My thoughts on the 1st Trump vs. Clinton debate

(open image in new tab in order to enlarge it)

A few thoughts on last night’s US Presidential debate.

Trump is unavoidable in the media, and I think last night was probably the first time for the overwhelming majority of the people to see how Trump acts and speaks through an unfiltered lens. We’ve all seen the sound-bites, highlights, and even the incoherent blunders that both him and the many pronged media outlets have produced; but seldom do people have the time to fully take him in and become familiar with his platform, uninterrupted. That’s why a full 1.5 hour exposure of him was just what the people needed. Think about it like quote mining: on its own a quote has a tendency to make a person think about its message at face value- but in full context, a specific quote can have a much different meaning and impact relative to the full message.

Well what can I say about Trump? The guy is neither a politician nor an orator- and that was quickly learned by many who haven’t been fully exposed to him before. His words didn’t flow in stanzas, his rhetoric skill was mild, and his inability to stay concise on a few topics was quite apparent. But where he suffered in public speaking, he made up for in conviction. A big part of Trump’s appeal for many people is his ability to speak his mind unadulterated. No matter what he’s saying, he’s always unhinged with respect to his own political ideologies. However, there were a lot of times where I wish he would have set some things aside such as questions and accusations that grilled the nature of his character. For him, his integrity is important and when it’s attacked, for example, through wilfully ignorant remarks about his chapter 11 bankruptcies - he has to attempt to set the record straight. Often times that’s done in a manner that is devoid of any respect for his political demeanour (like the time when he defends his knowledge and use of legalese that are of less than savoury nature). 90% of the time it’s a fool’s errand for him to do this because it delves into the realm of damage control which indirectly puts him in a negative and petty light. For the most part however, he did what he does best, and that’s being confident, thinking out loud what he believes in, and giving a raw yet genuine performance.


This debate I think is one for the history books, because it drew upon a thematic parallel from the divide that ancient Athens saw between Philosophers and Sophists during the time of Socrates. A Sophist was someone who got their points across through rhetoric while usually using fallacious arguments a the core elements of their ideas. These were useful qualities of the time, during which persuasive ability had a large influence on one's political power and economic wealth. On the other camp, philosophers had truth and reason to use as ammo in order to get their point across. Several topics related to large issues and questions were debated between Sophists and philosophers- and over time it became less popular to be a sophist because of their sly techniques of persuasion. No matter how seamlessly you articulated your proposal to enact a law or defend a view you had – it would never match up against the universality of logic.

Now, by no stretch of the imagination am I implying that Trump is a philosopher, far from it I would argue. But you kind of see what I’m getting at. Trump says and argues to an extent what he believes and judges to be policies of sound logic. None of the things he says are eloquent, but he sticks to his guns in pursuit to expose the true nature of American politics without the use of a politician’s undertone. For a person like Trump, having a background in politics is more of a liability than it is an asset. Given how people in power that work for the government are prone to corruption and special interests, they ultimately succumb to the control of special interest groups and lobbyists – meaning that they no longer work for the will of the people, they work for whoever lines their pockets. He said it himself that he thinks “politician” is a dirty word in of itself. And believe it or not, it takes a true outsider to set things straight in the realm of politics. Experience in politics can often be implicit of a lot of negative traits, and for that reason, I think Trump has the right disposition America desperately needs to fix their country.

In the next part of this post, I’m going to divulge exactly why every characteristic that benefited Trump is the exact opposite case for Hillary.

I can’t possibly claim to sound unbiased in this post, because research and past events have already dictated my mandate. So please bear with me.

Hillary Clinton is by far the most corrupt and dishonest public figure maybe in contemporary existence. The fact that she’s skillful enough to fool a lot of the electorate into falling for her fake façade of ordinariness, is evidence enough that she really is a career politician. Clinton represents the interests of the Deep State (please Google anything that you’re unfamiliar with) where certain principals are upheld either openly or secretly. Yes, from open boarder policies that not only flood America’s workforce with cheap labour, but also increase taxes across the board in order to sustain such a burden on the welfare system…to chaos driven sociopathic foreign policies that both meddle in the affairs of sovereign states and topple foreign governments; Hillary always seems to be in pursuit of an agenda that’s aligned with the interests of globalists while simultaneously benefiting her political prestige, her “foundation”, and her special interest friends. She played a crucial role as Secretary of State in unlawfully toppling the Qaddafi regime in Libya under the Obama administration, an act that's seen today as the primary catalyst of the European Migrant Crisis. Not only that, but she did indeed support the war in Iraq (which she as a senator voted for) and for the toppling of the Al-Assad government in Syria which created a condition that permitted the spread of Wahhabism and the formation of the ISIS caliphate. To make matters worse, the so called freedom fighting rebels that she and the current Democrat led executive government support in Syria are affiliates of Al-Qaeda: a terrorist organization which was responsible for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. Her Clinton Foundation is essentially a grand infrastructure for laundering money from Saudi Arabia, banks, big corporations, and many many other foreign investors. The topic of the Clinton Foundation is a big enough beast to warrant another post of its own; but that’s a topic for another day (I encourage you to look up the film documentary “Clinton Cash” on Youtube). She’s essentially the epitome of “establishment” in every meaning of the term, yet somehow all of these topics are always overlooked by the general public and especially the media.

With such a colourful history, you’d probably wonder why none of last night’s debate questions touched upon these crucial elements of Hillary's past tenure as Secretary of State. Give me one example of a tough question that Clinton got from all of last night. You’d be hard-pressed to find one. Instead, the nature of the questions that were posed at the debate was that of an inconsequential nature. Issues of Immigration, international relations, and national security (which are the top issues that Americans wanted to see debated) were replaced with non-issues like tax returns and stretched accusations of racism. The audacity of Hillary, of all people, upholding Trump to a legal standard when matters of government are involved is absolutely pathetic, especially coming from a person who is subject to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the FBI. If transparency is a virtue, and if the topic of Trump’s tax returns is an issue of transparency; then perhaps the same virtue should be shown with questions about Hillary’s private e-mail servers and the disclosed information from her Clinton Foundation and campaign contributors.

She said last night that “We should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who might use them to do harm”. Kind of like the Syrian and Libyan rebels who gradually evolved into ISIS auxiliaries, or the Saudis who fund them. Her hypocrisy truly is limitless, and this was also demonstrated in her remarks about Trump’s “birther movement”. It’s not clear in what universe it’s racist to request someone to produce a birth certificate outlining the exact location of their birth. One thing is clear however, that it was her campaign staff in her 2008 presidential campaign that began this discussion in the first place.

Clinton used to be a lawyer for some years, and over those years, she’s gained valuable skills and experience from her profession that help her achieve her past and present political ambitions. Trump was not a lawyer, he was a businessman. In Trump’s field, honesty is the better part of valour. He never developed such a talent for lying because not only is lying unethical, it’s bad for business. No company would want to do business with someone who has a track record of not telling the truth. But interestingly enough, companies love doing business with politicians like Hillary in America- because to them, lying is a virtue that opens up many concessions. Hillary is a talented liar- and this isn’t necessarily due to the fact that she was a lawyer (and by no means am I insulting lawyers in general), it’s just because she’s an abhorrent human being. She’s recorded on file for lying about her illegal e-mail servers and about prior knowledge of a terrorist attack on American diplomats in Benghazi- never mind the thousands of untold accounts she’s lied without being caught on camera.

I don’t want to make it out to seem like Trump is Abraham Lincoln, I’m sure he’s told lies here and there just like the rest of us. But the gravity of committing perjury while being a public servant is far greater than while being a businessman.

In conclusion, Trump’s not perfect. But he would make a far better statesman for the people of America than Clinton ever could. Last night’s debate was undoubtedly biased towards Clinton. Her exaggerated forced smile is indicative of how she views the idea of opposition (let alone democracy) as something to be regarded as trivial and cute. Hopefully the next debate will be better.