Takeaways From the Third Debate

      No Comments on Takeaways From the Third Debate

Here’s how I saw it:

Trump Won On Points, Clinton Won on Feels:

Trump was able to strike a happy medium between the first debate in which he was rather incoherent and defensive, and the second debate when he was on point but extremely aggressive. In the third debate, he was more ‘presidential,’ whatever that means. One of his biggest problems to date has been the fact that the uninitiated voter thinks he’s a crazy madman, so he had to convince those viewers that he could withstand attacks without blowing up. He did that, avoiding getting too deep into the weeds on side issues and was able to get a lot of points across firmly and effectively.

He was able to put Clinton on the defensive on several issues, such as the fact that she takes donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries like Saudi Arabia, which throws gays from rooftops and treat women poorly. He also brought up the James O’Keefe video in which DNC operatives were bragging about how they paid people to incite violence at Trump rallies. Clinton’s ‘dream’ of an open border for the hemisphere, as revealed through Wikileaks was also brought up.

In each instance, Clinton had no answer. She pivoted to blaming Russia, or outright ignoring the issue brought up. Her main avenue for scoring points on the night was through emotion. She tried it with abortion, with the typical politician tactic of telling a tale of how some random person from the campaign trail just happened to personify exactly the point wished to be made. She tried it with the use of the THINK OF THE CHILDREN angle with respect to both guns and Syria, and finally with the ‘this is not who we are’ cliche with respect to Trump’s supposed misogyny.

It listens well, but in the end it’s tired. Trump was able to bring new arguments into the fray which both bolstered his case and the case against Hillary Clinton. It still remains to be seen whether the public will see through the emotional manipulation of Clinton, however effective it may be in the moment.

Trump’s ‘Refusal’ to Accept the Result of The Election

Chris Wallace asked Trump (and not Clinton) whether he would accept the result of the election. He was also asked of it by Lester Holt at the first debate. This is a bit curious for reasons I’ll get into later. But Trump’s response is getting most of the play in the mainstream media today (H/T ZeroHedge):cvlboygxyaedl3s debate-4 debate-5 debate-1 debate-3

The media has gone apoplectic over the fact that Trump said that he’d keep us in ‘suspense,’ about how he would respond to the election results. Plenty of words were written and spoken last night about the GRAVE DAMAGE TRUMP HAD DONE TO A SANCTIMONIOUS PILLAR OF OUR 240 YEAR OLD REPUBLIC.

For a start such hyperbole and spewing of platitudes is hypocritical given the allegations that George Bush had stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections, which came from the same people who are today lambasting Trump. It was enough to make Joe Scarborough, hardly Trump’s greatest fan, laugh at the latest faux outrage:

The latest response to the ‘but Gore!’ argument from the left is now something along the lines of ‘but he accepted it!’ Yes, a month later, after it was brought to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t Trump be afforded that same level of skepticism if something fishy happens on election night?

That brings me to my next point, which is the James O’Keefe videos. In the last two weeks, the same leftists who are today extolling the virtues of American democracy and the sanctity of our free and fair elections have been caught on camera admitting that voter fraud is rampant, explaining step by step in detail how to perpetrate voter fraud without getting caught, and describing how to subvert democracy by inciting violence at opposition political rallies.

Robert Creamer, one of those involved in organizing those efforts, visited the White House over 340 times during President Obama’s two terms, according to White House records. Both Creamer, and Scott Foval, another one of the head honchos profiled in the O’Keefe videos, stepped down from their positions after they were exposed, a move that confirms the egregious nature of what is shown on the tapes.

In a sane world, there would be a massive investigation and this would be one of the political stories of the year. But who would look into it? The same Department of Justice which is headed by an Attorney General who secretly met with Bill Clinton in an airplane, days before a ruling was to be reached on whether his wife was to face charges? The same FBI which is headed by a Director who then verbally declared she had committed a crime but also stated there was no case? I doubt it.

The mere fact that Clinton is running for an office with the highest security clearance in the land, after provably mishandling classified information in a prior position in govenment, thus disqualifying her from access to such information ever again, is mind boggling. But thanks to the media, the DOJ and the FBI, the public has been conditioned to accept Clinton as a legitimate candidate.

In a similar vein, the constant media pushback of Trump’s assertions that the system is rigged (despite scores of prominent Democrats saying the same thing for years), and the watery-eyed appeals to the history of our 240 year Republic and its pristine elections, are potentially conditioning the public to accept what might ultimately be an illegitimate election result.

It’s not a stretch for Trump to be wary of shenanigans on election night, given everything discussed here, in addition the vociferous objections to things like voter ID and the removal of the dead from voter rolls, when the only conceivable objections to either of those things would be to commit fraud. As Scaborough said, those opposing Trump on this can bathe in the hypocrisy.

A Hillary Clinton Presidency = War With Russia

This is perhaps the most chilling, and important takeaway from the night, but it might get lost in the shuffle given the media hysteria discussed above.

The proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia has escalated in recent weeks and months, and last night Hillary Clinton reiterated her desire to impose a no-fly zone over the area, to ‘hasten the end of the conflict.’

This is in opposition to President Obama, who feels that such a move would entangle us deeper into the region, and in the face of concerns from Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that a no fly zone would mean war with Russia:

This was how Clinton outlined her support for the no fly zone:

A few things: Clinton noted her awareness of the ‘legitimate concerns’ of the President and the General Dunford. In fact as far back as 2013, she understood the fact that imposing a no-fly zone would create all sorts of problems and cause the deaths of scores of civilians. We know this, thanks to a Wikileaks release of her transcripts to Wall Street bankers (see page 66). Back in 2013, she said this, relating to a Syrian no-fly zone:

So we’re not as good as we used to be, but we still — we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone— Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians. [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
So Hillary Clinton wants to do something – which by her admission requires at the very least the killing of ‘a lot of Syrians’ – in order to save lives.  She took the nonsensical logic a step further in that clip when she spoke of the refugees which are being displaced as a result of this civil war (which she started), and how she couldn’t just stand by watching as people got slaughtered:
I am not going to slam the door on women and children. That picture of that little 4 year boy in Aleppo, with the blood coming down his face, while he sat in an ambulance, is haunting.
Clinton is, in effect, justifying war with Russia, a nuclear power because of a humanitarian crisis created by US involvement which she led, and is using dead children as an emotional impetus to do it. Truly disturbing.

Furthermore, she believes a no fly zone, the establishment of which would lead to war, would then lead to diplomacy in which a deal could be struck. Even if this were true, how could one trust the bargaining skills of Clinton given her tenure at the State Department and her consistent failures in diplomacy with respect to the Russian reset, Libya, Egypt and more?

In the end, a vote for Clinton is a vote for war, potentially of the nuclear variety. It is shaping up to be just that simple. I’ll refer you back to the video above of General Dunford’s hearing. After he declares that a no-fly zone is tantamount to war, leaving the room in a momentary stunned silence, Senator John McCain can be heard grumbling in the background. He then takes over the discussion and angrily guilt trips Dunford for honestly answering the question he was asked, saying:

No, what he asked was should we have a no fly zone so we can protect these people form being slaughtered. That’s what he’s talking about, that’s what we’re all talking about.
Dunford immediately backs down and almost apologetically says that maybe we wouldn’t have to go to war after all. But the annoyance which McCain showed at the original answer was telling. It was as though he was upset that the real consequence of establishing a no fly zone was mentioned, by such an authoritative figure on the matter so as to leave no doubt. Note how he glibly knocks away such concerns about the no fly zone by enveloping it in humanitarian concerns, just as Clinton did last night.

It is thus ironic that Clinton has such support from leftists, despite her taking the same warmongering position as a notorious neocon warmonger. These are the same leftists who were up in arms during the Bush administration owing to the endless Middle East adventures the US embarked on. Hillary Clinton has done nothing but continue them as Secretary of State, and definitively promised to continue further last night.

Despite the fact these unnecessary adventures could directly result in nuclear war, these same leftists are not only standing behind Clinton, but have the audacity to declare that it is Trump who might get us into a war frivolously.

Clinton’s actual record of promoting just that, frivolous war, is apparently meaningless, because Donald Trump says mean things sometimes. It truly is a clown world we live in.

Final Thought

Not really a huge takeaway, but I was wrong in my debate preview about Chris Wallace. He did a good job last night, particularly compared to the moderators in the other debates. He was fair to both sides, and equally tough, which made for a substantive debate.

How this will play out on election night is to be seen, but from where I sit, the dynamic of the election is as follows: Trump is seemingly wearing a clown suit and speaking with helium gas, but what his actual words amount to the fact that two plus two is equal to four. Clinton speaks with professorial calmness and assuredness, but does so in relaying the argument that two plus two is equal to twenty-two.

It is up to the electorate to note this, and act accordingly.