Thursday, October 20, 2016

Debate Number Three - A Clear Choice

Watching the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the first thing I was struck by was how different things were with a moderator who wasn't part of Team Clinton. Chris Wallace is a Democrat, but he's a journalist first and he went out of his way to keep things balanced and on a professional level. There was only one question he asked Trump that I felt was somewhat out of line, but we'll get to that.

That's a 180 degree change from the partisan presstitutes who ran the other debates, and while he won't get any roses from the Left, he deserves congratulations for a job well done.

His greatest accomplish, I think, is that the country now has a pretty good idea of the directions each would take the country.

They can see the difference between Trump's growing the pie and creating real growth as opposed to Hillary Clinton's eat the rich formula ala' Hugo Chavez.

They can see the difference between business as usual and real change.

They can see the change between hope and continued decline and despair.

Mrs. Clinton's goal was to show Trump as unfit for office, dodge any tough questions thrown at her and stay erect for 90 minutes. She failed the first one, had very mixed results on the second that only worked because she outright lied about a number of things and wasn't challenged. She managed the last one thanks to an unknown Dr. Feelgood.

Trump's goal was to appear presidential, challenge Mrs. Clinton's record and give Americans a sense of who he is and where he would take the country. I'd give him an acceptable score on the first and somewhat higher scores on the second and third.

If this was a boxing match, ten point system, I'd score it 6-4 Trump, maybe 7-3.

I think he would have scored better if he said the following:

Challenged Hillary Clinton on the Heller decision, which had nothing to do with toddlers. Yes, she actually said it was about toddlers having access to guns!

What it was actually about was whether Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home. That’s the whole shebang, and the 110 page transcript doesn't even mention toddlers. So she lied, and it's a pity Trump didn't call her on it. I also wish he'd mentioned that contrary to her supporting the Second Amendment,Wikileaks has revealed she's planning a gun grab by executive order. Her nonsense about 'the gun show loophole' also needed to be shredded on national TV for all to see.

When Hillary started bloviating about a no-fly zone in Syria which in effect would protect jihadis, a great response would have been 'That's exactly what you and Barack Obama did in Libya, use our air force to protect jihadis in Benghazi, depose Khaddaffi, allow his arsenals to fall into the jihadist's hands and create a terrorist Disneyland. Hundreds were killed in Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Nigeria because of you, and now you want to do the same thing in Syria?'

Mrs. Clinton's rant about Trump being 'Putin's puppet' could have been shut down hard by simply saying 'If the Russians, Chinese,Iran or whoever hacked into classified material, it's because of your illegal private server that had no protection whatsoever. When you meet these leaders and they hand you a folder with copies of all the e-mails about your crooked deals you thought you deleted, you'll be the one who's the puppet.'

Indeed she will. This isn't someone we should ever trust with national security. And that $6 billion Trump was talking about? No, it hasn't been 'debunked' and no one knows where the money is, although I have an idea where it went and who wound up with it.

The biggest moment is when Hillary was caught flat-footed by Trump as he named the misogynist Muslim nation who treat women horribly and suggested that she give the millions of dollars they've given her back. Her face was something to see and could have curdled fresh milk.

The one thing the Clinton media is going crazy over (because they have nothing else) is a question Chris Wallace asked Trump. Would he accept the results of the election? Trump's answer was perfectly proper. He simply said "I'll let you know when I see them."

The Democrats are the same people who went bats over their failed attempt to steal Florida in 2000, who went around saying, 'Bush isn't my president' are now crazed by Donald Trump refusing to give up his options? Hillary Clinton herself says that Al Gore 'won' the 2000 election. In fact, Democrats have challenged the results of elections they lost over eight times.

In view of James O'Keefe's revelations on voter fraud, dirty tactics and rigged elections, on what's come out via wikileaks, Trump has every right to say he'll wait and see. You'll notice the media is ignoring that particular story:

Even a casual perusal of wikileaks reveals the corruption of the leadership of the Democrat Party. The Democrats could justifiably be called the party of voter fraud and this election has a lot at stake for the powers that be and the establishment. Trump is totally correct that the system is rigged and that includes our election process. No less than one of Hillary's campaign managers John Podesta was caught by wikileaks saying that as far as he's concerned, illegal migrants are allowed to vote if they have a driver's license, something that's already a reality in California.

There are two ways our elections are rigged. Voter fraud is definitely one way, but that usually only works in relatively close elections. Needless to say, the corrupt Obama Department of Justice aids and abets this.

So if the election's close and Trump and his team discover the kind of voter fraud the Democrats are known for, they have every right to demand an investigation. And if the Establishment doesn't like that, tough. The ability to question election results where fraud is suspected shows the strength of our democracy and the rule of law, and if a Democrat had said this, we wouldn't be hearing word one about it.

Another thing worth mentioning is the media reaction to all this. Most of the media polls show Trump behind (although a number of them, even FOX have been caught using very small samples and oversampling Democrats to a ridiculous degree), and the meme is 'Trump's finished, it's going to be a Hillary landslide, game over.'

Now, according to the Media Trump lost the election weeks ago. Trump lost after the first debate. Trump lost after his tax return was stolen. Trump lost after being fired on by the GOP establishment. Trump lost after that secretly recorded locker room conversation was released. Yes, according to the Media, Trump lost the election a long time ago, right?

So why is the Media acting today like he's winning and just blew the whole thing with this 'shocking remark?' Because for that narrative to have any credibility at all, you'd have to believe they thought he was winning and trashed his chances with one statement they're deliberately misinterpreting.

Could it be that they know their polls are cooked and that selling the execrable Mrs. Clinton is a lot harder than they thought it would be? Could it be that Trump is doing a lot better than they want to admit and they're desperately using the weapon of trying to discourage turnout among Trump's supporters by doing their best to convince them that it's hopeless? If that's the case, then their constant refrain of Trump being finished makes sense.

Meanwhile Donald Trump doesn't seem to think he's finished at all! Does he know something the media isn't reporting? I recommend you invest a half hour and watch this:

He's exactly right that a campaign like Hillary's that will illegally pay thugs to incite violence at opposing political rallies will do anything to win. We'll see how successful they are come November 8th.

No comments: