Quick thoughts on the last debate

I’m avoiding any of the actual facts and sticking to my impressions, since at this point this is really all that matters: Who APPEARED better. Not to mention that everybody is lying through their teeth anyway, though from all appearances Clinton moreso than Trump.

It was a draw, which means that Hilary just about clinched her victory. Trump had a couple of moments where he looked brilliant – his attacks on the Clinton Foundation landed VERY hard – and Clinton had her moments of brilliance. I’m thinking particularly of her response when Trump said he’d have to wait to decide if he’d accept the election results as legitimate. She pounced on him for it, and from a rhetorical standpoint, it was a hard punch. She made Trump look bad there.

Otherwise there were a few back and forth exchanges where it looked as if one candidate was about to dominate, and then the other candidate counterattacked successfully.

Trump’s “What a nasty woman” at the end was a mistake. Even I had to laugh at the absurdity of Donald Trump, of all people, making that comment.

So what do I think? The Hillslide cometh.

But then, the whole debate – the whole ELECTION – was 150% worth everything for that wonderful moment where Trump asked Clinton to give all of her money back to Saudi Arabia.

GOLD.

…But a draw overall. See ya soon, President Clinton.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Quick thoughts on the last debate

  1. vishmehr24 says:

    And to war with Russia? Clinton is again calling for no-fly over Syria despite being told it means war.
    Why aren’t social conservatives and others speaking more on this? This disaster needs to be avoided.

  2. Zippy says:

    I didn’t watch, but the answer to ‘will you honor the results’ should have been ‘if my opponent were not s criminal I would’.

  3. Crude says:

    I’d warn against succumbing to demoralization leading up to the election. That doesn’t mean lying to yourself, but repeated invocations of ‘He lost, we lost, it’s over’ largely is a way to get people to stop voting, stop showing up, and also stop caring. Doubly important since what’s going on here is about more than the election itself.

  4. John says:

    Just a few questions regarding this election and Donald Trump:

    Do you believe Trump is pro-life?

    There has been a debate about Trump’s views on abortion mainly because he sometimes doesn’t state his views plainly.

    During the 2015-2016 presidential campaign Trump consistently held a highly restrictive view on abortion, allowing it only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered.

    As well as saying mother’s who commit abortion should face some sort of punishment in late March 2016.

    But some interpret this as just pandering to the pro-life vote, considering how more then 50% of Americans for the first time since the 1970’s hold a much much more restrictive and pro-life view on abortion in the decade of the 2010’s.

    Others think Trump is being genuine, citing his supreme court justice picks and Pence as VP pick as evidence he actually is pro-life, as well as an interview in April 2011 where he states he is pro-life after years of being pro-abortion.

    But this can still be explained as pandering to the pro-life crowd because Trump could have planned his campaign since 2011 and because of this he decided to hold a pro-life position fairly early.

    Sites such as this also criticise and even attack not just Trump, but Pence, Cruz and other prominent politicians who are pro-life as being morally relativist in their thinking of wanting regulations for abortion:

    http://prolifeprofiles.com/

    However, there are many people who still vote for Trump because they believe he is genuinely pro-life and thus a Christian (whether it be Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) can still vote for him with a good conscience.

    What is your take on that issue?

    And few more questions I would like to ask you:

    What if Trump were to actually win on November the 8th?

    Do you think he would make America better than it is now?Do you think he will do wonders for America by maybe exposing the corruption in higher places and cracking down on it or decreasing the amount of debt and giving us a Trump version of the Reagan Miracle by fixing the economy?

    Maybe even reforming the GOP?

    Do you think he will actually hugely help the conservative cause by appointing conservative supreme court justices which would be able to impose newer and tougher restrictions on Roe vs Wade or even reverse the entire ruling considering we would have at least 20 years, more likely 40 – 50 years, of a conservative majority in the court?

    Do you think Trump would be able to reverse the Obergefell vs Hodges decision as he said would likely try to do when he appoints conservative judges?

    Or is this remark by Trump just pandering to the marriage classicists/traditionalists who don’t believe in same-sex marriage?

    Do you think a Trump presidency would be able to decrease visibly the influence of SJW’s and Regressives and give us a chance to likely reverse the liberalisation process that has been going on in culture at large?

    And, in general, do you think a Trump presidency would be a great thing and a great help to America in some way,sort or fashion?

    • Do you believe Trump is pro-life?

      I don’t think it matters. His original stated position before he backtracked was more pro-life than the supposed pro-life lobby. He at least isn’t hostile to the position, which is really all you can ask. Clinton’s position is insane.

      What if Trump were to actually win on November the 8th?

      It would be a good sign for the cultural shift required to make that happen alone.

      What he WILL do? I don’t know. But I do know that if I’m going to compare what he SAYS he’ll do to what Clinton SAYS she’ll do, Trump please.

      Do you think a Trump presidency would be able to decrease visibly the influence of SJW’s and Regressives and give us a chance to likely reverse the liberalisation process that has been going on in culture at large?

      Possibly he can slow it down. In any case, he’ll certainly be the safer option.

      • Andy says:

        He at least isn’t hostile to the position…

        Because he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about it – he’ll say and do whatever he thinks is most effective for aggrandizing himself and / or hurting those that slighted him. If he believed that saying “we should put pro-life activists in Gulags and do everything in our power to increase the number of third trimester abortions!” would help his campaign, he’d say it in a heartbeat.

      • Who cares? Why he’s not hostile doesn’t matter to me. In the “whose character is worse” game Clinton isn’t exactly dominating.

      • Andy says:

        Very low expectations you got there. If someone is not hostile to a position you support, only because said someone has no principles whatsoever and simply says and does whatever is most convenient for him right now – then you are just betting on it not becoming convenient for him to be hostile to that position in the future, because he sure as hell will be as soon as it does become convenient to do so.
        And btw, I don’t support Clinton – my preferred outcome for this election would be a humiliating defeat for Trump, followed by a humiliating one-term Clinton presidency where her hands are tied by republican obstructionism in both houses.

      • My point is that Trump, who is a populist, is not going to be hostile to the pro-life position. Given that he’s entirely alienated the establishment, he’s going to try to play to his base.

        Moreover, I find the idea he’ll start gulags or something ludicrous.

      • The Deuce says:

        And btw, I don’t support Clinton – my preferred outcome for this election would be a humiliating defeat for Trump

        This is some serious mental jujitsu. You do support Clinton, and are trying to rationalize that as the morally superior choice, while moralizing Malcolm for his “very low expectations.”

        followed by a humiliating one-term Clinton presidency where her hands are tied by republican obstructionism in both houses.

        So Malcolm is morally deficient for banking on the possibility that Trump might do what he says, but you think banking on Hillary being a one-term President and the Republicans spontaneously growing spines is completely reasonable.

      • Andy says:

        He is pandering to the religious right because he thinks it will help him to either win the election or style himself as a martyr if he loses. Once he has actually won, he doesn’t need them anymore.

      • Of course he does. Do you really think the support of his base means nothing? For him especially it’s critical.

        This is all besides the point. If Trump does what he says, he’s our best chance to save the country from war with Russia and to significantly slow down illegal immigration. He’ll also crack down on terrorists harder than Clinton.

        If Clinton does what she says, it will be a disaster. If she is lying, I imagine she’ll be even worse than promised.

        And I think Trump will have a hard time getting away with not trying to keep his promises. He’s totally alienated the establishment. All of his power comes from his base.

      • Andy says:

        You do support Clinton, and are trying to rationalize that as the morally superior choice,

        I don’t support her at all. But she is predictable and will most likely be exactly as terrible as expected, while Trump is short-sighted and impulsive enough to sail right under the worst expectations that people have of him.

        …but you think banking on Hillary being a one-term President and the Republicans spontaneously growing spines is completely reasonable

        I’m not banking on Republicans growing a spine, I’m banking on a) Clinton being almost as unpopular as Trump and hurting her party in down-ballot elections and b) on Republicans simply continuing what they have done the last 8 years – reflexively obstruct everything the President wants to do.

      • Crude says:

        And btw, I don’t support Clinton – my preferred outcome for this election would be a humiliating defeat for Trump

        Then you support Clinton. Perhaps grudgingly, but you support her.

        And ‘Republican obstructionism in both houses’? Against a favored daughter of Wall Street? Better yet, fervent Republican obstructionism in both houses hot on the heels of a -humiliating defeat-?

        That is some adorable stuff right there. Trump is more likely to personally sentence Planned Parenthood’s founders to prison than the GOP is likely to be obstructionist against the ‘first female president’ whose economic ideals almost uniformly mirror their own, and whose cultural ideals they either support or don’t care about.

        Hahaha. ‘The GOP will stand up to her!’ That is the best shit I’ve heard all day.

      • Andy says:

        If Trump does what he says, he’s our best chance to save the country from war with Russia and to significantly slow down illegal immigration. He’ll also crack down on terrorists harder than Clinton.

        Yeah, right, he’ll play super-nice with Putin (well, I’m not opposed to the idea of playing nice with Putin because he can be negotiated with, but I think it’s funny how playing nice with Russia magically turned into a good thing for so many Republicans) and he’ll also crack down hard on terrorists by… sending ground troops like in Iraq? No, he now (with hindsight) thinks that was a terrible idea… Maybe by just bombing a regime away without anything even remotely resembling a plan for what is supposed to happen after that like in Lybia? No, he thinks that was a terrible idea as well… Maybe by just drone striking the terrorists (i.e. copying Obama) and spicing it up by murdering their families and stealing Iraq’s oil, all without ever sending any ground troops at all and China will pay for it? Seriously, how do you imagine he will “crack down on terrorists harder than Clinton”, given that Clinton is one of the most hawkish politicians of this generation, I’d really love to know what you have in mind here.

      • In country, not out.

        And you’re damn right I think playing nice with Putin is a good idea.

      • Andy says:

        And you’re damn right I think playing nice with Putin is a good idea.

        Well, I guess we actually agree on that – although I’d wager that with President Trump, “playing nice” here would mean Putin playing Trump like a fiddle (which is certainly preferable to a military escalation…).

        In country, not out.

        By doing what exactly?

      • John says:

        Another, additional question:

        Do you think Trump will be able to fulfill his promises of decreasing taxes and stopping illegal immigration and cracking down on corruption?

        Because there is a chance that Congress may not allow him to have as much power as he could have.

        A liberal friend of mine says that Trump won’t be able to do anything because Congress will be ruled by a majority of Democrats by the time Trump is inaugurated.

        Others say that Congress, having many members that dislike Trump, will deny him the necessary votes for him to implement any reforms.

        What are your thoughts on that?

      • I really, truly have no idea. But I’d like to see him try.

      • Crude says:

        A liberal friend of mine says that Trump won’t be able to do anything because Congress will be ruled by a majority of Democrats by the time Trump is inaugurated.

        If Trump wins, odds of there being ‘a majority of Democrats’ in control are even more distant than they are right now. Those majority scenarios are predicated on Trump losing and dragging down other Republicans. That scenario doesn’t work if Trump actually wins.

        Others say that Congress, having many members that dislike Trump, will deny him the necessary votes for him to implement any reforms.

        A victorious Trump would throw enough chaos into the mix, and be a powerful enough signal of the mood shift in the country, that going diehard obstructionist against him would be politically risky.

        There would be actual ruling-class chaos in the US.

        By the way – it’s naive to think that Trump’s victory would exclusively be a matter of politics. If Trump wins, the cultural victory it would represent would be tremendous. As Breitbart said – politics is downstream from culture. What Trump’s already accomplished is fantastic. With an actual win, I’d be initially far more interested in the revolution it would stir in the culture and in cultural institutions than I would be in the legislative end.

      • The Deuce says:

        He is pandering to the religious right because he thinks it will help him to either win the election or style himself as a martyr if he loses. Once he has actually won, he doesn’t need them anymore.

        Possibly, or possibly not. Regardless, it’s absolutely absurd that you try to present yourself as being wiser and having higher standards on account of “seeing through” Trump’s supposed ruse, while banking your trust on a 4-year Hillary Presidency obstructed by establishment Republicans who’ve spent 8 years giving away the store on everything.

        Like so many NeverTrumpers, you are transparently acting out your own personal sense of aggrievement and resentment that the Republican party didn’t choose someone more like you in outlook as the nominee, and rationalizing it as high-minded principle.

      • Andy says:

        Regardless, it’s absolutely absurd that you try to present yourself as being wiser and having higher standards…

        That I have an opinion differing from yours does not necessarily entail that I am wiser than you are or have higher standards, and it is strange that you conclude this based on hearing an opinion you disagree with.

        …on account of “seeing through” Trump’s supposed ruse…

        I don’t think that it takes much wisdom or insight to, say, see that Trump does not care in any way whatsoever about Christianity (neither do I btw, but I could do a much better job pretending to be a Christian, and I could do so without trying very hard).

        while banking your trust on a 4-year Hillary Presidency obstructed by establishment Republicans who’ve spent 8 years giving away the store on everything.

        They obstucted almost everything they were able to obstruct – FFS, they didn’t even accept Merrick Garland(!) as a nominee for the supreme court (and boy will they regret this in a few months…).

        Like so many NeverTrumpers, you are transparently acting out your own personal sense of aggrievement and resentment that the Republican party didn’t choose someone more like you in outlook as the nominee…

        Nope, I’m a) not a Republican and b) welcome Trump as a Republican nominee in some respects, because it had the nice side effect of ending or at least irreperably damaging the careers of many corrupt politicians – the more this keeps up, the better, as long as it ends with Trump’s political career and reputation being scorched and salted.

    • Do you believe Trump is pro-life?

      I don’t think he personally holds particularly pro-life views. However, I also don’t think he’d have any real reason to backtrack on his promise to appoint pro-life judges.

  5. John says:

    ”Because he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about it – he’ll say and do whatever he thinks is most effective for aggrandizing himself and / or hurting those that slighted him.”

    How do you know?

    So far it seems that there is an chance Trump is actually honestly pro-life.

    He publicly proclaimed his change in April 2011, half a decade ago. He has been consistent with that position ever since, at least when it comes to his public proclamations.

    To claim that he doesn’t actually care about the issue at all and that there is no chance he actually does have pro-life beliefs is to claim that Trump decided to concoct a lie about his actual positions as early as 2011 in order to prepare for the elections which were 5 years in the future.

    It is also to claim that Trump chose a conservative VP for the sake of getting pro-lifers to look at him positively and that he made up an entire list of preferred supreme court justices just so that he could pander to pro-lifers.

    Doesn’t make the idea that he is actually lying seem more likely than that he is honest.

    At this point, he could actually be pro-life.Or maybe he isn’t.

    And let’s not forget that this claim relies on the contingent that Trump is someone who is consistently dishonest and would say anything to get support.

    An assumption that is heavily contested and doubted by many other people.

  6. Look, I support Trump for four main reasons:

    1) He has done fantastic work weeding out the corruption in the government, even if indirectly. That alone makes the campaign a massive success whatever else happens; politics follows culture.

    2) He claims he’ll do something to stop illegal immigration. About time.

    3) He is at least open to ideas on what to do about the terrorist attacks by muslims on American soil. Obviously the term has become politically tainted now but it really is a strong point that for a long time the democrats refused to even call the terrorism Islamic. Trump has, if not removed the tabboo on calling the spade a spade, at least challenged it

    4) Arguably most importantly, he probably isn’t going to provoke a war with Russia.

    Will he necessarily keep his promises? No, of course not. No politician is definitely keeping all of their promises. But I like what I’m hearing from Trump more than I like what I’m hearing from Jeb!, that’s for sure.

    • Crude says:

      My sentiments exactly.

    • John says:

      Are you replying to me?Because that comment of mine was directed to Andy, not to you.

    • Andy says:

      Regarding your point #1 – agreed, and I would also agree that his candidacy was worth it for that reason alone. But it’s not like he has a problem with corruption as long as it benefits him personally. He’s just as corrupt as the people whose careers he has destroyed or damaged, that’s why I hope that he crashes and burns after causing as much damage as possible.

      Re #3 – what “ideas”? I appreciate it that islamic terrorism is called islamic terrorism, so yeah, he calls a spade a spade wrt this issue. But what “ideas” is he open to in this respect?

      Re #4 – indeed, at least not as long as Putin keeps massaging Trumps fragile little ego. But that doesn’t mean that he won’t be even more likely than Clinton to provoke gratuitous wars in other regions, Iran comes to mind. Wrt foreign politics, he is a completely loose cannon – potentially better than Clinton would be, and potentially much, much, MUCH worse (if he gets in the mood of satisfying his curiosity about nuclear weapons in a more empirical fashion).

      • Re #3 – what “ideas”? I appreciate it that islamic terrorism is called islamic terrorism, so yeah, he calls a spade a spade wrt this issue. But what “ideas” is he open to in this respect?

        Well, at one point he was talking about banning muslim immigration and, if I remember correctly, monitoring muslim communities. He did indeed backtrack when it became clear that nobody else would have gone for it – but he actually brought them up as live options. Who else would have dared?

        As for your response to point four, so far I see no sign he’s particularly likely to provoke a war in that region. A bunch of people going “But loose cannon!” doesn’t move me.

  7. (This is all ignoring the many, many, many reasons not to support Grandma Abortion Witch.)

  8. Wood says:

    Trump has smoked out so many, many people’s true beliefs – from the famous to the girl running the front desk. Abortion, women, race, Clinton – you name it, and folks are rather casually stating things that one year ago would have dropped nearly all jaws. I’m relatively young so I’m sure this is old hat to most. I can’t say I agree with the climate of discourse that’s now socially acceptable, but it woke me from a naivety I never knew I had – and I seriously cannot believe I will have to hear that beast’s voice and name for the next 8 years. This election, this papacy – it’s all of some piece that’s been helpful in a way I can’t yet describe. For that, I’m appreciative of his candidacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s