Where Is The Substance? – A Look At The Third Debate

We always hear people talking about there being no substantive debate in this 2016 presidential election.

Many of those complaints come from the Mainstream Corporate Media Complex. The third and final debate showed us just how hypocritical they are in their concerns.

In this final debate, we have seen some of the starkest policy differences in the positions of these two campaigns than we saw in the previous two debates.

The debate moderator, Chris Wallace, did the best job of all the previous debate moderators in keeping on the issues and the debate between the candidates as opposed to debating the candidates himself.

It was a debate that provided a clear contrast to many issues.

We had a clear contrast on their positions regarding the Supreme Court. While Hillary Clinton did not directly answer the question, she did make it clear by her answer that she believes the constitution should be interpreted according to current public opinion.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, made it clear that the constitution should be interpreted the ways the founders intended, and that he would appoint judges that would respect the constitution and not try to be an activist or lawmaker.

As a side note, the founders did institute a mechanism to change the constitution if needed because of changing times. It is the creating of this alternative outlook on its interpretation that activist has used because of their inability to make the changes they desire in that proper manner. Only one branch of government was empowered to make law, congress. 

The supreme court question was also made clear regarding the questions about the second amendment.

Once again Hillary Clinton said that the supreme court got it wrong and that she would like justices that would limit the second amendment. On the other hand, Donald Trump made it very clear that he wants the court to not make law, but uphold the constitution.

The other issue that was made crystal clear was each candidate’s view of unborn life. Hillary Clinton’s position that an unborn life has no rights until it’s official birth.

Donald Trump made it clear that his personal view is for the sanctity of life, however, is should be left to the states to determine as laid out in the constitution on its legality.

There was also a clear difference on their immigration views. The first thing Hillary Clinton said when asked a question about immigration, was to express her concern for the illegals.

Then she said, “I don’t want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country.”

That deportation force that he has spoken about is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement run by The Department of Homeland Security.

She then continued that “law enforcement officers would be going school to school, home to home, business to business, rounding up people who are undocumented. And we would then have to put them on trains, on buses to get them out of our country.”

This was a complete mischaracterization of how ICE does its work in enforcing our immigration laws.

Chris Wallace did follow up with her regarding new information that has come out about what she has said on the matter behind closed doors to a Brazilian bank, for which she was paid $225,000.

About the new revelation from WikiLeaks Wallace continued “that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”… Is that your dream, open borders?”

Hillary Clinton did not answer the question.

Donald Trump’s reply is that “we either have a country or we don’t. We’re a country of laws. We either have a border or we don’t.”

He also pointed out that Barack Obama has deported millions of illegal aliens.

The debate contained many other points of interest that anyone who is voting in this year’s election should be aware of. The economy, national defense, reports on the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, the claims of Clinton operatives of inciting violence at Trump events, trade, and Obama Care.

Following this article, we have both a transcript and a video of the debate. Everyone should take a look at one of them if not both.

With all of this substantive information that was covered, though, after all was said and done, the Corporate Mainstream Media Complex decided to ignore most of it.

Instead, they decided to blow up one statement that Donald Trump made about reserving his right of not conceding the election until he sees the voting results.

To an industry that has long ago conceded its honesty, self-respect, and integrity, it was a foreign concept that they could not grasp.

Mainstream Corporate Media Complex Brings in Reinforcements

The first presidential debate was a 2 on 1 as Lester Holt did his best for the cause. However, things are looking a little tougher for the leftist so they decided to up the ante. 

The first shot was the releasing of some very embarrassing audio of Trump telling Billy Bush what it’s like to be a billionaire playboy. This as Hollywood does its best to muster up enough outrage to knock out a candidate that they see as a threat to their agenda. 

Imagine if every conversation in Hollywood was recorded. America would not have an entertainment industry to speak of, but rather an even greater jail overcrowding problem than it does today. I guess they never heard about the glass house concept. But I digress. 

The second shot was for the Mainstream Corporate Media Complex to bring in some reinforcements to create not just a 2 on 1, but rather a 3 on 1. The extra man or woman, in this case, was Martha Raddatz, an ABC reporter with a history of covering up government corruption for political purposes.

She was able to go beyond just being biased and showcased her own debate skills as she took on Trump directly in a debate with him of her own. It will be a pleasure if Chris Wallace sticks to what he has said about believing that it should only be a debate between the candidates. Stay tuned. 

Anderson Cooper also did his best for the cause. With his first question, he framed Trump’s locker room banter about how women throw themselves at men with money and power, into a question framed to get a conviction for sexual assault. 

Once again let me just stop and say, what Trump was caught saying in private was reprehensible. But anyone thinking that talk like this doesn’t go on by both men and women in our society simply isn’t living in the real world. It is really a commentary on society more than Donald Trump. 

Even with the 3 on 1 configuration of this debate though Trump was able to directly engage with Hillary Clinton in a way the Media would never dream of. And we are not talking about his mention of Bill Clinton’s well documented past of sexual perversion, rape, assault, and abuse of power. Which he did quite well by the way. 

We are talking about her underhanded past campaign that questioned Barack Obama’s nationality. 

Her rigging of the primary election against Bernie Sanders.

Destroying 33,000 emails that belonged in the public record with a special program to prevent their recovery after she received a subpoena for them to be turned over.

​That Clinton who at one time said that she was very aware of what is classified and how that works, later claimed to not know what a classification mark meant.

That her husband met with the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, just days before she ruled on her case. 

The fact that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was not able to make other countries take back their criminal deportees. 

The fact that Clinton seems enamored with blaming anything negative about her on Russia. Who knows, though, if she were president maybe she could bring them another button to try to start fresh, again? 

He touched a little of how Clinton always talks about arming rebels, without knowing who they really are. He didn’t touch on the fact that the Clinton State Department has armed those on the terror watch list against federal law, maybe something that could be brought up in the final debate. 

All in all, he did something we don’t see in politics that often. He confronted her with her own policies, statements, and actions. It was a pleasure to watch.  

He was even gracefully able to point out the fact that he was being interrupted and she wasn’t. 

I guess that’s what her slogan I’m with her is all about.

​If You Want to Commit Slander and Not Be Prosecuted, Become A Politician – And Other Observations from The 2016 VP Debate

Yes, the 2016 Vice Presidential debate once again showed America that we do not have an impartial unbiased free press. This debate showed that just like the first Presidential debate did over a week ago. 

All questions tailored to embarrass the Republican, cover for the Democrat and do her best to bail out an atrocious debate performance by Tim Kaine.

​Once again it was two on one as the moderator critically challenged Mike Piece much more intelligently than even Kaine did, but just as much an advocate for the Democrat ticket as he. 

But even with Elaine Quijano’s help, as Kaine would give her facial cues so as for her to cut off Mike Pence when Kaine didn’t like the point he was making, Kaine was only able to talk small on this big debate stage. Big on personal attacks, light on policy and vision.

At one point even attacking Trump’s position on law and order, I guess forgetting how many major law enforcement groups have endorsed him.  

As Mark Dice put it “When Hillary becomes incapacitated due to her hidden health issues, is Tim Kaine the guy you want to run America if they win?” 

I find it hard to imagine someone saying yes. But if I needed to hire someone to use every dirty trick in the book to try to ruin someone’s reputation at all cost, I think Kaine would be my guy, however, in the real world, it would be illegal. 

In politics, it seems just fine. Take someone out of context, quote them incorrectly while making it sound similar to something they have said, or just out and out make it up. All these techniques and more were executed by Tim Kaine as a seasoned pro. So good at it that some have even suggested he could play the villain in a Batman movie. Look out Hollywood. 

As a matter of fact, he and Hillary seem unbelievable compatible in their mastery of saying and doing things that would have a regular person on the wrong end of the law, unless of course they really were just on a movie set.

Slander is a legal term. The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. To a certain extent, politicians are excused from being guilty by people just as most people expect politicians to lie. 

What a sad bar of low expectations we set for the people that make some of the most important decisions in our society.  

An even sadder reality is how many people will believe the misstatements, out of context quotes and lies. Some not because they are ill informed, but because they are a slave to their far left or far right beliefs. They want to believe them.

Some because they have a life, and really don’t have the time to investigate the truth.

And some because they are just gullible. Why do you think Hollywood stars promote candidates? Some people are just gullible. 

So while you or I could not slander our competition in business, at least not without ending up in legal trouble, or ignore national security laws without ending up in jail as some soldier have, politicians seem to have no problem operating with a different level of ethics. 

Or maybe we should say, no ethics at all.