and the real loser of the 1st 2016 presidential debate is…

The American People…

Because at this point, I’d rather vote a cat for president (my vote goes to Grumpy Cat)…

Last night, the first presidential debate was held in Hofstra University. Moderated by NBC anchor Lester Holt, the debate was…well… it was definitely something…

I was going to approach this topic in a different way: political commentators have, for some time, been saying that this debate will be catered to the undecided voters or those who usually don’t pay much attention to the politics in general, so both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be trying to gain favor with that group of voters in particular.

So, I was going to focus solely on the debate, but that turned out to be essentially impossible: between the flying lies coming out of the screen and just the absolute chaos of everything, we’ll have to consult a few fact-checkers, go back through Donald Trump’s Twitter account and remind ourselves of everything that’s happened involving these two candidates for the past year or so.

maxresdefault_live

Photo from YouTube.

But first, the debate (but not the actual debating):

IT WAS COMPLETE CHAOS. From the start, poor Lester Holt lost total control of the debate. Both candidates went over the time limit and would not listen when Holt told them their time was up. Trump even went as far as to shush and (continually) interrupt him. At times, I couldn’t even tell what the two candidates were saying because they were just talking over each other.

The composures and attitudes of the two candidates varied greatly: Trump seemed all over the place…he was incredibly unprepared, and the number of times he interrupted both Clinton and Holt is astonishingly rude. You want Law and Order, Mr. Trump? How about we start with you exercising common debate courtesy.  No, your greatest asset is most definitely not your temperament…On the other hand, Clinton was much more composed, though she too occasionally ignored poor Holt when he tried to get the two candidates back on topic.

Speaking of “on topic,” let’s move on to the debating part of the debate:

LOL, what happened? Was anything new said? Were any of their plans for the country carefully delineated? Nope. Nope.

Nothing substantial was touched on about the economy, and the segment about race failed miserably. Clinton, to attract more moderate Conservative voters, didn’t really say much, and Trump was just full of B.S. (When African-Americans are getting beat up at your rallies, that says more about both you and your base’s attitudes and beliefs about race than those two minutes on state…) Heck, none of the questions were even directly answered! (LOL at the last question, which was essentially a yes-no question and of course Trump had to make it about his “Make America Great Again” campaign…and deportations?!?)

What happened was just the two candidates attacking and throwing some (albeit hilarious) shade at each other. What happened was one candidate was very prepared, and the other not so much. What happened was probably the most surreal presidential debate since the first televised presidential debate in 1960.

Also, Mr. Trump, saying “WRONG” about a hundred times will not change the fact that you’re wrong. The fact is that you DID say that climate change was a Chinese hoax. You also DID support the Iraq war. You definitely also weren’t the one who made Obama show his birth certificate, but you were the one who, until this year, kept claiming he wasn’t born in the U.S.

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-10-51-18-pm

So what did I learn from watching the first debate? Nothing. I did learn that Mr. Trump thinks the 2008 collapse of the economy was good for his business (YES, BECAUSE AS LONG AS YOUR BUSINESS PROFITS, WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE 13 MILLION AMERICANS WHO LOST THEIR HOMES), that he thinks getting audited every year is a good thing (???), that it was smart for him to avoid paying federal taxes (!!!), and that he admits to taking advantage of U.S. laws to profit his business (what a great indicator of how he’ll act in office…). AND WHY WAS HE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH HOLT THAT STOP-AND-FRISK WAS CONSTITUTIONAL? It ain’t, because it’s inherently racist. From Clinton, I heard nothing new either, though at least she stayed (relatively) on topic and her arguments were, more or less, well-founded (but very surface-level.)

But perhaps the biggest losers in this debate is the American public. For those who haven’t been keeping close track of the election (though TBH, how is that possible?), the debate shed no light or pointed in the direction of either candidate. For those who do know what’s going on, well…Damn, how did we get ourselves into such deep shit?

(Also, HOW ARE CLINTON AND TRUMP TIED IN POLLS???)

Anyways, here’s a great Fact-Checker from NPR, if you’re interested in seeing the facts and lies from the debates.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “and the real loser of the 1st 2016 presidential debate is…

  1. TheChattyIntrovert says:

    Time to pull up the old experiment by the crazy Michael Moore: “Ficus for Congress”–but also find one that’s been here the minimum amount of years and make it “Ficus for President.” It could be the first non-gendered Green candidate to hold the highest office. A potted plant would do wonders right now (sigh).

    Liked by 2 people

  2. kuwho says:

    i cannot even begin to explain how much i agree with you. even though I’m not an american citizen, id still fly there just to vote for a cat… yes i know thats probably illegal but hey, if every vote makes a difference then why not XD love your blog by the way. maybe we could collaborate sometime. ive just started out with mine and i write stories, mostly about issues that are close to my heart. maybe you could check it out? haha sorry for the shameless self-advertising :0

    Liked by 1 person

  3. resterrestern says:

    I agree with you! No one won the debate!
    In a fair system,all candidates from all political parties should have the same chances to be heard.The reality is that Americans will just have two options to vote for.
    Holding a debate between two candidates is a way to influence people to vote between these both options.In conclusion, this debate was unfair and manipulative.
    Anyway, the debate was very poor in content! If I was from the USA I would vote for 3rd parties, even if they do not have chances to win the elections.

    Liked by 1 person

    • aliz97 says:

      Agreed! That only candidates with over 15% ratings in the polls can debate is BS, but the fact of the matter is our electoral system is so fucked up that a vote for a third party is, unfortunately, a vote for the opposite majority party. 😫

      Liked by 1 person

      • resterrestern says:

        But then, what is the alternative? I think that people should be more reactive towards this….. system…. I am tired to listen from some American friends that they are gonna vote for Hillary because Donald is worse, when the reality is that both are terrible. How can people vote for a racist or a candidate who is endorsed by a dictatorship? Well, something is really wrong in the system.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The Wayfarer says:

    I’m not sure why we even need these debates anymore, as all of a candidate’s platforms and beliefs are clearly enumerated on their websites. But I can attest that I am so grateful to be in Europe, where I don’t have to hear about this clusterfuck of an election constantly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • aliz97 says:

      I guess since the debates are broadcasted during prime time, the idea was to get citizens who don’t usually pay attention to politics in the know too. Or maybe it was so the two candidates could directly address each other to help undecided voters choose their candidate, but this particular debate turned into a comedy show haha. 😅

      Like

      • The Wayfarer says:

        But… how can you even be undecided at this point? Also, you can easily google everything if you don’t know who you want to vote for. Although I’m sure the debates bring in good ratings to the TV networks will keep doing them.

        Like

        • aliz97 says:

          Perhaps ‘undecided’ in the sense that they know the platforms but can’t decide between the ‘lesser of the two evils’ — or at least that’s how a lot of undecided voters I know feel. To me, it’s a pretty obvious choice, but some people just can’t get over Clinton’s emails 😩

          Like

  5. rebbit7 says:

    …and that’s why I chose not to watch the debates; I knew that Trump would make a mess of things and I rather direct my time and energy to other things, really. I guess this debate really “trumped” other reality show drama out there, don’t you think?

    Liked by 2 people

Let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s