Trump was telling the truth about his mic

[onwebcam]

The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates says there was indeed a problem with Donald Trump?s microphone during Monday night?s first general election debate.
The commission says on its website that ?there were issues regarding Donald Trump?s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall.?

The latest news from the debate commission confirms one of Donald Trump’s biggest claims – Rare

[EddyTheDog]

So what? - People heard him sniff...

It just shows how tenuous his position is.....

Hillary had pneumonia and it was not an issue at the end of the day - His sniff is?..

[2MuchMark]

From that page "There was no noticeable issue with the sound on television."

[crockett]

[mineistaken]

Who cares about the mic when it is nothing in comparison to biased moderator (15 vs 2 questions etc etc what was already discussed). Not sure why people even talk about this minor minor issue compared to democrat party funders NBC and their puppet moderator.

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Who cares about the mic when it is nothing in comparison to biased moderator (15 vs 2 questions etc etc what was already discussed). Not sure why people even talk about this minor minor issue compared to democrat party funders NBC and their puppet moderator.

So is Hillary winning - Even if you believe it is by nefarious means?..

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

So is Hillary winning - Even if you believe it is by nefarious means?..

How did you manage to come up with this conclusion?
Biased moderator does not automatically mean you lose. You just get a handicap, speaking in sports terms.

As I said in your microphone thread:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

He won only by a little because of biased questioning.

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...icrophone.html

Would have been clear victory if both candidates got the same amount of tough questions. And if both candidates were interrupted the same amount of times.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Who cares about the mic when it is nothing in comparison to biased moderator (15 vs 2 questions etc etc what was already discussed). Not sure why people even talk about this minor minor issue compared to democrat party funders NBC and their puppet moderator.

That's why I posted it. The libs love to take these little non-issues and make them big issues. I had one come at me last night on FB with this shit. Not only did she come at me with these little talking points such as him tossing out a crying baby (which he didn't). She literally tried to say that if you were wearing or displaying Trump campaign merchandise you may as well have a Swastika (she really used this word) on your forehead. Essentially saying that if you are attacked for wearing his merchandise it's your own fault because you're a racist.

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

How did you manage to come up with this conclusion?
Biased moderator does not automatically mean you lose. You just get a handicap, speaking in sports terms.

As I said in your microphone thread:


https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...icrophone.html

Would have been clear victory if both candidates got the same amount of tough questions. And if both candidates were interrupted the same amount of times.

So he won despite the fixed mic and biased questions? - Damn, he is good...

[JFK]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

So he won despite the fixed mic and biased questions? - Damn, he is good...

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

So he won despite the fixed mic and biased questions? - Damn, he is good...

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by **********

From that page "There was no noticeable issue with the sound on television."

shhhhhh ... dont piss on the parade !

[directfiesta]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Holt


Lester Holt
Party = Republican




only moderator acceptable to this crowd here is .... Sean Hannity ....

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

So he won despite the fixed mic and biased questions? - Damn, he is good...

Mic is irrelevant, I have no idea why people imagine that mic was a big factor...

Even in sports you can win against biased refs, it is not like biased ref is always biased to the ridiculous levels. He still wants to keep his bias under wraps.
So in terms of basketball it can mean that biased ref "scores" extra 5, extra 10 points to another team. It is not a fantastic handicap to beat.

It is not like Lester was ridiculously biased, he had to keep some kind of image (to the level that some libbies even do not acknowledge). So the bias was not THAAAAAAT much to beat that your "damn he is good" irony would be adequate.
Without bias Trump would have won in an obvious way, with bias - a win was tiny. Ok, a draw at worst.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Holt


Lester Holt
Party = Republican




only moderator acceptable to this crowd here is .... Sean Hannity ....

So? There are probably millions of republicans who hate Trump. More important it was NBC.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uncensoredn...ocratic_party/
He was also pressured by democrat campaign. Sometimes you overcompensate.

Seriously, double standard by moderator was exposed, documented. It was obvious watching as well.
How can some manage to not see is strange. And yeah, the mighty "he is a registered republican" argument...

[plaster]

Trump said right after the debate in the circle jerk room something was off with hus mic. Hope it wasn't intentional. That's it... it bothered him a little during the debate, enough to mention it after.

He hasn't harped on the issue since. It's all this media nonsense going on about it. He had a bumb mic for the people in the building listening. Obviously it was intentional and goes to show how much of a pussy the democrats are by using these types of tactics.

It's insane the Clintons are worth 250 million dollars today for selling out the American people and you libs can't understand that. Again, Russia owns 20% US uranium because hillary allowed the purchase and they received a few million as a result. How can anyone ignore that?

Clintons have invented nothing, made nothing. No buildings, no products. They are rich for using political poll to satisfy special interests foreign and abroad. Period. There is nothing else to argue.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by plaster

Trump said right after the debate in the circle jerk room something was off with hus mic. Hope it wasn't intentional. That's it... it bothered him a little during the debate, enough to mention it after.

He hasn't harped on the issue since. It's all this media nonsense going on about it. He had a bumb mic for the people in the building listening. Obviously it was intentional and goes to show how much of a pussy the democrats are by using these types of tactics.

It's insane the Clintons are worth 250 million dollars today for selling out the American people and you libs can't understand that. Again, Russia owns 20% US uranium because hillary allowed the purchase and they received a few million as a result. How can anyone ignore that?

Clintons have invented nothing, made nothing. No buildings, no products. They are rich for using political poll to satisfy special interests foreign and abroad. Period. There is nothing else to argue.

It has been stated that the overall size of Bush Family net worth today reaches a high sum of 60 million dollars.
Read more at Bush Family net worth! ? How rich is Bush Family?

===========



That gives a combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars.


So , as a repub, you should be proud that the Cl;inton's did great , prospered .....

[plaster]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

It has been stated that the overall size of Bush Family net worth today reaches a high sum of 60 million dollars.
Read more at Bush Family net worth! ? How rich is Bush Family?

===========



That gives a combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars.


So , as a repub, you should be proud that the Cl;inton's did great , prospered .....

Uggg... it's pointless. Go watch Clinton Cash and report back.

[kane]

A defective mic is not responsible for Trump saying stupid things.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by kane

A defective mic is not responsible for Trump saying stupid things.

It's more about libs running with it and making it a big issue. But it does also make you wonder if it was an attempt at sabotage. It was a live broadcast. The most viewed debate in history. These things should have been checked over and over.

[kane]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

It's more about libs running with it and making it a big issue. But it does also make you wonder if it was an attempt at sabotage. It was a live broadcast. The most viewed debate in history. These things should have been checked over and over.

The libs have nothing to do with him slamming Rosie O'Donnell and suggesting that stop and frisk is the way to fix the problems in the black community. Having a defective mic doesn't force him to say shit like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of sabotage played out against his mic, but, again, as I said, a broken mike doesn't cause him to say things that make him look like an asshole.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by kane

The libs have nothing to do with him slamming Rosie O'Donnell and suggesting that stop and frisk is the way to fix the problems in the black community. Having a defective mic doesn't force him to say shit like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of sabotage played out against his mic, but, again, as I said, a broken mike doesn't cause him to say things that make him look like an asshole.

Stop and frisk is used successfully all over the country and has been deemed constitutional dating back to 1968. It's not a stupid comment and it's proved to prevent crimes, especially homicide. These are all facts.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

Stop and frisk is used successfully all over the country and has been deemed constitutional dating back to 1968. It's not a stupid comment and it's proved to prevent crimes, especially homicide. These are all facts.

So you think cops going into neighborhoods that are already very anti-cop (for right or wrong reasons) and randomly stopping and frisking people is going to help that neighborhood feel better and want to work with the police?

Also, do you want to live in a country where you can be walking down the street, minding your own business, and be stopped, frisked, and questioned for no reason?

I don't.


Can you point out where it has worked? What I have read pretty much says that crime rates were going down before stop and frisk was put in place and they continued to go down after it was stopped being used.

Here is an interesting piece on that using data from New York.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by plaster

Stop and frisk is used successfully all over the country and has been deemed constitutional dating back to 1968. It's not a stupid comment and it's proved to prevent crimes, especially homicide. These are all facts.

Uggg... it's pointless. Go watch Trump Cash and report back.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by kane

The libs have nothing to do with him slamming Rosie O'Donnell and suggesting that stop and frisk is the way to fix the problems in the black community. Having a defective mic doesn't force him to say shit like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of sabotage played out against his mic, but, again, as I said, a broken mike doesn't cause him to say things that make him look like an asshole.

Rosie started the feud, who's like most liberals and can't handle a taste of her own medicine. I don't blame him one bit for not laying down and just taking it. As far as the black community to be honest I'm quite tired of hearing about it. Until the black community itself changes within nothing can be done.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by kane

So you think cops going into neighborhoods that are already very anti-cop (for right or wrong reasons) and randomly stopping and frisking people is going to help that neighborhood feel better and want to work with the police?

Also, do you want to live in a country where you can be walking down the street, minding your own business, and be stopped, frisked, and questioned for no reason?

I don't.


Can you point out where it has worked? What I have read pretty much says that crime rates were going down before stop and frisk was put in place and they continued to go down after it was stopped being used.

Here is an interesting piece on that using data from New York.

Find any article about the issue dating prior 2016 and start reading. Pay attention to Guiliano and his start in office in '94.

Also, are you a known or suspected gang banger by police? If the answer is no you're probably going to be ok.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

Find any article about the issue dating prior 2016 and start reading. Pay attention to Guiliano and his start in office in '94.

Also, are you a known or suspected gang banger by police? If the answer is no you're probably going to be ok.

The link I posted above shows data going back to 1990. It shows crime dropped dramatically from the early 1990's to around 2002-2004. Stop and frisk started in NY around 2004. During that time, the data shows the number of stops and frisks skyrocketed, but the number of violent crimes didn't really change that much.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by kane

The link I posted above shows data going back to 1990. It shows crime dropped dramatically from the early 1990's to around 2002-2004. Stop and frisk started in NY around 2004. During that time, the data shows the number of stops and frisks skyrocketed, but the number of violent crimes didn't really change that much.

That article was written a week ago by the Washington post.

Also, Rudy Guiliano started mayor in nyc in 1994... yes, '94, and stop and frisk was one of his biggest policies besides increasing police force by almost 100%.

We really shouldn't debate because your facts are so wrong. Also, the Washington post is so liberal biased it's insane. They may have called stop and frisk something different in the 90's.

[kane]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Rosie started the feud, who's like most liberals and can't handle a taste of her own medicine. I don't blame him one bit for not laying down and just taking it. As far as the black community to be honest I'm quite tired of hearing about it. Until the black community itself changes within nothing can be done.

The feud with Rosie and Trump took place way back in 2006. It was mostly a thing of the past until 2011 when Rosie announced she was getting married and Trump had to add his 2 cents and bash her. She hasn't said anything to him, other than to respond to him since. So then, out of nowhere, he brings up Rosie during the debate. This was his response to being called out for his treatment of women by Clinton. His defense is that he only attacked Rosie and she deserved it. Sorry, you can gargle Trump's balls all day if you want, but him doing that makes him look petty and it will likely turn some women off. He had a perfect opportunity to point out his record of hiring women and promoting women (I don't know if he really does that or not, but if he does he had a perfect chance here) and instead he uses it to bash Rosie again.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

That article was written a week ago by the Washington post.

Also, Rudy Guiliano started mayor in nyc in 1994... yes, '94, and stop and frisk was one of his biggest policies besides increasing police force by almost 100%.

We really shouldn't debate because your facts are so wrong. Also, the Washington post is so liberal biased it's insane. They may have called stop and frisk something different in the 90's.

You have yet to actually post anything but what you say is fact. You have nothing to back it up but your words. The article I posted uses data drawn from various sources and speaks to several experts. But, I will agree with you that we shouldn't debate this topic. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine.

My point in all of this was that Trump was asked how he would bridge the divide that exists between many black communities and the police and his answer was stop and frisk. I disagree with him, you agree with him. Fair enough.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by kane

You have yet to actually post anything but what you say is fact. You have nothing to back it up but your words. The article I posted uses data drawn from various sources and speaks to several experts. But, I will agree with you that we shouldn't debate this topic. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine.

My point in all of this was that Trump was asked how he would bridge the divide that exists between many black communities and the police and his answer was stop and frisk. I disagree with him, you agree with him. Fair enough.

I'll post some articles as soon as I muster up the motivation to go find some on a desktop.

Here's what I'm going to post though and it's going to show a 75% decrease in murders in nyc under giuliani's term as mayor. And a large part of that is contributed to the use of stop and frisk from the horses mouth himself, well before trump began running for potus.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

I'll post some articles as soon as I muster up the motivation to go find some on a desktop.

Here's what I'm going to post though and it's going to show a 75% decrease in murders in nyc under giuliani's term as mayor. And a large part of that is contributed to the use of stop and frisk from the horses mouth himself, well before trump began running for potus.

I don't deny that crime went down drastically under Giuliani. I just dispute that stop and frisk played a big role in it. Wikipedia says stop and frisk didn't get put into full use until 2002 and it really kicked into high gear in around 2008 and peaking in around 2011.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by kane

The feud with Rosie and Trump took place way back in 2006. It was mostly a thing of the past until 2011 when Rosie announced she was getting married and Trump had to add his 2 cents and bash her. She hasn't said anything to him, other than to respond to him since. So then, out of nowhere, he brings up Rosie during the debate. This was his response to being called out for his treatment of women by Clinton. His defense is that he only attacked Rosie and she deserved it. Sorry, you can gargle Trump's balls all day if you want, but him doing that makes him look petty and it will likely turn some women off. He had a perfect opportunity to point out his record of hiring women and promoting women (I don't know if he really does that or not, but if he does he had a perfect chance here) and instead he uses it to bash Rosie again.

It didn't come out of nowhere. Hillary has been using that feud against him in the campaign. Same with "Ms Piggy."

[kane]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

It didn't come out of nowhere. Hillary has been using that feud against him in the campaign. Same with Ms Piggy.

Clearly, I'm not going to convince you that he looked bad in bringing this up. This is how politics at this level work. Your opponent uses things you have said and done in the past against you just like Trump is trying to use Bill's cheating against Hillary. It is how you respond to these things that matter. Trump, the supposed master negotiator, got suckered by Hillary into spouting shit about Rosie during a debate where 100 million people were watching. What is going to get suckered into when he is sitting across from another world leader and nobody is watching?

[plaster]

Originally Posted by kane

I don't deny that crime went down drastically under Giuliani. I just dispute that stop and frisk played a big role in it. Wikipedia says stop and frisk didn't get put into full use until 2002 and it really kicked into high gear in around 2008 and peaking in around 2011.

Well I think you need to ask yourself an important question:

Rudy Giuliani is one of Trump's closest advisers. Rudy Giuliani is well respected as being the mayor that reduced crime and murder in NYC under his watch.
Trump is following the advice of Giuliani in saying stop and frisk should be used.
Libs are crying foul and all kinds of unconstitutional mumbo jumbo nonsense.

Here's a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-a..._New_York_City

Stop-and-frisk is not necessarily a new invention. In the early 1980s if a police officer had reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, he had the authority to stop someone and ask questions. If, based on the subject's answers, the suspicion level did not escalate to probable cause for an arrest, the person would be released immediately. This was only a "stop-and-question". The "frisk" part of the equation did not come into play except on two occasions: (1)If possession of a weapon was suspected, or (2)if reasonable suspicion of a possible crime escalated to probable cause to arrest for an actual crime based on facts developed after the initial stop-and-question. That all changed in the 1990s when CompStat was developed under then Police Commissioner William Bratton. High-ranking police officials widely incorporated the "stop, question and frisk".[10]

In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton described George L. Kelling as his "intellectual mentor", and implemented a zero tolerance policy because of his contributions to the development of the "broken windows theory". Republican former mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bratton as his police commissioner who adopted the strategy more widely for use in New York City. Giuliani used Bratton and the massive expansion of the New York police department to crack down on crimes. Giuliani's "zero-tolerance" included a crackdown on fare evasion, public drinking, public urination, graffiti artists and the "squeegee men" (who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and aggressively demanding payment).[11]

You can't make a case that 2+2=4. You can only use your common sense and knowledge of history.

Say you were to have watched msnbc only this past week and then asked about stop and frisk, and having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject. Your only response would be that stop and frisk is unconstitutional, absolutely does not work, and Trump is a racist. That's really how bad the reporting has become, in the masses.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

Well I think you need to ask yourself an important question:

Rudy Giuliani is one of Trump's closest advisers. Rudy Giuliani is well respected as being the mayor that reduced crime and murder in NYC under his watch.
Trump is following the advice of Giuliani in saying stop and frisk should be used.
Libs are crying foul and all kinds of unconstitutional mumbo jumbo nonsense.

Here's a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-a..._New_York_City

Stop-and-frisk is not necessarily a new invention. In the early 1980s if a police officer had reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, he had the authority to stop someone and ask questions. If, based on the subject's answers, the suspicion level did not escalate to probable cause for an arrest, the person would be released immediately. This was only a "stop-and-question". The "frisk" part of the equation did not come into play except on two occasions: (1)If possession of a weapon was suspected, or (2)if reasonable suspicion of a possible crime escalated to probable cause to arrest for an actual crime based on facts developed after the initial stop-and-question. That all changed in the 1990s when CompStat was developed under then Police Commissioner William Bratton. High-ranking police officials widely incorporated the "stop, question and frisk".[10]

In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton described George L. Kelling as his "intellectual mentor", and implemented a zero tolerance policy because of his contributions to the development of the "broken windows theory". Republican former mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bratton as his police commissioner who adopted the strategy more widely for use in New York City. Giuliani used Bratton and the massive expansion of the New York police department to crack down on crimes. Giuliani's "zero-tolerance" included a crackdown on fare evasion, public drinking, public urination, graffiti artists and the "squeegee men" (who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and aggressively demanding payment).[11]

You can't make a case that 2+2=4. You can only use your common sense and knowledge of history.

Say you were to have watched msnbc only this past week and then asked about stop and frisk, and having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject. Your only response would be that stop and frisk is unconstitutional, absolutely does not work, and Trump is a racist. That's really how bad the reporting has become, in the masses.

When I read the wiki page it sounds like a zero-tolerance police and cracking down on certain things got the crime rate to drop. They then started stop and frisk and eventually it ended. If you read further in that wiki it also says fact checks show that it didn't really help.

All in all, we can argue all day as to whether it does or does not reduce crime. Trump is saying stop and frisk is going to be how he helps the black community. I feel like that will go over like a fart in a car. But, I guess we will find out. If Trump manages to win and puts this into action, once the lawsuits settle we will get to see if it helps or not. I think we will see more protests and riots.

Also, from that wiki it says in 2011 when they had the most stop and frisk occurnaces 88% of them resulted in no conviction. That is a lot of innocent people being stopped for "probable cause."

[plaster]

It's a stupid wiki page. What I don't understand about Trump is why he doesn't say first, and foremost, bringing jobs into center cities will be the catalyst to lower crime. Then expand on better police relations, education, more police presence, stop and frisk etc.

He says all those things but not at the debate in progressive order so the masses can easily understand. The majority of people listen to the soundbites coming off the news and it's very, very anti-trump.

Couple that with factual nontruths and you have people say they won't vote for trump and their reason being...

He's a racist!

As soon as I hear that I know the person is fairly stupid.

[kane]

Originally Posted by plaster

It's a stupid wiki page. What I don't understand about Trump is why he doesn't say first, and foremost, bringing jobs into center cities will be the catalyst to lower crime. Then expand on better police relations, education, more police presence, stop and frisk etc.

He says all those things but not at the debate in progressive order so the masses can easily understand. The majority of people listen to the soundbites coming off the news and it's very, very anti-trump.

Couple that with factual nontruths and you have people say they won't vote for trump and their reason being...

He's a racist!

As soon as I hear that I know the person is fairly stupid.

We agree 100% on the fact that until jobs (and I feel better education) are brought to those inner cities nothing will change. Nothing is going to change in the black communities around this country until the people living in them decide to make the change. I see some of them being pissed about higher police presence then they turn right around and talk about how they don't snitch. Well, if they want crime to stop, they have to tell the cops who the bad guys are.

If they decide to stop shooting each other and robbing each other and come together to support their local businesses and educate their kids they could turn their lives around. Until they decide to do that no amount of policing is going to change things.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Holt


Lester Holt
Party = Republican




only moderator acceptable to this crowd here is .... Sean Hannity ....

Lester Holt's bosses control what he says, not Lester Holt.

[Rochard]

There was nothing wrong with his microphone. We could hear him fine.

Originally Posted by plaster

Rudy Giuliani is one of Trump's closest advisers. Rudy Giuliani is well respected as being the mayor that reduced crime and murder in NYC under his watch.

That's some bullshit right there.

Yes, crime did drop while Rudy was Mayor of NYC. However, Rudy started off as Mayor in 1994 - directly after the end of the crack epidemic at the end of the 1980s. Crime didn't drop only in NYC, but instead dropped all across the country. Crime didn't drop in NYC because of Rudy or anything he did, but instead because crime had peaked and was in a general decline by the time Rudy took office.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by plaster

It's a stupid wiki page. What I don't understand about Trump is why he doesn't say first, and foremost, bringing jobs into center cities will be the catalyst to lower crime. Then expand on better police relations, education, more police presence, stop and frisk etc.

He says all those things but not at the debate in progressive order so the masses can easily understand. The majority of people listen to the soundbites coming off the news and it's very, very anti-trump.

Couple that with factual nontruths and you have people say they won't vote for trump and their reason being...

He's a racist!

As soon as I hear that I know the person is fairly stupid.

It's very easy to say "bring jobs to the inner cities" but it's impossible to do. The potential employee pool is less than motivated, crime is a constant, and there is little economic incentive.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

There was nothing wrong with his microphone. We could hear him fine.

It's settled, Rochard has weighed in, notify the commission they were wrong in their findings.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

It's settled, Rochard has weighed in, notify the commission they were wrong in their findings.

Rochard is one of the...

Trump is a racist!

[baddog]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

shhhhhh ... dont piss on the parade !

Wondering how he should have known that people watching TV could hear him even if the people there couldn't.

[Paul Markham]

He still has answers to the problems many Americans face.

Pity he's batshit crazy and crooked.