Friday, October 21, 2016

The Third Debate

                          

for fb.jpg By Florida Bill 

                                  Donald  Trump and Hillary Clinton clashed mightily at the third debate, but it was Chris Wallace, the moderator, who capped off the forum with his rather peculiar question to the candidates as to whether they will accept the results of the voting on November 8.  Wallace, the savior-moderator from Fox News, has received praise and adulation for his down-the-middle interrogation of the candidates, but his question about accepting the results was in my estimation premature and meaningless.  
                                   The answer is that the results are what they are.  One candidate wins and the other loses. Who cares if the candidate "refuses to accept" the counting of ballots in the thousands of precincts in the 50 states of the United States.  He is stuck with the results and if he decides to sue under some bizarre theory, so be it.  
                                    While the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, indicated in her answer that she would of course abide by the balloting, Trump did a surprise flip and declined that position.  "I’ll will tell you at the time,” he retorted. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”  Following the debate, Trump, with a tongue-in-cheek comment, told a crowd of supporters that he would accept the results "if I win," and then still later said that he would challenge the results if they were questionable. 
                                      To many, Trump's response on the debate stage seemed sort of un-American, but it really wasn't.  Trump moves about to the beat of his own drum.  To me, it is just egotistical Donald being himself and it is not deep and nefarious, only Trump's way of drawing the spotlight onto himself, a position he craves. 
                                       During the GOP primaries, Trump generated some belief that he might run as an independent candidate if he is "treated unfairly" by the Republican party and its key members. His comment generated widespread GOP apprehension.   Later, however,  he promised to support his party's nominee, whomever it might be.  
                                      At the third debate, watched by millions, Wallace posed the meaningless question because the Republican candidate has been contending in recent days and weeks that the process is "rigged" and helped along by the disingenuous Clinton and her campaign chiefs. He declares repeatedly that the media is totally biased and completely in the Clinton pocket, enabling Mrs. Clinton to manipulate an attack upon him based upon fabricated accusations of predatory misbehavior.  In truth, Trump is correct that the media is functioning as an arm of the Clinton candidacy.  
                                     Media bias and favoritism for the Democratic candidate has been a way of life in America for decades, maybe more, but Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were successful in bringing Americans onto their side. Trump is trying to do just that,  but has been only marginally successful, as he continues to commit huge gaffes and takes stands which play out to his detriment.  
                                        So if the election is close, like within a small number of votes in a key state which can alter the electoral college count, Trump can challenge the outcome and have recounts.  That would be completely appropriate.  If Clinton dominates in winning electoral votes--needing 270 of the 538,  then there really is no wiggle room for Trump here, and she wins.  If Trump doesn’t like it, he can send his supporters to the streets or file legal action, but a court will abide by the Constitution and decide in Clinton’s favor. The fat lady will have sung.
                                         If, of course, the electoral college gives Trump at least 270 votes, "The Donald" will  become the new President.  
                                         So, at this point, Trump's refusal to "accept results" is empty rhetoric,  since the time for that decision is after all votes are counted, and the Wallace question was simply premature and unnecessary.   But even with his  jumping the gun with that question to the candidates,  Wallace is being regaled, and rightly so, as a shinning example of what a good moderator should act like.  Moderators in the earlier forums and debates like Matt Lauer, Lester Holt, Martha Raddax and Anderson Cooper could not hide their boot-licking treatment of Clinton and their obvious dislike for Trump.  
                                          Aside from the distraction of the "commit to accept the results" question, Trump was feisty in his attack on Clinton who he accuses of 30 years of lying and of accomplishing nothing while holding high government offices.  "She has very bad judgment and has had experience but it is "bad experience" he said while lashing out at the poised Clinton, neatly attired in an expensive white pants suit. 
                                           They exchanged insults through out the 90 minutes of the debate which was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, the neon mecca of gambling and glitter.                                                              Clinton winced a bit when Wallace questioned her statement in 2013 to Goldman Sachs millionaires who are supporting her that she favored "open borders."  She really had no explanation for what she had said, but pointed out in her defense that she had voted for border security as a senator from New York and that when she spoke of open borders she was referring to a sharing of energy as part of a common "grid" with Mexico.  Her answer was illogical and made little sense, but Trump failed to demand further elaboration from her.  She got away with it and managed to turn attention to her Republican opponent and his alleged predatory conduct with women.  
                                              Clinton pressed her attack on Trump charging that it was his style to grope and mistreat women, and that he actually told of his penchant for such behavior in a taped conversation.  Although some eight or nine women have come forward with claims that he hit on them, Trump responded forcefully and angrily that it was "all fabrication," part of a Clinton- arranged attack on him aided by biased media which answers to her every whim like trained dogs. 
                                               Trump repeated criticism of Clinton, whom he described as a "nasty woman," for lying to the FBI and for deleting thousands of emails after having received a federal subpoena, but that topic did not catch on as Clinton simply pivoted to new accusations against her opponent.  In one,  she claimed that Trump was acting as a puppet to Russian president Putin and has refused to release his tax returns. Trump shot back that "you are the puppet."  The mud was thrown back and forth but it seemed to just vanish like ripples in the water.  
                                               Who won the debate, and who lost the debate--that just depends upon whom you ask.  CNN and other network geniuses give it all to the smug Clinton, while the Trump crowd compliments their candidate for his best debate ever and declare that he was a clear and unquestioned winner.   Fox News says it was no contest--all Donald Trump.  And pundits there like Sean Hannity predict that Trump will win the election quite handily on Nov. 8. 
                                                While both contenders got in their licks, for me, I thought that Donald Trump was a bit stronger and made more concise points which showed Clinton to be a woman who avoids telling the truth and who has accomplished very little in her roles as a U.S senator and the Secretary of State for the Obama administration.  Trump was in need of a super strong performance if he was to move the needle in his favor on a national level and in crucial states. Currently, with less than three weeks until the election. Trump is trailing in most state and national polls, and if they are as accurate as the swamis declare, Trump will lose and Clinton will become the 45th President.  

                            
                                                 XXX

                                                         

2 comments:

  1. I did not watch the third and final debate in favor of a more crucial event telecast in prime time that evening -- the Cubs/Dodger NLCS game where the Cubs tied the series at two games apiece enroute to the pennant and the World Series.

    News reports in the Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal the following morning objectively covered the event, noting the media uproar over Trump's non-commital response to Wallace's question about accepting unfavorable election results. The Tribune did not editorialize but a WSJ editorial supported your position that Trump's response was empty rhetoric and that candidates have a right to challenge close ballot counts, recalling the 2000 Gore/Bush dispute over "hanging chads" in Florida which had to be settled by the Supreme Court.

    These two papers are probably the most objective of all major media in their news reporting, giving lots of coverage both to Trump's gaffes and Hillary's e-mail revelations and conflicts of interest,

    I was pleased to note that syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, who I highly respect and whose column is carried by the Tribune,feels as I do about that top bubble on the ballot: He'll follow his conscience and write somebody in. For Charles it's either Speaker Paul Ryan or Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), both of whom have repudiated Trump but are focusing on retaining the Republican majority in the Senate. As for me, I'm still undecided on my write-in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Invest in Ripple on eToro the World's #1 Social Trading Network!

    Join 1,000,000's who have already found smarter strategies for investing in Ripple.

    Learn from profitable eToro traders or copy their positions automatically!

    ReplyDelete