What someone tweeted seven years ago or what they may have said on a radio show fifteen years ago does not carry the equivalent weight as the actions of a politician that leads to multiple congressional and FBI investigations. Especially when the experts in national security have stated that those actions put American lives in danger.
And no, it's not paramount that Matt Lauer or anyone else in the media treat the words of a businessman and reality television show star as if they carried the same equivalent weight as the actions of a Secretary of State. In fact, those in the media who do try to equate the two as one in the same, are only undermining their own intelligence and the reputation of their entire profession.
Most Americans feel that the Secretary of State should have been charged with a crime for putting military and other national security secrets at risk. Have so many people replaced their moral compasses with their partisanship, that they don't understand why this would be an issue to drill into, especially in a room full of military personal?
Now this is the problem as I see it. If you wander off to the left side of the media, they actually do pretend that there is such an equivalence. They do believe that Trump exaggerating how many illegal immigrants are in our Federal prison system, is worse than lying to the Parents of dead Americans. That logic will hold true with whatever Trump statement you want to replace the former, and whatever Clinton action you want to replace the latter.
I listened to the CNN panel last night literally pick apart everything Donald Trump stated during the forum. They must have spent the first fifteen to twenty minutes of their analysis on Trump, until one of the panel finally brought up the point that they had not even discussed Hillary Clinton. While I can appreciate that pundits like to be thorough with their analysis, the hammering of Trump semantics seemed more than a little desperate and over the top. What has to strike you as curious about the analysis is that it was Clinton who was criticized for her tone, style, and somewhat shaky presence, while Trump was criticized for substance of his policy proposals.
Reason? Trump was confident, in charge, and never really on the defensive with Matt Lauer. While you may not like what he said, he spoke with authority and never appeared rattled, incoherent, or erratic with his behavior.
Trump handled Lauer while Clinton got handled by him. Plain and simple.
Bottom line here folks: Had Hillary Clinton had a good night, that's what you would have heard about last night and that would be the headline this morning. That the press is arguing this away as a bad night for everyone, suggests Trump came out of it as the victor.
34 comments:
And now Hillary has been busted cheating with her ear piece.....which btw, there is an email from huma about sone years ago.
She is done.
CHT, you mean to say that IF I as a self made Billionaire said something years and years ago that has the "equivalent" power as a Sitting Senator that actually voted for the Iraq war.
Or IF, say I was the Sitting Sec of State and I did not know what "C" meant on documents I both received and sent, that is the same as a self Made billionaire texting.
It is easy to be a ALT-Left Progressive for Hillary, just turn off your brain, put in the Pearl Ear Piece and believe.
I'm shocked.
Not!!!
The number of lies doesn't matter.
His man love for a brutal dictator is just icing on the cake.
- Trump called Putin a strong leader and hopes we can become allies in the war on terror.
- Clinton turned over our country's classified materials to him due to her own carelessness.
I imagine I know which one gets under your skin, and which one doesn't matter.
Respect is not the same as admiration or love.
I suppose you think self respect abd vanity are the same things.
Voting for Trump because you think that the government needs to change is like burning down your house because you want to remodel the kitchen.
He lied. Just admit it and move on.
She lied about more serious issues... and looked more shaky and indecisive doing so.
Just admit it and move on.
It is funny how the slightest breeze blows HB around a open field like a kite in the Kansas wind.
HB is now against any change in the US Government,,, but, in 2008, he was all aboard the "Hope and Change" train.
Just sayin'
Hillary clearly cheated with the use of the Pearl ear bug, but the question is who was at the other end feeding her info?
KD - Honestly, I am guessing it's a hearing aid of some sort. Wouldn't want to admit to it, because it leads to questions about health, etc...
Mr. Trump, you clearly supported the Iraq War. We have audio tape of it! In 2002 Howard Stern asked you if you were in favor of invading Iraq, and you said, "Yeah, I guess so." And yet for the past year you've repeatedly lied about this. Why?
You're welcome.
So Roger - you are going to hold Trump responsible for reluctantly agreeing with Howard Stern (on the Howard Stern show) back when Trump was just a media icon?
But you are perfectly acceptable with Clinton outwardly lying about how the Intelligence community classifies information, and lying about how no Americans lives were lost in Libya (Benghazi?)?
I don't recall Matt Lauer reminding Clinton that according to actual security experts, the markings are not the only way to identify classification, and that General Petraeus among others were charged for mishandling classified information that was not marked so.
I also don't recall Matt Lauer reminding Clinton that the attacks on the embassy cost four American lives... after she bragged that no lives were lost in Libya.
So Prey Tell Roger: Who do you think would have looked worse, if Lauer had followed up on the lies?
Reminding Donald Trump about a conversation he had 15 years ago with Howard Stern. Or reminding Hillary Clinton that she is dead wrong lying about how classified information, and that she is carelessly forgetting about the four dead Americans she pretends don't matter?
I am all for those things being brought out in the open and judged.
You keep bringing up Clinton to avoid the truth about trump's lies.
No Roger - look in the mirror.
There were lies told last night by both candidates. I can admit that neither candidate told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The difference is that you expect Matt Lauer to allow Hillary Clinton to lie about how classification procedures work, and lie about how nobody died in Libya under her watch... and not follow up.
But you fall down, roll around on the ground, kicking your feet and pulling your hair out, because Donald Trump suggested he was never in favor of invading Iraq - and wasn't called out for it.
I would have preferred Lauer to stand up to both of them. I think it would have been worse for Hillary to be called out on a National Forum for her lies than it would have been for Trump. For one, in a 30 minute segment, they could have used up 20 minutes debating Classifications and whether or not the Benghazi attacks were associated with her Libya policy. As it was, she only answered about half as many questions as Trump because she droned on and on...
So Lauer let it all go. As a forum monitor, your job isn't to lay in judgement and disagree with policy. It's to ask the questions, let the candidates answer them... and let the people decide.
You can't have it both ways Roger. You cannot demand that Clinton be given a free pass, but that Trump had to be questioned. But this is exactly what you are calling for and exactly what you are upset about. You are upset because without someone "telling" all those Americans why what Trump said is B.S. - they might decide on their own that he makes a little sense now and again.
Well actually, Roger... you are upset because it didn't go so well for Clinton, who looked out of sorts and defensive. She managed to make Donald Trump look good in comparison.
Reality, is that people are looking at demeanor and confidence. She lacked both, and he had both. It was a good night for Trump, and you want to blame Matt Lauer.
I was pleasantly surprised by Lauer's ability to moderate fairly.
Laurer committed an unforgivable (by liberals) act of journalism.
So Roger - you are going to hold Trump responsible for reluctantly agreeing with Howard Stern
And give us the record of him saying he was against the war before it started. I'm sure with his big mouth, you'll be able to find one. LOL!!!!!
Trump said 'I guess so', not exactly a big endorsement. Then four months later he opposed it.
This is all they have?? Lol.
If at any time in the past had a Democrat make these three comments.
Our military leaders are "reduced to rubble."
Any brutal dictator should be praised because he has "80%" approval
A brutal dictator who is a better leader than our President.
If during the Cuban missile crisis that we should let him work with the Russians because Fidel Castro had 80% approval.
If Gorbachev is popular so he could leave up "That wall"?
If any Democrat attacked out military leaders and said they were rubble?
And just something for discussion. Are you really comfortable with that man with the "trigger" to send nuclear weapons to the middle east?
Is is permissible to kill the families of terrorists?
Is trashing a Gold Star family, because they are Muslims?
Answer the damn questions instead of bring up Clinton.
This won't get past the censor.
Our military leaders are "reduced to rubble."
It's been well noted that military leaders who did not hold views Obama wanted to hear were pushed aside. There are many disgruntled military. I understand the hyperbole here. You just don't like it.
Any brutal dictator should be praised because he has "80%" approval
Do you have an understanding of the Reagan/Gorbachev relationship? Much got done in the world because traditional enemies could learn to build trust, respect and cooperation.
So I answered - now tell us why it's okay for Hillary to keep lying?
Nice try.. Can you imagine of some Democrat had said that Gorbachev was a better leader than Reagan.
You avoided all the other questions. I'm nut surprised, because you would be honest if you would respond to the others.
Remember, the skunk smells it's own hole first....especially liberal skunks.
From the "reset button" to weakening our planned missile defense capacity in Poland, to allowing Russia to own 20% of our uranium assets, to ignoring the Budapest Memorandum/Treaty with Ukraine... message was clear: Russia had an ally in Barack Obama and for the right price an ally in Hillary clinton as well.
Besides Obama's "more flexibility" comment.
But now, even exchanging pleasantries with Putin is considered to be by her "unpatriotic"...
Up is down.
You find any reason to hate Obama and Clinton, but then you actually believe that Donald Trump is Saint Ronald of the Reagan reborn! Seriously? Reagan was not a dangerous, pathological liar. Trump is.
I don't like the lies about the email.
But they pale in comparison to the egomaniacal personality candidate that you support no matter what he says, or how often he lies.
Putin is the former head of the KBG. He either imprisons or has journalists killed. Given your hero's views on American journalists, he may want to emulate Putin.
Trump praised the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin while denigrating that of President Obama. “Certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader,” Trump said. Heaven help the Democrat who would so much as even cast a favorable glance at the leader of Russia. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was right to call Trump’s remarks “unpatriotic.”
Reaganistic?
You bet.
Putin is the former head of the KBG.
Well, we elected a former head of the CIA.
Your know it's possible to respect and admire the capabilities of an enemy and still recognized he's the enemy.
Or is that just too nuance for your intellect?
Roger - I remember the way George W Bush was treated by the left. If the worse thing someone said about him was that he was not as popular or as strong as a leader than Putin, it would have been a big improvement from what was actually said about him.
The reason why the criticism bugs you Roger... is because you know deep down that Trump is right. Obama has not been a leader, not in the world and not with out country. The only people he has tried to lead has been the Democrats and the liberals.
If you are a voter who actually wants our next President to put America first, then the criticism makes sense. Putin would never sell his country out for any reason. He always puts Russia first and he doesn't give a shit what other world leaders say about it. Perhaps he is not popular with other world leaders. But he's popular with his people. His job (like Obama's job) is do what is in the best interest of his country, not other countries. His allegiance is to Russia, not the U.N. or anyone else.
That may not be a admirable quality in your mind, but in the mind of many others it is...
Sometimes a political disagreement is just a political disagreement. You may feel so full of yourself to believe your opinion is morally superior. But if it was a moral imperative to put other country's interest ahead of our own, or to turn over our leadership and decisions to the U.N. than that is what our Presidents would pledge to do when they become President.
But they are not sworn in that way. They are sworn to honor and protect our constitution (and only our constitution), which lays forth in what ways we are to protect our citizens. You may deem the idea of the American public electing a President that takes care of the American public first as somehow evil and un-American, but there are still many of us who feel that our constitution and bill of rights is a better place to govern from, than replacing it with the tired failed dogma of the left.
Your praise of Putin is on the record.
You are envious of the brutality and murdered journalists.
You have no shame.
And you actually believe that Obama is trying to destroy the United States, because of it's racist history. That's been one of your talking points ever since he was elected.
"Obama has not been a leader, not in the world"
It was on full-blown display with the Duterte insult and China.
CNN went apoplectic over the snubs.
Actually Roger - I have not only not compared Trump to Reagan, but I have been critical of Trump from day one. Like many conservatives, I would have gladly taken any of the other candidates ahead of Trump.
What I will point out is that it was important that Reagan and Gorbachev were able to reach out to each other and find mutual respect. Without that relationship, the world would be a much different place. It's not hard to argue that if he can start working "with" Russia instead of "against" Russia (by proxy) in the Middle East, we would be better off. A lofty goal, and a long shot. But it probably seemed less possible back in the 80s. Quite frankly things cannot get much worse.
All that being said... at the end of the day, what you have is that you do not like Donald Trump's "personality". But it wasn't his personality that was being criticized at the forum. It wasn't his demeanor, or a lack of control, or any suggestion that he didn't look Presidential.
Those criticisms were of Clinton. She was criticized for droning on in her answers, being highly defensive, snapping at Matt Lauer, and generally appearing rattled. She was caught openly lying about how classifications work, openly lying about dead Americans, and making horribly nonfactual/misleading references to what the FBI director stated about her emails being hacked.
You admitting that "You don't like that she lied" is missing the point. You refuse to ask yourself why she keeps lying? Is it every going to end? If she cannot be open and truthful about the facts of the past (if she is willing to lie straight faced to us when we all know she is lying) - how could you ever trust her to tell us any sort of truth if she becomes President - when she can lie (without us knowing it's a flat out lie).
And let's be serious, Roger... if it's just the "personality" that bugs you... what sort of person is prone to openly lying like Clinton? What sort of Personality trait is it when being dishonest is basically at your core. Was there a subject she was asked about in the forum where she could provide a truthful answer?
Bottom line: Hillary Clinton has been in hiding from all of this since it has happened. It wasn't an issue within the Democratic primary, because nobody on the left was interested, and Bernie Sanders didn't care to bring it up.
But the vast majority of the Country (Republicans and Independents) do see her Emails, her lying, Benghazi, FBI probes, and the Clinton Foundation relevant. You cannot expect that the General Election debates will ignore these subjects, just because the Democratic primary debates did.
Because they go directly to whether or not she has the temperament, integrity, and judgement to be President.
And yes Roger... most people feel that dead Americans, mishandling national security secrets, and selling political favors are more important and tangible to this race.. than 15 year old Howard Stern interviews.
That fact that you literally feel that a Howard Stern interview is more important... tells us everything we need to know about your personal judgement.
You actually believe that Trump wants to take care of the American public first.
His narcissism and ego go first, lasts and everywhere in between. That's why he thinks Putin is a great leader. If you believe that Trump wants to help Americans first, you are delusional.
Occam's razor Roger.
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
I don't have to assume that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, a person with a history of failure, or someone who has always put her own interests ahead of others. The fact that she was willing to compromise our national security (and the lives of Americans) in order to keep her correspondences away from the scrutiny of the FOIA is a known quantity. None of this has to be assumed. It's been proven with here actions, time and time again. She has fundamentally not been successful in any field she has ever worked in, and has literally been criminally investigated while in the private sector, as first lady, and as Secretary of State.
Pretty much all of your criticism of Trump is based on your personal assumptions about him. Between cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation, you are a slave to your assumptions. There is no chance (absolutely none) that he could ever do or say anything at this point to change your mind. You have been fully "brainwashed". I accept it about you. You have a weak mind.
The truth is that nobody really knows what sort of President Donald Trump would make. But we know, that he has not had a ton of failures in the field he has made a name for himself in. His successes outweigh the failures by astronomical numbers.
I like this analogy
If you elect Trump, you are playing Russian Roulette. You put in one bullet, you spin the chamber, you put the gun to your head, and pull the trigger.
if you elect Clinton, you are playing a different game. You fill the entire chamber with bullets, you put the gun to your head, and you pull the trigger.
Our military leaders are "reduced to rubble."
would it be better if he staged an act of chucking someone else's medals over the White House fence, lied to congress about American soldiers cutting off ears like Jinjis Khan and then parlaying the fact he shot a 12 year old in the back to become your party's nominee?
would that be better
Hack
would it be better if he staged an act of chucking someone else's medals over the White House fence"
I guess dissing the entire military command is something you respect. Kerry's medals were his and his only. Maybe if donnie threw the purple heart he always wanted, in your face, that would be respect to all those who were awarded that medal by actually being wounded instead of wishing he had one. You want respect, you should demand how you really earn that award, especially those soldiers who have died. He's just too stupid for words.
TIM KAINE: It is very clear that the Russians were behind the DNC [hack] attack, at a minimum it is delegitimizing the election. Remember: When a presidential candidaate encouraged crooks to commit espionage against the DNC, in an election year to gain and edge, we impeached him --Richard Nixon-- and he resigned. When Donald Trump publicly said to the Russians: Go ahead and hack away, and if you find something that helps me out, let me have it. We impeached a president for that, what he encouraged Russia to do.
Post a Comment