I have a few opinions/observations that I’ll share.
- I didn’t watch the debate; I just listened. And I understand a lot of deciding who wins or loses is in the visual cues of the candidates. By listening (or reading) you can only judge by substance.🙂 There wasn’t much of that from either side.
- I think it was a tie. Didn’t hear any real decisive moments or quips from either side.
- The moderator was terrible. But what do you expect from the likes of Lester Holt (a member of the Main Stream Media). The bias was obvious… again.
Moderator not Fact-Checker
My first complaint about Holt was his challenging of answers given by Donald Trump. He didn’t do that to Clinton… at all… not even once. If you want to challenge the candidate you do that at the beginning of the question and leave it at that. For example you say “Mr. Trump… in 2003 you said to Bob Reporter that you thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea, yet you claim you were against it from the beginning; how do you reconcile that?” And that’s it. You let the candidate answer and you say nothing else. YOU are the MODERATOR… NOT the on premise, off-the-cuff (Republican candidate only) FACT CHECKER. That is the responsibility of the other candidate and actual fact checkers parsing through the debate you are supposed to be moderating.
One problem with leftist moderator’s real-time fact checking is that they often get it wrong (just like in their “reporting”). Candy Crowley got it wrong when she corrected Romney (siding with Obama) regarding Benghazi; and the Obama administration’s failure to identify it as terror (instead of a demonstration gone bad). The error is then out there… and a correction is never offered.
Stop and Frisk
Lester Holt did the same thing last night by stating that “stop and frisk” had been found unconstitutional. What does that mean to you the listener? If I heard that, I would think that it is settled law across the land and it’s unconstitutional. It all gets back to the leftist definition of what “is” is.
Here are the facts…
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in 2013 that New York’s stop and frisk practices, were unconstitutional. Wow that settles it right? Well actually there are two key phrases that are important here (that are totally ignored by the left in order to give a false impression). First is “New York” and the second is “practices”. “Practices” legally means that the judge didn’t strike down stop and frisk in totality, but only stop and frisk as specifically practiced by this city (New York) at that time. This only applied to New York and supposedly the city could have tweaked the way they practiced the procedure and tried again… but we’re talking New York here now under a new leftist regime; so it just settled the case.
Now understand this, leftist Judge Scheindlin would have loved to have struck down stop and frisk overall, but she didn’t… she couldn’t. Why? Because her bosses’ a few rungs up the ladder had already ruled on that question long ago and that ruling still stands. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in “Terry v. Ohio” that stop and frisk was constitutional. The Supreme Court has even confirmed and expanded on that ruling in other cases since. Stop and frisk IS constitutional. Yes, it’s being attacked by leftist judges across the land in individual cases, but it remains legal overall. Hillary (and Lester Holt) would have you believe a lie based on a half-truth and that Trump is an idiot for not know that. And they are largely successful thanks to the professional and intellectual dishonesty of the press (from which moderators are chosen).
Guess what the news stories will say today (right after the debate)? They will say that Trump was wrong and that stop and frisk was found unconstitutional. They will concentrate on this minor leftist nut-job of a judge and go no further? Why would they? Doing so doesn’t fit their narrative. It all gets back to partial truth used to sell a lie. It all gets back to weasel words. It all gets back to what your definition of “is” is. It all gets back to the left; which includes the main stream media and presidential debate moderators being so good at deception. It’s their job after all.
Call Out Trump Check – Call Out Hillary
My second observation is that Lester Hold asked Trump specific questions about his support of the birther conspiracy, his tax returns, his bankruptcies, and his early support of the Iraq invasion. Good for Lester… totally valid and tough questions and topics.
For the record… Trump is totally guilty on the birther thing… but Trump is also right that Hillary’s minions (Blumenthal and others) started the whole thing. They use the fact that these minions were not officially tied to the campaign at the time to claim plausible deniability. Again we see lies based simply on what your definition of “is” is. That’s good enough for the MSM, who will push the Hillary hook, line, and sinker.
Back to the main point. Lester hammered Trump with some tough questions. Again, totally valid… So did Lester ask Hillary about Benghazi? Did Lester ask Hillary about her email servers? Did Lester ask Hillary about the Clinton Foundation and “pay for play”? Nope… not one word. Crickets. The only way Hillary faced any touch issues all night, was for Trump to bring it up. (And he did a terrible job of it.) The left is practically never held to the same level of scrutiny as the right. This debate (hell all debates) is no exception.
What I Got from the Debate
So what is the main thing I took away from the debate last night? Lester Holt is a leftist, biased, hack (as if there were any questions going in). If Trump was going to have to debate both Hillary and Lester, why not put him behind a podium on stage and officially remove the illusion of objectivity.