sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Post #1st Debate Thoughts

I watched the debate and will offer my take on the outcome, offering unwanted advice to Trump, who does not read my blog. Though he should.

Megyn Kelly - GQ Photo Shoot

I told LSP that I wouldn't watch Megyn Kelly's analysis unless she did it nude. How's that for sexism? Megyn annoys me. And she really doesn't like Trump...however if she was commenting while nude, I have to confess that I'd tune in precisely because I am a heterosexual male. I predict that her ratings would improve until everyone got used to seeing her in the buff, then they'd drop off.

But I digress.

Trump didn't lose the debate and Hillary, who was on her 9th Presidential Debate didn't succeed in making him look bad. Hillary smirked, and the wild eye began to twitch as Trump laid into her early in the debate. Then Trump backed off. Trump got the point across that Hillary and friends have failed to do anything about ISIS since they created it; Their trade deals hurt America; They have made a mockery of the 'inner city voter'; and she was a failure at everything she did while working for government over the past thirty years.

Trump could have gotten tougher on the e-mail scandal, on the energy program where  Hillary wanted to put miners out of work, and shouldn't have worked so hard to justify his actions. Hillary started the birther movement, he followed up, and eventually Obama produced a birth certificate. Who cares. The tit for tat: Tax Returns for Hillary's 33,000 emails being released shut Hillary up. She moved on.

The now Infamous Trump Tax Returns are a red herring that he's holding back. Let the media go insane over them. At about 3 weeks out, he'll release them and there will be -- nothing worth attacking. He'll use it when Hillary triumphs in some way to dull her surge. And you know that the media will tumble for it.

A draw would have been a Trump victory. 

The debate was roughly a draw and that means that Trump won.

Unlike many of you, I thought that the moderator, Lester Holt, an NBC Anchor, exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect him to be fair, and he wasn't in a subjective sense, but he was more fair than I thought that he would be. Does that make sense? Rachel Maddow would have been worse as would have Kieth Olbermann. The mainstream media always favors the Democrat and had he not done that to some degree, he might have been in a bread line D-Day+1.





41 comments:

  1. I made a point to try and not watch this debate. I wound up watching the first 5 minutes, hoping for Hillary to collapse with a grand mal seizure. When she didn't, I then switched to the Atlanta Falcons vs NO Saints. Megyn Kelly irks me to no end as well. As does Sheppard Smith and 'Campaign Cark' Cameron. But I would watch a nude Megyn Kelly read the teleprompter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would think that any heterosexual male would tune in for a naked Megyn Kelly...even if all she was going to do was read a cookbook.

      Delete
    2. It's simply what we do. We can't help it.

      Delete
  2. I've just watched it on YouTube. To be fair, Hillary came across better than I expected though the permanent grin on her face started to irk me. She definitely scrubbed up well despite trying to get a modern day look on Santa Claus. Trump has a mean stare that would suit a cowboy hat and would be preferable to his ridiculous hairstyle. I'm sorry guys, but since you lot find it fair to pull up the birds if they don't come up to scratch then really, Trump HAS TO SORT THIS OUT. Easy on the eye is a two way Street. Put Channing Tatum up and I wouldn't give a flying f....orty nine thousand reasons what he said....

    My points:

    “It’s essential that American word be good….."says Hillary…. I'm rolling my eyes at that, I really am.... LOL.
    I agree with her that education should be free as I agree with that here. I agree that more money/ help needs to be pushed into hard working, middle class areas, people and small business but I don't think that should come out of the pockets of rich, successful businesses and /or owners. You shouldn't be penalised for doing well.
    I do think something needs to be done about your gun laws (Arrr, don't lynch the Brit just yet...) in the respect that they're too easy for nut jobs to get hold of. You have the right to bear arms, fine but this should be a lot more selective. Too may people are getting killed by them.
    I am interested to know why Trump won't release his taxes... well, I am and I'm not. He's a shrewd business man so he's likely to have dodged a few taxes in his time - who wouldn’t? An auditing process will be trying to clean that up nicely. That doesn't really bother me and his come back on the e-mails put that to bed.

    I think Hillary comes over as a lot more polished in her delivery but I’d expect that after 30 years of acting. What I like about Trump is that he’s real and straightforward and that has won him a lot of support. He’s a business man with experience and would sort out your economy and trade. I wouldn’t say his temperament is easy going as he suggests; anyone hard in business tends to be feisty and lacking in compassion. But he does have passion and I like that. He has balls which is what your country needs right now, it’s just whether or not he can do the job without too much arrogance. But then, he’ll all his puppets around him to sort that out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gun laws only apply to honest people. Criminals and "nut jobs" can always get them. France has tight gun laws and the terrorists didn't seem to have difficulty laying hands on them did they? There was nobody to shoot back.

      The hairstyle thing is something that I don't get, but it's one of a few things that I don't really understand about Trump. Hillary is the product of a political machine that put her forward and will defend her. Trump is his own man in a very real sense, so I either forgive him a few of his eccentric ways (like the gold hotels and the hair) or I accept the machine politics that is ruining the nation.

      Delete
    2. Mexico has very tough gun laws, and yet, they have excessive firearm-related crime. In fact, if I wanted a machine gun (illegal in the US), the easiest way to lay hands on one would be to pick one up in Mexico and then walk it across the undefended border.

      The best way to deal with firearms related crime is to empower honest people, not to disarm them so that criminals have the edge.

      Delete
    3. I understand that and I think it's ship and sailed on that one in your country because it's too easy for nutters to get hold of them so you have to counteract it. I don't think it should be so easy to buy one without stricter guidelines. I also think some sort of 'psychological evaluation' should be in place.
      But in the last few shootings I've seen reported, not one of them was taken out by an honest, gun armed citizen.

      Delete
    4. Having dealt with the issue professionally, I can tell you that the stats show that 99.98% of all firearms in America are never used in a crime. .02% are and the media exploits that in excruciating detail. There are something over 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in America and trillions of rounds of ammunition. If honest people wanted to start shit, you'd hear about it.

      .02% means that the number of firearms in private hands used in a crime are statistically insignificant. Everywhere in America that private citizens are empowered to exercise their RIGHTS, crime goes down. As soon as laws are passed restricting firearms to criminals, the results are predictable.

      Delete
    5. When you were on sojourn in Texas, Colorado, Florida, etc. where likely 1 in 3 cars on the highway had firearms in them, what did you see, Jules? NOTHING. When you were hanging out in Texas how many firearms did you see? How many did you hear (beyond going to the range)? The organized crime thugs in the UK all have firearms. They don't use them all of the time, but they have access. Don't forget, I served in NORTHERN IRELAND in the US Military, as you know, back when it was hot in the early-mid 70's and saw a lot of firearms in private hands. No, Belfast is not Nottingham, but it's still the UK. How well did the gun laws work then? There are cemeteries full of people who would tell you that between guns and bombs, the laws were ineffective in stopping the Provos or the UVF (the Orange hand or the Black hand)

      Delete
    6. Are you telling me off, Larry Lambert? :) Good points all but how come I never hear of an honest armed citizen taking out a nut job shooting a gun in a mall or nightclub or music show etc...etc... ?

      Delete
    7. Because you evidently don't get all of the news.

      Delete
    8. OK - Then please enlighten me because in most cases I've heard about, it has been the police. Where are all these vigilantes?
      http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

      Delete
    9. > some sort of 'psychological evaluation' should be in place
      I would have little problem with preventing someone with a diagnosed serious psychiatric problem possessing a firearm. (Exactly which conditions, and how identified/defined remains to be worked out.) However, "psychological evaluation" is WAY too broad and I guarantee you would be abused. Bear in mind the following:
      1. Many people who go into psych and related fields are themselves damaged or unstable. And they project their own pathology onto others.
      2. There are those, especially among academics (and I say this as an academic physician, though not a pshrink, thank God) who consider conservativism to be a mental illness, for example. As another example, I have colleagues who think I am paranoid to a "needs treatment" degree because I recommend that people lock their car doors when driving around. (Because who would possibly have evil designs on a 175-cm, 54-kg beautiful Scandinavian girl?)

      Delete
    10. Honest citizens taking out nut jobs is not what they want to report. It doesn't fit the gun control agenda. It does happen, but the only place you are likely to read about it would be on blogs or websites by pro gun and pro second amendment people.

      Delete
    11. Mike: I agree that some shrinks are full of psychobabble and are generally broken people who tend to project their 'pushed buttoned' emotional responses onto their clients. And yes, a 'psychological evaluation' is a little broad. But how about anyone who owns a firearm has to be subject to some medical testing by their GP once a year? Are they depressed? Are they suffering from anxiety/the onset of Alzheimers etc...stress related illness -triggers that might cause the pulling of triggers. And I appreciate that you can't cover everyone but it's a good start.

      Delete
    12. Linda: I'm very familiar with how the media work and what is or isn't in their interest to report and appreciate there will be many incidents of 'Hero pistol whips robber' scenarios. However, on the many mass shooting spree's I see reported, the perpetrator is either killed by cops or suicide. There never seems to be anyone of these million, honest citizens around who have taken a shot. My concern is for all these innocent, American people going about their day who get slaughtered for no good reason affecting also all their family and friends. I have no problem with the good guys having a weapon and putting these fuckwits down, but they never seem to be around at these tragic times.

      Delete
    13. https://www.nratv.com

      It's not a bad place to start. The NRA documents incidents where citizens used firearms to successfully protect themselves. As Mike C says, many academics consider all constitutionalists to be mentally ill. If we were all Kardashians, they'd be much happier.

      Delete
    14. Forget everything - where can I get one of those skull T-shirts they're wearing?! Want.

      Delete
    15. You could donate a "new fiver" to the cause and I might be able to find one for you...

      Delete
    16. Jules - Larry "telling you off" aside, just to answer your question: There actually are regular news stories here in the USA about citizen's successfully using their legal handguns to foil crime and save lives. Just one example: A few years ago, 40 miles south of here, at the New Life Christian center, a psycho with a few battle rifles started killing people in the parking lot during a service. I don't think it was technically Cowboy Church, but it was close, being Colorado Springs.

      An off-duty security guard inside, a woman, heard the shots and drew her pistol and waited for the assailant in a large room full of hundreds of people about to be slaughtered. She addressed him as he entered, and before he was able to fire on her, she killed him. That story was widely circulated around here, and she was praised for her bravery.

      Delete
    17. Thanks for the answer, Grunt. Well she's a top bird. You need more people doing this, if keeping your right to bear arms is in fact to protect and fight against those who murder innocent people.

      Delete
    18. Two reasons you don't hear about it -
      #1, the media will do anything to avoid reporting it. We just had a shooting stopped by a guy who was a concealed carrier, ran a practical shooting school emphasizing training for citizens, NRA certified instructor, etc. He was once a cop,in some other state, so it got reported as an "off duty police officer" stopping the bad guy.
      Number two- when some citizen with a weapon stops a mass shooting event in progress, it is, most of the time, a NON mass shooting event, because the bad guy gets capped BEFORE he makes it "newsworthy, AKA kills a lot of folks.
      You may not have really assimilated how thoroughly our main media is co-opted here. They are a arm of the left, as much as Pravda was in the USSR.

      Delete
    19. Raven is correct. When the armed citizen drops the criminal (or Muslim terrorist) before they can do what they planned to do, there is no report of a mass shooting. And the media will try to spike the story, or at the very least, contain it. Heroic armed Americans don't fit the progressive narrative.

      Delete
  3. Every time DJT performs evenly in a debate with Hillary, Harambe spreads his wings. In heaven.

    In other words, he won.

    Megyyne Kelly? TRAITOR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Megyn Kelly (along with Shepard Smith, as Fredd points out - and a few others) have never been anything but shills who make a lot of money for doing very little.

      Delete
    2. Look. I'm not saying she wouldn't look good with less clothes on.

      Delete
    3. That was the only thing that would cause me to tune in to her angry rants against Trump.

      Delete
    4. I just don't know. Her rants are too much of a turn-off for me. Maybe I need testosterone shots.

      Delete
  4. Megyn, have you gotten high enough to see that jaw, that nose, and that forehead.... it's a guy!!!
    Thanks for the fair reporting of the debate. I saw pieces of it, no surprises there. A lot of the faithful Trump guys are saying that he should have fillet her when he had the chance. I don't agree, it's a tactic that would just have endeared her to a bunch of crazy women.
    Donald does need to ditch the used car salesman look, with a better hair cut, and a darker more presidential looking suit. All that looks thing, is just fluff and shouldn't matter but seems too...
    My favorite of the whole thing was "You've had 30 years to fix it"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pretty much agree with all. Holt did throw softballs for Hildabeast though...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but what do you expect? Integrity in the media is a lost cause.

      Delete
  6. I was annoyed that Trump let Killary get to him. And I'm sure she was on some sort of sedative, because she seemed too normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't prepare. He should have and he didn't.

      Delete
  7. I could watch Megyn Kelly do most anything, if she did it nude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my perspective as well. Anything but talk. She should do what she does without the shrill speech.

      Delete
  8. I'd watch Megyn Kelly's nude broadcasts. Rachel Maddow? Not so much.

    Your analysis was spot on. The debate was a tie. Trump spent way too much time defending himself. There was so much more he could have said about the economy, government programs, government waste. Heck, he could have gone after Hillary on her blatant gun grab scheme.

    But he didn't.

    It looks like he needed to actually prepare.

    The questions were all left-leaning drivel. I would have made mincemeat of those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on all points, especially the nix on Maddow. But there's an interesting sidenote about Donald's excessive defensiveness on the two "fact-check" disputes.

      He fought back hard because he knew they'd use them against him, and he was right. Just after the end of the debate, I checked CNN, and their headline was: "Trump repeats falsehoods on Iraq War and Birtherism."

      Imagine that. He did all that defending, which was later verified by video evidence, but CNN STILL lied about it immediately after the debate. It's like he knew...

      Delete
    2. The Clinton News Network and the rest of the crooked MSM will go against Trump no matter what, no matter what is factual, etc. It's their job. It's what they're paid and paid well to do.

      Delete

It's virtual - it's a mirage - it's life