Summary
Hillary Clinton won and Donald Trump is stalled in the water.
Do the Job!
Hillary won the debate by simply presenting herself as someone that could do the job, regardless of whether you support her policies of not.
(And Eddie doesn’t support some main policies she has, including: open borders, another $10 trillion of national debt, a liberal Supreme Court judge, the deterioration of our education system, and her pro-crime ideas.
One of these pro-crime ideas is that there should be a diversity in our prison population: All races should be equally represented in number of arrests and number of incarcerations, regardless of disparity of behaviors of the different racial groups. That is, our prison population should have as many whites, Jews, and Asians in proportion to their numbers in society. Prisons should “look like America.” In the meantime, thousands of prisoners of color should be let out.)
Trump, on the other hand, gave no evidence that he could do the job! Whereas Hillary responded to question with rational lines of thought – whether you agreed with her or not – Trump responded to questions with slogans and denigrating comments.
He gave no evidence that he could create a collection of rational and practical policies, and no evidence that he could persuade Congress to pass laws to enact these policies. He gave no evidence that he could negotiate with the other countries in the world. He gave no evidence that he could run the biggest administration in the world. He gave no evidence that he could avoid a useless and destructive war.
Trump has gotten this far by getting people to vote for him. But behind the fluff, there seems to be little substance: “Where is the beef?”
And the crime is that Trump could have easily created substance. He could have simply hired a bunch of experts and paid them to come up with reasonable and practical policies that addressed the pressing issues of today — policies that fit into Trump’s main idea of “making America great again.” Then he could have listened to these experts and advocated for those policies. But nooooooo, he knew everything already.
When Trump goes low Hillary goes high
Trump could have pointed out Hillary’s contradiction with her stating that she goes “higher” than Trump.
Even though Trump goes to the garbage dump with his denunciations – which many of his fans love – no one is worse than Hillary, and many of her followers, when it comes to denigrating Trump and his followers.
Hillary’s denunciations are more effective and devastating. Hillary and many of her supporters treat Trump as being beneath the level of humanity, sort of like a sub-human crawling from under a rock. And many of his “deplorable” supporters are not much better.
We can see this denigration on an everyday basis with the Progressive Inquisition. A reader of this article can experience this denigration by simply wearing a “Make America Great Again” red cap in liberal social circles or by making a conservative political statement in the same circles.
We saw this phenomenon in the debate, when Hillary said the only positive thing she had about Trump were his kids. She couldn’t even state the inference: that he was a good father. It’s possible that she have come with something positive about from her condemning mind, like Trump having a couple of good ideas. After all, Trump is a human being.
On the other hand, at least Trump said that Hillary was a fighter and that she never gives up.
White men’s evil thoughts
We saw Hillary’s, and her Progressive supporters’, denigration of America’s “deplorable” people also in the condemning of Trump for making misogynist statements in a private conversation five years ago.
(No one criticized Bobby Bush for secretly taping the conversation nor the Washington Post for making it public.
Also, Hillary and her supporters never criticized rap singers, many who write “songs” which contain much more denigrating and misogynist comments about women — any such criticism would be seen as racist and would cost Hillary votes.)
Trump was accurate in saying his talk was “locker room talk.” Many average guys, when in private – with no women around — get involved with such talk. Often it is just joking around and having fun, like Trump seemed to have been doing.
But now what we see is this private joking around by white men is prohibited by the Progressive Inquisition. Any such gross comments, even in the most private of moments, are strictly taboo. Any white man making such comments is labeled the worst scum of humanity. In fact, it is strictly prohibited to even have such thoughts.
If you do, sooner or later, the Inquisition will get you, and destroy you.
Meanwhile, it is OK to: have a million abortions a year; destroy the earth with our consumption; let hundreds of prisoners out of jail; immigrate thousands of believers in a religion that is anti-Semitic, anti-infidel, and against the concept of freedom of religion; have rap music that encourages crime and anti-social behavior; and drive the country into bankruptcy with deficit spending.
Just don’t joke around about illicit sex.
Conclusion
All in all, it was an interesting debate. We must realize that politics is mostly about entertainment, and we usually get a pretty good deal of entertainment for how much it costs us. Unfortunately, sometimes the costs can be catastrophic.
This was probably the best debate yet! I thought it was a draw. Trump was on defensive the 1st half, mainly due to the moderators. Hillary was on defense the 2nd half mainly due to Trump. The female moderator overstepped her bounds when she tried to debate Trump.
Although I do think this election is over based on the repugnant footage of Trump this Friday, Trump did win the 2nd debate fair and square. Just as Hillary got under his skin in debate 1, Trump got under her skin in debate 2.
University at Buffalo paid $275,000 for Hillary Clinton speech
By Philip Rucker July 16, 2014
When Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed to address the University at Buffalo, the largest campus of the State University of New York system, she negotiated a few requirements in addition to her pay of $275,000.
The potential 2016 presidential candidate’s agent requested that the university provide “a presidential glass panel teleprompter and a qualified operator,” that Clinton’s office have “final approval” of her introducer and the moderator of any question-and-answer session, as well as “the sets, backdrops, banners, scenery, logos, settings, etc,” and that the topic and length of the former secretary of state’s speech would be at her “sole discretion.”
These requirements are spelled out in a nine-page contract between the University at Buffalo and Clinton’s representatives at the Harry Walker Agency. The contract was obtained through the freedom of information law by the Public Accountability Initiative, a non-profit research and educational group.
The contract reveals for the first time many of the details surrounding Clinton’s lucrative career on the paid speaking circuit. Since stepping down from the State Department in early 2013, Clinton has addressed scores of audiences, many of them trade conventions, Wall Street banks and other industry groups.
Clinton has given paid speeches at eight universities, four of them public institutions. In those instances, she has said, she donated her fees to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s non-profit philanthropic organization. The Buffalo contract stipulates that the “net honorarium” go to the Clinton Foundation, but only after the “full contract fee” of $275,000 was paid to the Harry Walker Agency.
The University at Buffalo issued a statement Wednesday saying “no state funding or student tuition revenue” was used to pay for Clinton’s speech. The statement said that about 6,500 students and community members attended Clinton’s speech on Oct. 23, 2013, at the university’s Alumni Arena, and that Clinton’s fee was paid for by ticket sales and other sponsorships and endowments.
The Buffalo contract stipulates that a pre-speech reception featuring Clinton be closed to the news media, although the speech itself was open to the press. The contract also required that the university pay a fee of $1,000 to have a stenographer transcribe Clinton’s speech, but that the transcript be “solely for [Clinton’s] records,” and that the university was not permitted to tape the speech.
The contract required the university to reserve 20 seats in a “priority seating area” for Clinton’s staff and guests, and that the university pay for any additional security requested by the U.S. Secret Service, such as magnetometers and trained staff to search the bags of attendees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/university-at-buffalo-paid-275000-for-hillary-clinton-speech/