Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The "winner" of yesterday's "presidential" debate: Clinton. The loser: the American people

There was a “winner” after last night’s three-ring circus that many in the media mistakenly referred to as a “presidential” debate, and there was very decidedly a loser. The loser was not Donald Trump, despite doing everything possible to throw the game away. He allowed Hillary Clinton to bait him on inconsequential questions about his taxes and a loan from his father, he didn’t offer anything in terms of specific policy proposals, just his usual cast of public “enemies” portrayed in disproportionate to reality. For example, he repeated his claim that the US ist losing jobs because of NAFTA; the reality is that it has lost much if not most of its manufacturing and apparel jobs to China and other Pacific Rim countries.  Trump again played the racial paranoia card; while the homicide rate among Hispanics is higher than that of whites, it is only 1/3 that of blacks, and I think Hispanics should be deeply offended by Trump’s assertion that their communities are “dangerous” when that is  a decidedly relative term. 

Viewers and radio listeners heard a man who apparently was so inflated with self-regard that he did not take the debate seriously and didn’t bother to prepare, and clearly had little natural grasp of politics and policy. All he could present were tired platitudes and inflammatory rhetoric that might excite bigots, nativists and xenophobes, but behind it was nothing. 

Yet it was not Trump who “lost,” it was America, who has to choose between this buffoon and the “alternative,” who at least according to the media was the “winner” by default. Yes, Clinton sound “commanding”—or was her usual imperious condescension and patronization, that she is superior to you or me or anyone in a pantsuit? The well-rehearsed lies that Clinton has been practicing in deceiving the American people since at least 1993 with the first Clinton presidency scandals—one which resulted in the “suicide” of a “close friend” and law partner of Clinton’s—and let us not forget that people were convicted of crimes in those scandals in which the Clintons were the prime beneficiaries, and investigations repeatedly revealed that Hillary Clinton especially lied over and over again about her involvement as well as her husband’s. Why should she be “rewarded”—let alone entrusted—with supreme power? Because she is a woman and it will be “historic” if she is elected?

Yet Trump failed the American people more than himself in repeatedly failing to play this card. This “trump” card should be the key question in people’s minds before they decide that Clinton is “presidential” material. Is she too corrupt and deceiving to be trusted with the highest office in the land? The “best” one can say about Trump is that he is at least “sensitive” to public opinion, especially when it turns against him. Clinton? She couldn’t care less what the public thinks, privately; she will do whatever the hell she feels like. Yes, the debate moderator never broached the issue of trustworthiness, but Trump had opportunities to bring up Clinton’s long and sordid history beyond the “cybersecurity” issue, which he punted away as well, only mentioning that Clinton’s aids had taken the “Fifth” in regard to her email server business. 

Trump fared no better in foreign affairs, allowing Clinton to portray him as trigger-happy madman. Yet do we want someone as cavalier about state secrets and self-conscious about how she is viewed as Clinton is with her finger on the trigger? Clinton of course lied repeatedly about her “accomplishments” as the Secretary of State. She had nothing to do with building the “coalition” against Iran’s assumed nuclear play; that predated the Obama administration. Not only that, she had nothing to do with the eventual treaty, although she spent much time taking false credit for it. The truth is that not a single significant international treaty was signed during her tenure, likely because of a lack of “respect” for the Secretary and her condescending, patronizing tone to world leaders she needed most to be less so.

As the debate neared its end, Clinton was allowed to bring manic gender politics into the fray, which I’m sure many male listeners were turned off by. Defending her “stamina,” she pointed to her travelogue of a 112 different countries. I have already spoken to that free ride on the taxpayer dime; in the most of those countries, Clinton flew in on a government plane, rode around in a cushy limousine, stomached the local culture for a few minutes, maybe tried hard to absorb a bite of the local cuisine, had a photo-op with the president/dictator, and flew right back out, probably sneering contemptuously about him/her.  

The bottom line is that the American people lost last night because it was proven once and for all that the people who voted for Trump in the primaries were clearly out of their minds, allowing their hate to govern whatever iota of reason they possessed, while once more Clinton was allowed to escape unscathed any exposure of her history of corruption (both personal and political) and perjury. One should find it extremely disturbing in Clinton’s personality that she continues to deny any misconduct on her part whatever, continues to treat the American public as if they are completely blind to her transgressions, believing every lie like the simpletons she takes them for. Yet Clinton was able to arrogantly claim “victory” in the debate, due to Trump’s incompetence as a “politician,” one like Clinton who has all her lines burned to memory so well she will never need a teleprompter.

No comments:

Post a Comment