Heads Will Explode During First Clinton-Trump Debate

There's a meme going around, a diptych comprised of two gifs; Donald Trump allegedly mocking a disabled reporter on the right, Hillary Clinton allegedly suffering a seizure on the left. It's pretty damned creepy, and to me,  perfectly sums up the hideous circus sideshow that is the current presidential election cycle. Stare at it too long and your head will explode.

I use “allegedly” because the truth is, the reporter Trump was allegedly mocking doesn't suffer from the sort of erratic limb movements Trump was aping. No one knows if the several instances where Clinton's erratic head and eye movements were caught on video point to some underlying neurological disorder. Yet like the meme, we're caught in an endlessly repeating loop, defined and confined by our own partisan narratives.

Tonight we're offered an opportunity to break out of those narratives—or reinforce them—when Trump and Clinton showdown in the first of three scheduled presidential debates. A record-setting 100 million people are expected to tune in to the 6 p.m. to 7:30 pm PST event, which will be moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, broadcast on all the major news networks and live-streamed on social media including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Despite the fact that I'm on the record supporting Trump's unorthodox populist campaign tactics, especially his attacks on political correctness, he hasn't earned my vote yet. I”m not affiliated with any party, but if I had to state my allegiance, I'd say I was a butt-hurt Bernie Sanders supporter firmly entrenched in the “Never Hillary” camp. My vote is still up for grabs.


While Lester Holt is best known for having replaced disgraced fabulist Brian Williams behind the anchor desk of NBC's flagship news program, I'm more familiar with his work on the true crime program Dateline on ID. If true to form, he should bring some much-needed objectivity to the three topics that will be debated during the 90-minute, commercial-free broadcast: “America's Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity,” and “Securing America.”

As much as the mainstream media despises Trump, he himself couldn't have written a more favorable script for the first debate. All three topics play to his overarching theme that America is in decline and that only a drastic remedy, namely, voting for a bombastic billionaire blowhard such as himself, can make America great again.

Is America headed in the right direction? For the past year-and-a-half, Trump has made a strong case it isn't, from failing to protect its own borders, to selling out its manufacturing base via unfavorable international trade deals, to its senseless military interventions in the Middle East. If current polls indicating Trump has pulled even with Clinton in national polls are correct, he's convinced half the electorate America has run astray.

Can Clinton -- who has promised amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, who supported NAFTA and only recently came out against the TPP, who is arguably the primary architect of NATO's disastrous intervention in Libya -- counter Trump's argument? Or will she, as usual, resort to calling Trump a nationalistic racist xenophobe who would be literally Hitler if she hadn't already bestowed that title upon Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Advantage Trump.

“Achieving Prosperity” could prove to be an even more problematic section for Clinton, since as the incumbent party candidate she has to run on outgoing President Barack Obama's economic record, which is mixed at best. It's true that some sectors of the economy have recovered nicely since the Great Recession Obama inherited, including finance and technology. It's also true that the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point since the 1970s. African Americans have fared poorly, as have working class rural whites, and everywhere the rent's still too damned high. Clinton will need all of her highly vaunted public policy expertise to convince Americans she has the answers.

For Trump, the standard is lower. As a non-incumbent reality show TV star, he made bank pitching the illusion anyone can achieve prosperity by simply following his magic formula. The fact that he's also a successful billionaire real estate developer adds credence to the illusion. He'll stick to his latest magic formula and hammer on reducing our $500 billion annual trade deficit by bringing our factories back home and putting Americans back to work.

Don't be surprised when he blatantly panders to blacks and Latinos—at least Latinos in the country legally. Polls indicate Trump's outreach to minorities is working. It's natural to want to prosper. Never underestimate the power of Celebrity Apprentice.

Again, advantage Trump.

The final topic of the debate, “Securing America,” makes me think the somebody who doesn't care that much for Hillary Clinton came up with this debate format.

It's bad enough that the last time Clinton was within spitting distance of Trump, at the 15th memorial service for 9/11 in Manhattan, she fainted, fell off a curb and was whisked away in a black van. Since then, it seems like we've been averaging an Islamic terrorist attack or a police shooting or a Black Lives Matter riot practically every other day.

Meanwhile, Clinton has incredibly continued to promote bringing in yet more refugees from the terrorist hotbeds we've created by bombing the Middle East into oblivion for decades. She, along with President Obama and half the players in the NFL, continues to refer to BLM riots as peaceful protests, when they're obviously anything but that. It's hard not to feel like they're taking Americans for fools.

Then there's the whole un-secure private email server thingy she used as Secretary of State. That would be the opposite of securing America. The FBI dumped a whole new batch of documents last Friday, including evidence Obama communicated with Clinton through the un-secure server using a pseudonym. How can Holt not go there?

Game, set, match, Trump.

That at least is how I see the debate playing out within the narrow confines of my own narrative. I've been stuck in the same loop since Sanders lost the nomination. I'm willing to break out of the loop, and the truth is anything can happen. That's Trump's primary draw. Millions of people will be tuning in for the chance to see Trump finally trip himself up.

But Hillary Clinton can't depend on the new, improved Donald slipping back into Jerry Lewis-mode. Trump has all of the momentum going into the debate, current events and the debate format are in his favor and she's going to need the performance of her life to beat him. She can do it, but it's going to take everything she's got.

No matter what happens, standby for heads to explode.

R.V. Scheide
R.V. Scheide has been a northern California journalist for more than 20 years. He appreciates your comments and story ideas.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

48 Responses

  1. cheyenne says:

    In the super hot areas of San Francisco Bay Area and the Denver Front Range where the economy is rising at light speed I see Clinton winning.  But, get a few miles away from those areas into the rural and suburban parts of those states it is Trump territory or more apt, “No Clinton” area.  This election may very well depend on how the inner city folks vote, if they can tear themselves away from their rioting.


    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      According to recent polls, Trump has pulled a 5 point lead in Colorado. While there is a bit of the city folk v. country folk theme to this election, I think many of those city folks aren’t doing so hot–the rent’s still too damned high!

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        I’m guessing that about 75% of my Denver-vicinity family (my mom’s side) will be voting for Trump.  Among the guys, I would put that at closer to 100% (among those that bother to vote).  It’s not that they’re faring poorly in Colorado’s booming economy—far from it.  For starters, most of them are Republicans and would be voting for the Republican candidate regardless of who it is, because guns.  Some supported Cruz in the primaries because Jesus is obviously a Cruz man.  Others supported Trump in the primaries—among them are the worshippers of wealth and TV celebrity who would have loved it if Trump had picked Kris Jenner as his running mate.

        Among the working-class white guys in my Denver family, though, there’s a shared seething resentment that things just aren’t like they used to be for guys like them.  Of all the voting cohorts following the 2008 election, it’s working-class white guys who took the hardest turn toward Republicanism.  In the eight years of the Bush II presidency, that cohort teeter-tottered between voting Democratic and Republican, almost on a two-year cycle.  Following Obama’s election, non-college-educated white dudes have become the most reliable block of GOP voters—a divergence that has strengthened steady over the past 8 years.

        I don’t think any of those guys believe a billionaire from NYC is going to betray his class and appoint Kid Rock Secretary of State and nominate John Elway for that open SCOTUS seat—but his political incorrectness, fear-mongering, and thinly veiled message of (White) America First speaks to them.

        • cheyenne says:

          Steve, when you say your Denver vicinity family are you talking western slope or front range, because the Denver Post had an article about the extreme political differences between Denver and rural Colorado.  I was just in Wellington, front range but rural, and they were all up in arms about the Denver people who have moved into Wellington and are now trying to take over all aspects of life there.  They showed me pictures of city parks in Oregon that these new residents want to implement in Wellington, an agriculture town of 2,000 that has a strong oil and gas presence.  Governor Hickenlooper’s recent proclamation that Colorado needs to cut back emissions 35% has angered many rural residents like Wellington where the clean burning Rawhide Coal plant sits about four miles north of town.  Coupled with the gun laws passed by the Colorado Democrats that sent Magpul Ammo, some of their suppliers and so far 8oo jobs to Cheyenne and Laramie I would say Colorado is Trump territory.

  2. Beverly Stafford says:

    Too bad None of the Above isn’t an option on the ballot.  A viable third party candidate is a fading dream.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      I was going to discuss not voting in this article. I have voted in every election since I was eligible. I suppose I could vote for everything but president.

      • K. Beck says:

        That is what I did last time.

        There will never be a “viable” third party candidate. Th Dems & Reps will never let that happen. That would be the one issue that would unite the two parties.

  3. Darcie says:

    But R.V., wouldn’t it have been nice if the Commission on Debates included all THREE candidates to debate?   Imagine if Americans could vote FOR a President and not have to struggle with the lesser of two evils.     Gary Johnson will be included on our ballots in November, yet a third podium was not included for tonight.  Call me old fashion, but I want to hear all of the candidates before voting!

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Yes, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should be in this debate. There should be more than three. At the very least, there should be one prime time debate between the alt candidates.

  4. Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

    R.V. says:  “(Clinton), along with President Obama and half the players in the NFL, continues to refer to BLM riots as peaceful protests, when they’re obviously anything but that.”

    Is it that obvious?  Or are the BLM protests that turn violent, and subsets of BLM protests that turn violent, the ones that make the news?

    Large demonstrations—mostly comprising white youth—in Seattle, Oakland, and other large cities against free trade agreements and globalization, going back to the WTO protests in 1999 and continuing on to the “Occupy” movement, are instructive.  At some of these demonstrations, a minority made up of self-proclaimed “anarchists” decide to smash windows, loot stores, burn cars, and throw large objects at police in riot gear.  Guess who gets all of the camera time?  Meanwhile, the majority who don’t want to participate in a riot exit stage left, right, and down into the subway, or mill around at a safe distance in the background.

    Google “Black Lives Matter peaceful protest.”  The suggestion that BLM protests as a rule are violent riots is a false narrative in service of an unseemly agenda.

    That doesn’t mean I’m going to join a BLM demonstration anytime soon—I got cured of attending protests in my teens. After less than half a dozen, I became aware that big protests comprise roughly 10 percent attention whores and 90 percent sheep.  Chanting to someone else’s idea of a meaningful slogan, often beginning with “Hey hey, ho ho” or “Wadda we want?!” is not my idea of time well spent.


    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Steve, it’s not just a few bad apples or agent provocateurs doing the rioting at BLM protests, as appeared to be the case with the battle in Seattle and the Occupy movement. BLM members, including its leadership, are intentionally inciting riots by relaying false information that fits their narrative that racist white police officers are gunning down innocent black men for no good reason. From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown to Keith Scott, the pattern is always the same.

      In Scott’s case, “he only had a book.” Nope. He had a gun, he pointed it at a uniformed black cop, and he paid the price with his life. As a convicted felon, Scott knew what the price was. Perhaps that’s why he carried his gun in an ankle holster. But never mind all that. BLM said it was a book, and even though the cop was black, it’s institutional white racism that’s the problem. I’d buy that, if BLM meant Scott fell into a life of crime because the economic deck is stacked against him in a white-dominated (for now) society. But that’s not what they mean, which is why they’re still insisting it was just a book and that Michael Brown had is hand up shouting don’t shoot.

      It’s true that BLM the organization, such as it is, has a laundry list of items that would address the inequities in black communities and address the use of deadly force by police in all communities. If we broaden our perspective to include class and consider the relationship between crime and poverty, we could talk about what appears to be increasing crime in places like Redding. This could be the national conversation we’ve been supposedly waiting to have.

      But BLM does’t want to have that conversation. Heavily financed by the likes of George Soros–the spokesperson jobs pay nicely–it is a quasi-organic movement capable of assembling large flash mobs in any major city in America. The spokesperson goes on TV, says it was just a book, and they burn the bitch down. YouTube videos of white people getting beat up by black rioters in Charlotte don’t encourage debate. They end the discussion. They do it so reliably, I’m convinced that’s their goal. What purpose this goal serves is beyond me.

      • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

        Any “one-size-fits-all” characterization of any large-scale phenomenon is bound to be wrong much of the time.  It’s clearly wrong to characterize every shooting of a black male who points a gun at the police as an unjustified act of racism.  It’s equally wrong to characterize the shooting of a black male by the police as justified because the black male, it turns out, was in possession of a gun—particularly if it occurs in a right-to-carry state, and the gun possession was legal.  It may even be wrong to characterize every shooting of an unarmed black man as somehow racist. (Though it’s easy to understand how most of those shootings provoke outrage—my own knee-jerk reaction is usually outrage when police kill unarmed civilians, regardless of anyone’s race.)

        Similarly, your “one-size-fits-all” characterization of BLM’s sole narrative is deeply flawed.  That BLM narrative, according to you, is that racist white police officers are gunning down innocent black men for no good reason, concluding: “From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown to Keith Scott, the pattern is always the same.”  I’ll eat my hat if you can show me a BLM statement professing outrage that Travon Martin was gunned down by a racist white cop, or that Keith Scott was gunned down by a racist white cop.

        BLM’s central narrative regarding these events is this:  Black Americans have more to fear from encounters with the police than do white Americans, owing mostly to institutionalized racism.  There are arguable counter-points to that narrative, and some of them have heft.  But just as you accuse BLM of desiring to shut down dialogue before it starts, your weird caricature of BLM’s narrative shuts down dialogue before it starts  And at that, I would repeat your own proclamation of bewilderment back at you:  What purpose this goal serves is beyond me.         

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          There’s nothing weird about my caricature of BLM. On this last shooting, I watched some of its primary members relentlessly tweeted the “it was a book” nonsense even as the fires burned and windows were smashed in. I watched as rioters on the scene uploaded videos of white people getting beat up. I saw several BLM spokespersons on CNN say it doesn’t matter if the cop was black, it doesn’t matter if property was destroyed and people were assaulted, because white racism. This is not asking for honest dialog. This is threatening violence if you don’t get what you want. That’s why I’m against BLM.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Since you’re not wanting to take my point about one-size-fits-all nonsense, I’ll just come on over to your way of thinking.

            I’ve seen scores of videos of people at Trump rallies saying despicable things:  “Kill that n*****!” regarding Obama. “Hang the b****!” and “She’s a c***!” about Clinton. “F*** those beaners!” about Mexicans. People getting punched and stomped at Trump rallies. People wearing “F*** Islam” T-shirts. Add that to the multitudes of online comments by Trump supporters that are just as bad or worse.

            Yesterday I heard Trump cheerleader Rush Limbaugh predict that black Americans might riot following the election regardless of who wins because they’ll be losing their black President. Why? Presumably Rush thinks black people are too simple to understand that being President is not a lifetime appointment. That’s pure idiocy, but according to Rush, you just don’t know what those people are going to do. Further, according to Rush, they’ll be mad because Obama was such a failure that we’ll never have another black President, so black people will be flipping out that they blew their one and only chance (as if Obama being a mediocre President disqualifies all future black people from getting elected to the office).

            I’ve seen it and read it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears.  By your all-inclusive logic, I have to conclude that all Trump supporters—famous and not—are racist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, loud-mouthed fascists, like this guy. Not just some of them. All of them.

          • Rod says:

            I knew it, I knew it, it’s come down to black people vs white people.  Now we can understand the confusion of Colin the second stringer who is a proven 50/50 human.  Do we still believe that the extremes create the means?

            Is the blackest white person in more danger than the whitest black person? No.  And our media can prove it.

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          Don’t know if this will fall in the correct order Steve. Firstly, I already acknowledged that there are some elements in BLM proposing actual policies to address the policing situation. So I’m not a one size-fits-all guy. This problem cannot be solved without putting substantial public investment into black communities to address long standing economic inequities that create conditions that lead to among many other problems high rates of crime. It’s going to take trust to make these reparations. Inciting riots does not create trust. Some members of BLM, leadership and rank-and-file, continue to do exactly that. They’re more than a few bad apples. They’ve spoiled the whole bunch.

          Your point about Trump’s racist supporters is one primary reason I’m holding my vote, although I should point out that the vast majority of the violence and mayhem at Trump rallies has been perpetrated by protestors, not supporters. That said, much of the so-called alt-right’s rhetoric, while always being very careful not to advocate violence (website would be instantly taken down), is incendiary in a cultural that’s just now getting over political correctness. A significant portion of it is deeply racist in the best tradition of eugenics. White riots have happened in this country before, and that’s one reason why I like to keep a close eye on the alt-right.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            I don’t find anything to disagree with in this post, R.V.  There have been peaceful BLM protests, but they don’t get any attention.  Where there have been riots, there’s no doubt that ineffectual and even inflammatory leadership is to blame.  Outrage is not an excuse for untethered rage, and BLM leaders need to speak out against it.

        • Joanne Lobeski-Snyder says:

          I love reading what you have to say Steve.  This will be a bad analogy, but during the debate I felt that minorities were entrapped groups of cows who had to be herded on way or another.   I’m not expressing myself well I know, but there are towns and communities of working people…cheer leaders….football teams…college educated..business…Ivory tower….Rotary Club and churches of not-white-people.   I lived in a community like that.  Girl Scouts and school events….moms on the what used to be called the PtA.  Dad’s going fishing on the weekend.


  5. Rod says:

    Irrelevancies debated to the degree of exploding heads.  Now there’s a prime-time production.  The media’s greatest hits.  Ratings ought to be record setting among the explodees and explodors.  I wonder how our media can be any more creative.

    I’ll set the dvr to record and safely watch later in micro bursts in order to feel safe.  I’d hate to explode my own head.

    I hope that Monday Night Football will be on the air.


  6. Duke K. says:

    Lady Mac-Beth versus Falstaff? Hamlet to the rescue?  How about none of the above…

  7. R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

    I wish you hadn’t said that because I’d probably vote for Falstaff.

  8. Breakfast Guy says:

    Just In Trump Cancels —

    “It’s rigged, folks! I can’t debate during Monday Night Football and the Democrats know that! The following week is National Pickle Week and the third debate is on Wrap your Assault Rifle in Bacon day and I told Cruz I would be there. The last debate is scheduled during Wear and Paint Your Face in Camo week. It’s all rigged, folks. Don’t believe for a minute that I wouldn’t attend. I would knock Crooked Hillary off the stage.

    A lot of people are saying heads would explode and maybe we should listen because I debate YUUUGE folks and you know that.”

  9. Josiah says:

    Go Trumph

  10. Josiah says:


  11. cheyenne says:

    Go Broncos!  Nobody explodes heads, on the other team, like the Denver defense.

    Interesting comment on yesterday’s Denver, Cinci game.  If Colin Kaepernick had lowered his price he would have been the Bronco quarterback.  If that had happened would Kap have still done his sit/kneel protest?

  12. cheyenne says:

    7:00 MST.  Here goes.

  13. Well? What did you think?

    • cheyenne says:

      To me it looked like they spent more time telling how bad the other person was and just had generalities about what they would do personally.

    • Beverly Stafford says:

      I know Trump made his fortune and reputation by being brash, but for those of us raised to be polite, the constant Trumpus Interruptus was off-putting.  Even in a debate, the opponents should let the other – and the moderator – finish a sentence.  It’s still a head-shaker that of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the U.S., these two are the best that the two parties could come up with.

    • R.V. Scheide says:

      I  call the debate a draw. Trump did exactly what I predicted and Hillary brought her A game.

    • Rod says:

      Viva la diference!

      Sugar and spice with everything nice in a rude brawl against a macho egocentric tough guy.

      Sweet Granny Hillary (before another fainting spell) casting the mommy net over the crowd.

      Maleness vs femininity.

      An overripe flower being pruned by the ravages of time, vs the strength of healthy living.

      A political veteran compares notes with a self-made billionaire.

      Should we crawl back into the Clinton prime, or advance towards the Trump dominance?



  14. Joanne Lobeski-Snyder says:

    There are rules of engagement for a formal debate.  I now understand why these rules, and Robert’s Rules of Order were codified and accepted and have been used successfully anytime people get together to discuss important issues.  A telling part of the debate happened when Trump claimed he was smart because he didn’t pay taxes.  A successful business person has so many great ways to increase their personal wealth without contributing back to the country that gives them the freedom to go for the gold.  Money can only make you happy to the point that you can meet all of the needs of your family.  After that point it becomes a game.


  15. cheyenne says:

    While much was said about and by the candidates the one thing I took as something true was when Trump said that, about the rioting and unrest in the inner cities, the two words Clinton doesn’t use are “Law and Order”.  And I agree.  Before meaningful changes to the inner cities can be done you have to have Law and Order, of course that means different things to different people.

  16. R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

    OK, so here’s my longer critique on last night’s debate. I call it a draw, and judging by reaction from both camps, I think that’s pretty accurate. The Clinton camp is understandably relieved, Hillary got through the debate looking and sounding healthy, strong and presidential. Trump landed no major blows. She still doesn’t have a vision, but her competence showed.

    As I expected, Holt’s three “themes” of the debate did help Trump, because they fit his narrative. On prosperity, he hammered on trade–Clinton had no comeback. On security, he rightly stuck Clinton with the current foreign policy mess–Clinton had no comeback, other than to say GW Bush did it. On direction, Trump’s message that America is failing right now came pounding through–and again Clinton has no comeback, other than that recovery, after 8 years, is just round the corner.

    Although Holt interrupted Trump four times as often as he did Clinton, and often set up questions with an obvious liberal bias, I felt that overall, he was relatively fair. I thought his questions on race brought interesting responses from Trump and Clinton, particular Clinton, who seemed to be inferring that all whites have an implicit bias against blacks. The goes well beyond the claim that institutional racism causes police shootings Steve Tower and I are discussing above.

    While I heard various people moan and kvetch every time Trump let his alpha male behavior show, he did a reasonable job of keeping his behavior in check. I don’t think he hurt himself last night. There were a few answers where Hillary slipped into her robotic tone, obviously repeating a canned answer, but for the most part, she was extremely effective. She had to be, and she was.

    I turned the TV off immediately after the debate because I couldn’t bare to see the pundits, almost all of whom are in the tank for Hillary, savage Trump for five hours. Therefore, I didn’t see any heads explode. Looking online, both sides think there candidate did well, although about a third of Trump supporters think he should have gone harder on Clinton. The few real polls done on who won the debate so far show it pretty even.

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Holt self-identifies as a deeply religious conservative Republican who grew up a military brat.  I don’t think his questions revealed his liberal bias.

      After Matt Lauer’s failure to call bull**** even when he was neck deep in it at the “Commander in Chief Forum,”  Holt was put under intense pressure to challenge candidate responses that were, as matters of record, untrue.  And most such responses belonged to Trump.

      • R.V. Scheide says:

        The liberal bias began on the first question which Holt set up by saying the economy has recovered just fine. It hasn’t by any objective measure. It continued throughout the debate with Holt attacking trump on his tax returns, birthers, etc. And not questioning Clinton on emails and foundation. This is so totally normal for the MSM that it’s hardly noticeable anymore. That’s why I don’t make a big deal about it. Yes I knew he was a Republican.

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          He said everything is just fine?

          Here is Holt’s first question, transcribed:

          “We’re calling this opening segment ‘Achieving Prosperity.’ And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There’s been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”

          Maybe it’s just me, but at best that presents a mixed bag.

          In fact, I might accuse Holt of painting a conservative-biased picture of economic recovery under the GOP-led Congress.  Yeah, incomes are increasing at record pace after years of stagnation.  What he didn’t say is most of that income growth is in the upper 20% of income brackets.   And income inequality doesn’t “remain significant,” which implies a slow improvement—it’s growing.  lf you’re in the lower 60% of income brackets, you’re still living paycheck to paycheck.

  17. Robert Scheide says:

    Right off the top , I am not , nor will I ever be for Trump or Hillary . Hillary has too many ties to war mongers and leaks of her proposed cabinet members bodes ill will for this country. Trump for my money is a perfect example of a school yard bully like I experience in grade school.

    Neither candidate gave any clear solutions to fix our obvious problems. Sure both address the inner city problems but I did not here any solutions to that problem. The inner city problems have existed since I was a pup and still exist today. Granted it will take a huge application of our resources to bring any change to the cities.

    Both have insisted that our military is under funded, really , I think a trillion bucks is enough to compete in the world. Both need to admit that the Hegemony that America wants to be, is no longer in our reach. In fact a big reduction in funds combined with smart systems that actually work, instead of buying F35’s that won’t perform as designed , to 4 litterol ships have been pulled from the active navy do to crippling equipment failure at a tremendous cost .

    Overall , the debate provided no look at any programs that would help correct our languishing economy.
    From the good ole standby of cutting taxes on corporations to stimulate growth, never has worked , and if fact the evidence says that if the corporate taxes were raised to high levels it would encourage corporations to invest in plant and equipment to build their business. Instead lower taxes would encourage a even bigger shift to dangerous investments vehicles .

    Who won? For my money Hillary clearly won and Trump just bullied his way through. If platitudes were gold Trump won. The end result I still have no one to vote for. I can’t do Hillary and I absolutely can’t do Trump as I feel either one will be a disaster.

    I got my ballot the other day and a quick look at the choices for president showed me my answer the blank write in box is still there and I will write in Bernie Sanders, as for my money neither of the two main candidates deserve my vote.

    Cop out , yep , first time in many , many elections I am going to cop out, handing the crown to either Hillary of Trump might not be smart, but at least I can say I voted.

  18. K. Beck says:

    “Sure both address the inner city problems but I did not here any solutions to that problem. The inner city problems have existed since I was a pup and still exist today. Granted it will take a huge application of our resources to bring any change to the cities.”

    The solution to “inner city problems” is to NOT build “inner cities” in the first place. I know all the NIMBYs will be up in arms, but when you create a ghetto by putting ALL your low income housing in a confined place you get a ghetto. Simple as that.

  19. Frank Treadway says:

    It’s a matter of the electoral votes political ranters ! Hillary already has enough even if Trump succeeds in Ohio, Florida & Georgia. So get ready to say Madame President !  No need to have the remaining debates, if anyone was truly on the fence after last night’s debate they shouldn’t be voting.  Hillary won hands down, it was pathetic the way Trump used his repetitive cliches, interrupted Hillary over 70 times and lost the FactCheck outcome.                            Very embarrassing for the GOP.

  20. Breakfast Guy says:

    R.V. — Have you had your hearing and vision tested recently? Holt’s liberal bias started on the first question? And, “Clinton had no comeback”, numerous times? Clinton could not respond while Trump was obviously interrupting.. actually babbling over both her and Holt. It’s just not accurate to blame the moderator for interrupting. He could have been more forceful in controlling Trump but that’s not easy. And, you call bias and say the debate was a draw? Excuse me, my tin foil detection device is sounding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *