Friday, October 21, 2016
Review of the Three Debates
The only good news I found was the leftist fantasy of a coming climate change catastrophe was rarely mentioned.
On immigration, Trump wants a wall, and is totally concerned about illegal immigration hurting American citizens (illegal immigrants taking US jobs and welfare, and drugs flowing across the border from Mexico).
His position is common sense.
On immigration, Clinton wants open borders throughout North and South America, and is totally concerned about hurting illegal immigrants.
Her position is nonsense.
At the third debate, Hillary tried to divert attention from her 'American Union' proposal (similar to the European Union, but for North and South America), with some bizarre talk about an electric grid across North and South American borders.
I don't like either candidate.
One is greedy and corrupt, and lies so often we can only learn about her real character by reading hacked emails.
The other is a loudmouth and a bully.
Donald Trump has been successful in two prior careers:
Real estate development and reality TV.
His work track record suggests he could be a success as a President, however he insults too many people too often, so up to 20% of registered Republicans may not not vote for him = he can't win the election that way!
Hillary Clinton has not been successful in three prior careers (as First Lady she failed when leading healthcare reform, as Senator she did almost nothing, and as Secretary of State her decisions and opinions concerning Mid-East nations were wrong almost every time).
Her work track record suggests she would be unlikely to be a success as a President.
Politicians normally brag about their accomplishments again and again.
Is it not strange that Hillary Clinton has to go back twenty or more years to brag about herself -- and her greatest "accomplishment" seems to be supporting child healthcare legislation while she was First Lady -- that's nice -- but she didn't write the legislation, nor was she eligible to vote for it as First Lady
If some of the very suspiciously timed sexual harassment charges against Trump are true, which seems likely, then we WILL have a sexual predator in the White House in late January 2017 -- either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton (I'm assuming Bill will be living there).
Female interns should carry MACE and be prepared to use it !
I think Hillary is worse than Trump, which isn't saying much.
Electing Hillary means a majority of voters will be rewarding political corruption -- selling access though charity fraud -- used by the Clintons to create over $100 million of net worth, which was not earned just from giving mediocre short speeches !
She is extremely dishonest and has enriched herself with a huge amount of income from a "non-profit" charity -- and then she brazenly lies when claiming 90% of the Foundation funds go to 'helping people' -- in 2013 spending on actual charity was less than 10% of incoming funds that year.
The Clinton family charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The nation’s most influential charity watchdog put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits in 2015.
The organization spends most of its money on "administration, travel, salaries and bonuses", with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
Both candidates have almost no knowledge of economics.
Hillary speaks in meaningless feel good left-wing platitudes.
They both speak in conclusions, without data.
If they do mention a number, it is likely to be wrong.
The numbers for the effects of their economic proposals are wild guesses.
Confused Hillary said Obama reduced the deficit by "two-thirds" -- WRONG -- the 2016 fiscal year deficit was almost 30% higher than Bush's highest ever deficit in the 2008 fiscal year (and 2008 was a year when 10 of the 12 months were recession months -- deficits are highest during recession months)
Trump still thinks he can use very high tariffs to penalize US companies from manufacturing abroad and exporting into the US.
US companies manufacture in low wage countries to compete with foreign companies.
If Trump wants high tariffs, he can't use them only to penalize US companies manufacturing abroad.
And a 30% too 40% tariff on incoming goods would be devastating for poor and lower middle class families already struggling to get by.
69% of Americans say they have $1,000 or less in their savings accounts -- half of the 69% have no money saved.
I thought the first debate was a tie, with Trump doing better in the first half hour, which I consider just as important as the full hour that follows.
Trump was better in the second debate, and in one poll Hillary's lead declined from +11 points before the debate, to +7 points after the debate.
The third debate was another tie, with Trump again doing better in the first half hour.
In my opinion, the fact that Clinton, a policy wonk, could not easily beat Trump in every debate, shows she's far from the brilliant woman some Democrats claim she is!
Trump would have won if he had not made what seemed to me like a logical thought: He said he would not make a decision on contesting the election until after it happened.
That made sense: I instantly remembered how Nixon was cheated out of the Presidency in 1960, and how Al Gore contested the very close 2000 election for many weeks.
Trump did not say he would never accept the election results -- nor would it matter if he did -- he just said he wanted to wait and see the results first.
The sleazy mainstream media misinterpreted the remark, and gave it a ridiculous amount of coverage, just to keep attention away from Clinton's gross errors such as:
(1) Claiming Obama reduced the deficit by "two thirds", and
(2) When asked about the Clinton Foundation, Hillary went into a long-winded tirade against Russia's Putin -- bizarre -- if that was the ONLY part of the debate you watched, you would think Clinton was a lunatic, and
After the debate, Fox News' Megan Kelly interviewed Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile, to ask her about sending at least one debate question, worded exactly as it was later asked, to Hillary Clinton before a debate.
I have never in my life watched a political operative "tap dance" around a question so poorly -- Donna Brazile made a complete fool of herself attempting to dismiss the question -- she just kept talking and talking and talking ... digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole.
You should listen to this if you can find it on YouTube.com
And remember that it was Donna Brazile who replaced Debble "Blabbermouth" Schultz after she was forced out of her position as the head of the Democrat National Committee.
Posted by The Cliff Claven of Finance at 9:43 AM