimed as a fact that he was opposed to it, and used this as a stick to beat Clinton with; he's using it as a point of contrast with her.

If you're going to say "I'm better than her because I held this view that was different from hers, which - in hindsight - was correct", then it stands to reason that people will fact-check that assertion.

So far, the assertion has next to nothing in support of it. His position on the war - before the war, which is what's at question - ranged from tacitly supporting it to being ambivalent about it.

That's not an unambiguous position of opposition, which is the foundation on which he's built this point of differentiation between himself and Clinton.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're missing the point. Probably deliberately, but you're missing it.

You could argue that Trump was for the war; you could argue that he was against it. The problem is that he has claimed as a fact that he was opposed to it, and used this as a stick to beat Clinton with; he's using it as a point of contrast with her.

If you're going to say "I'm better than her because I held this view that was different from hers, which - in hindsight - was correct", then it stands to reason that people will fact-check that assertion.

So far, the assertion has next to nothing in support of it. His position on the war - before the war, which is what's at question - ranged from tacitly supporting it to being ambivalent about it.

That's not an unambiguous position of opposition, which is the foundation on which he's built this point of differentiation between himself and Clinton.

And you're missing the bigger point. It was not up to Holt to make claim to having 'fact checked' on that matter. It should have been left to Hillary to counter Trump's assertion.

Christy42

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

And you're missing the bigger point. It was not up to Holt to make claim to having 'fact checked' on that matter. It should have been left to Hillary to counter Trump's assertion.

Why? If a candidate lies or makes a claim that can't shown the moderator can call them on it. Trump did the latter and got caller. Holt interupted Hillary less as she avoided doing either.

I like that you aren't even claiming that Trump had a good point anymore. It is just a disagreement on who should have called him out on his waffle.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

And you're missing the bigger point. It was not up to Holt to make claim to having 'fact checked' on that matter. It should have been left to Hillary to counter Trump's assertion.

It's wryly amusing but entirely inevitable that the people most vehemently opposed to a moderator fact-checking candidates are the supporters of the candidate with the bigger reputation for dishonesty.

Let's face it: if Trump stuck to saying things that are actually true, he (and his supporters) wouldn't have to get so upset about being fact-checked.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Take you blinders off and look at what I had said. Is it proof he opposed the war? I d say about as good as any proof that he supported the war. ]

Take the blinkers (that's the Irish name) off and we have a presidential candidate in a debate basically crying "go ask my friend" when confronted on his lies.

It's pathetic. Its childish. What does he think we're going to pause the debate and phone this "Hannity" character?

Suryavarman

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

And you're missing the bigger point. It was not up to Holt to make claim to having 'fact checked' on that matter. It should have been left to Hillary to counter Trump's assertion.

Or maybe Trump could tell the truth for once.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's wryly amusing but entirely inevitable that the people most vehemently opposed to a moderator fact-checking candidates are the supporters of the candidate with the bigger reputation for dishonesty.

Let's face it: if Trump stuck to saying things that are actually true, he (and his supporters) wouldn't have to get so upset about being fact-checked.

Bull! Holt’s ‘fact checking’ was biased against Trump, and anybody with common sense could see it.

Why did Holt not fact check Clinton when claimed she would “finally” guarantee equal pay for women?
Fact Check: This is already guaranteed in Equal Pay Act of 1963.
That would be like Trump claiming he would 'finally' free the slaves.

Why did Holt not fact check when Clinton accused Trump of lying when he he said Hillary considered the TTP trade deal the “gold standard” for trade deals.
Fact Check:

edit: Boards blocks this??? Maybe you can get there by clicking this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLQzeCoNnA

Why did Holt not fact check Clinton on her claim that her use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business while she was secretary of state was merely a “mistake?”
Fact check: The FBI report shows her conduct was deliberate, not a mistake.
She should be defending herself in a courtroom, not a debate.

AbusesToilets

Pretty surprised at how many opportunities both candidates missed to score points against one another. Holt was very poor as a moderator, consistently failed to keep them on topic and foster relevant discussion of policy or their past performances.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Why? If a candidate lies or makes a claim that can't shown the moderator can call them on it. Trump did the latter and got caller. Holt interupted Hillary less as she avoided doing either.

I like that you aren't even claiming that Trump had a good point anymore. It is just a disagreement on who should have called him out on his waffle.

But Holt didn't call Hillary out on her lies. And yes, if there was a gray area on any of the points, Holt should have kept his mouth shut, and it should have been up to Hillary or Trump to challenge each other. It should have been a one on one debate, not Trump against Hillary/Holt.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

But Holt didn't call Hillary out on her lies. And yes, if there was a gray area on any of the points, Holt should have kept his mouth shut, and it should have been up to Hillary or Trump to challenge each other. It should have been a one on one debate, not Trump against Hillary/Holt.

Except Hillary didn't lie. Women still earn less than men in the USA. That's the reality, and presumably there's room for additional legislation or initiatives to tackle that mismatch. Hillary didn't accuse Trump of lieing about her position on TTP - she clarified that she was for it before she was agin it - the final draft not being to her satisfaction or whatever. Now that may well be political spin, but it doesn't need to be fact checked, because it's true (she changed her position). Trump on the other hand told clear porkies. There's the distinction.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Except Hillary didn't lie. Women still earn less than men in the USA. That's the reality, and presumably there's room for additional legislation or initiatives to tackle that mismatch. Hillary didn't accuse Trump of lieing about her position on TTP - she clarified that she was for it before she was agin it - the final draft not being to her satisfaction or whatever. Now that may well be political spin, but it doesn't need to be fact checked, because it's true (she changed her position). Trump on the other hand told clear porkies. There's the distinction.

So gray areas count as truths for Hillary and lies for Trump? Kinda sounds like a 'Depends on what the meaning of the word is is' defense. Now where did we hear that before?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

So gray areas count as truths for Hillary and lies for Trump? Kinda sounds like a 'Depends on what the meaning of the word is is' defense. Now where did we hear that before?

Neither of those issues is a grey area though. Women earn less than men, and she acknowledged changing her mind on TTP. What's to fact check?

http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

edit: Boards blocks this???

No, you had "Nuff said." inside your

Overheal

Hillary will win narrowly

Amerika wrote: »

But Holt didn't call Hillary out on her lies. And yes, if there was a gray area on any of the points, Holt should have kept his mouth shut, and it should have been up to Hillary or Trump to challenge each other. It should have been a one on one debate, not Trump against Hillary/Holt.

Which lies do you think Lester would have been prepared to jump at Clinton for?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

No, you had "Nuff said." inside your

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. My bad.