My Overview of the Final Presidential Debate
The final Presidential Debate met two of my expectations. Trump continued to be aggressive, and Clinton had a better showing at first glance. However, as is with all three debates, the winner’s position is really contested. I suppose this is because the Presidential debates are meant for the undecided voters to listen in on the candidates’ positions and come to a conclusion of their own, and not a gateway to nationally televised personal and political attacks, but, it could also be because of fierce partisan views toward and against the two candidates. Here I will present my view contrary to the narrative on why, at least from my view, Donald Trump won the debate.
The first topic that was presented during the debate was the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. On the following issues presented, which were abortion and the second amendment, I am very conservative. Therefore, to me, obviously Trump was better. But when I try to imagine how an undecided independent would feel, I’m not sure what to think. In my mind issues such as these, especially abortion, are unlikely to have politicians swaying the hearts and minds of anyone.
The second segment discussed was Immigration reform. This topic, in my view, was a downward spiral for Hillary Clinton. How can you best Donald Trump when it comes to immigration? You can’t in these days, even if Trump potentially weakened the urgency of his own argument by saying that Obama had already been deporting millions of illegal immigrants, and if Clinton was able to worry Americans by describing a large police force that she had envisioned, as well as the separation of families. How? It all had to do with one question.
“Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks that you said this and I want to quote ‘My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.’ So that’s the question…is that your dream, open borders?”
How did Clinton respond? By proposing a shared power grid between the U.S. and our neighbors as well as whining about WikiLeaks. First, what in the world does a shared power grid have to do with open borders? Having open borders means that people can freely cross between two countries. Having a shared power grid is like connecting two power grids in separate countries together. That is a poor excuse and I doubt many bought it. Look, we have a serious problem known as corruption and lies. Hillary Clinton embodies that problem, and trying to pin the blame on having a shared electric grid is just nonsense. Russia and Kazakhstan have a shared power grid, but they do not have an open border. And although Clinton pressured Trump into condemning any foreign influence in our election (which there shouldn’t be any), I still believe that Clinton’s inability to defend her comment on open borders is a far more memorable showing than Hillary Clinton not wanting to separate families (which is a legitimate concern for deportation).
Immediately following was the talk about nuclear weapons. If you thought that open borders was horrible already, then this surely this must be an abomination. Hillary Clinton during the U.S. Presidential debate gave out the United States’ nuclear response time in a debate that was being watched by several million people across the country and outside of it! It may have won the day with some voters, but if the U.S. military’s response is to serve as any example, nobody should be revealing that kind of information, even if that information is already on the internet. You might as well prevent this knowledge’s spread to millions more people! Unfortunately I doubt this will have a great effect like the time when Gerald Ford denied the Eastern Bloc’s existence.
But of course I am going to continue onward. The next segment presented by Christopher Wallace was the Economy. In my mind and from my view Hillary Clinton simply cannot win this category. Why? Because she said “…we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”
Consequently whenever I hear Hillary Clinton talking about she (supposedly) wants to help the middle class I repeat that clip. However otherwise I feel the time spent on this subject was used to attract the candidates’ bases, rather than the undecided.
The next category presented was the fitness of each candidate to serve as president. In this category I would ultimately side with Trump, namely because I see his talk, even if there were actions, as a safer option than inciting open mob violence that ruins or ends many more lives. Hillary Clinton’s talk about tolerance didn’t even matter because she and her campaign hired people to be violent and destructive in Chicago at one of Trump’s rallies. That isn’t unifying America! That is dividing this country! Is Trump’s talk bad? Of course it is. But at the same time which candidate is more preferable? Trump. For what I assume to be an undecided voter’s view, I think that it was a tossup with Clinton in the lead. Clinton won the latter half with the charity and Trump’s reluctance to re-pledge that he would accept the election results (WikiLeaks no doubt had a part in this), and Trump won the earlier half with the campaign violence.
Afterwards the candidates talked about foreign hotspots across the globe. This category was, well, uneventful. For the majority of the time we heard the same stuff over and over again. Trump also failed on Aleppo, and Clinton had failed in reassuring that a no-fly zone wouldn’t result in nuclear war. Clinton failed worse than Trump, simply because saying or believing “Aleppo has fallen” is a lot less likely to result in WWIII than imposing a no-fly zone in Syria.
This debate’s boring conclusion on debt and entitlements was a win for Hillary. She provided more detailed and polished answers, which, for this topic is key to victory. Trump not only didn’t provide detailed answers, but also avoided most of the questions asked in this segment. This looks bad of him, especially since he’s the one complaining about the unimaginable debt we’re in. Trump calling Hillary a “nasty woman” didn’t really do much either to help him, at least in my view.
So in conclusion I disagree with the mainstream media that pits Clinton as the winner of this debate. As I went over in an unprofessional manner, I see that Trump, based mostly on the debate itself, is a safer (as in protecting the U.S. safer) and better option, as well as a change agent for President of the United States, and that’s what he needed to show. Trump also laid out more of a vision for what his Presidency would look like, and in addition was able to best Clinton on Immigration, the unintended nuclear weapons segment, and foreign hotspots. Clinton could only score one resounding victory in the last category of debt and entitlements. The other categories were tossups, some like the Constitution and Supreme Court based on viewer opinion, and others like fitness to serve were simply mixed bags. However, I am still unsure that this debate will affect much at all, despite the absolute absurdity that went on.