It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

My Anti-Trump Opinion - Lester Holt's Questions Unbalanced In Favor Of Clinton

page: 1
15

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I don't think there are many here familiar with me who are unaware of my anti-Trump sentiment. I haven't done a survey but I'm comfortable guessing that I'm responsible for more anti-Trump threads than anyone else on ATS.

However, we shouldn't allow our opinions to get in the way of accepting objective reality.

Between focusing on the candidate's answers (made harder by the crosstalk and interruptions) and commenting in the Mud Pit thread as many of you were, I wasn't paying particular attention to the balance of questions asked.

I have since reviewed the transcript and for much of the debate, he asked the same questions of both candidates as expected. However, there were two instances where he asked specific questions of Trump which were not not follow up questions, not neutral in nature and not offset by comparable questions of Clinton:


Mr. Trump, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to -- who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?



Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?


The questions themselves were fair enough (and Trump's answers were typical Trump BS) but they have no counterparts on the other side. He could have asked Clinton something like this to retain an overall neutrality:

"Mrs. Clinton, while many have questioned why Mr. Trump hasn't released his tax returns, an equal number are concerned about your own lack of transparency. You pledged to separate yourself from the operation of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails suggest that you or your staff have granted special access to Clinton Foundation donors. Don't Americans have a right to know about your conflicts of interest?"

...or something along those lines as it's relatable to the question posed to Trump regarding his tax returns. For the second question maybe something along these lines:

"Mrs. Clinton, the claim is that while Mr. Trump perpetuated the false allegations, your campaign was instrumental in promoting them to the public at large in the first place. Was your campaign responsible for the rise of birtherism?"

It's also worth noting that Holt also challenged Trump on the nature and merits of Stop-and-Frisk which is not unreasonable but if you're going to challenge the answers of one candidate, there should be equal treatment for those of the other. In that particular case, he should have let Clinton respond rather than injecting himself into the debate.

My two cents. I have to call it like I see it. I'm sure Lester Holt was doing a dificult task, particularly during the first half an hour but every effort for neutrality should be maintained and I hope the next debate is moderated such that there are no reasons (except those tricky microphones that only Donald gets) to dimiss a poor debate performance.

I still firmly believe that Trump is worse than Clinton and I've come to the conclusion that he's at best a useful idiot for Putin and his pals and possibly worse, that he has has been actively negotiating a potentional pro-Russian policy that if he were to become President, would lead to greater Russian influence across the globe. (see Who Is Carter Page And How Did He Come To Work For Trump's Campaign?)
edit on 2016-9-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm with you all the way. I said as much in the Holt Unfair? thread. www.abovetopsecret.com... Holt was a bit easy on Clinton. But that's not what caused Trump to lose the debate. He caused that himself.

It's GOOD to be objective, but very difficult for most.
edit on 9/27/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Trump should be nicknamed 'the finger.' He points the finger at those who oppose him, he points the finger at foreigners when he needs a scapegoat (despite the fact at least one of his wives is from a foreign nation) The finger also blamed the microphone and moderator for his multiple faux pas.

Yes Hillary's smugness rubs people the wrong way but at least she doesn't act like an elderly spoiled brat.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I've seen a few of your anti-trump threads, and have definitely battled you on them, but nice seeing you take an objective approach to this matter and debate. What bothered me about last night, is that it started off nice with Lester Holt, and I was happy with his moderation of the debate, but once the wheels fell off, it came down hard, and it seemed his questions were slanted, not to mention when he decided to play "fact checker" getting into an argument with Trump over his stance on the Iraq war seemed odd

Three questions he seemed to hammer home I didn't care for were 1. Hillary's appearance, and clarifying what he meant there. 2. The Obama birther controversy and 3. his tax returns... 1 and 2 were so far off, I was shocked they were even mentioned, and the third question seemed unfair, knowing how many of us have been calling for the release of Hillary's speech transcripts from Goldman Sachs.. Why couldn't he ask her about that as he asked Trump about his taxes? (not a question direct to you, but talking out loud)... Regardless, I do hope we get a new moderator next time around... Why not Jill Stein or Johnson to moderate? You know they dislike both candidates, so they likely wouldn't toss softball questions to either...

As a citizen, I just want transparency with my clients.. Neither want to be transparent, which leaves me in a state of disappointment with the state of my government and the choices I have to select from
edit on 27-9-2016 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537

I don't think I could get behind either of those candidates moderating but I do hope that the moderator for the next debate sticks to asking the same questions of the candidates and does not attempt to fact check their answers.

You might be on to something though. Perhaps it's a better idea to not have it done by a member of the press? Instead, let the moderator be a referee who has no interest in personally uncovering "the truth" and let the candidates fact check and probe one another's answers.

I dunno though, we're so attached to the theatre of it all.

I also wonder what would happen if the candidate's microphones were cut when it wasn't their turn to speak?
edit on 2016-9-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Mr. Trump, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to -- who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?


He should've just said he destroyed his tax returns with Bleachbit and a hammer.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

He essentially did the same thing in terms of the financial transparency we've come to expect of candidates over the last 40 years. He released exactly what he wanted to be released in the financial disclosure and kept a firm grip on the information he wanted to hide.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The lessor of two evils doesn't even begin to describe the choice we've been given this year. This is like choosing between the anti-christ and Satan himself, but not knowing which is which.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Hard to disagree. Out of a country of 330 million, if a choice between these two is the result of our process for selecting a new leader, then clearly there are some fundamental problems in the process.




top topics



 
15

log in

join