So... not that my opinion matters at all, but here are my thoughts on the "debate"... first off, this was not a debate... it was a televised "Yo Mama Battle".
The Donald somehow managed to not answer any of the questions he was asked. He just talked in circles and completely lacked focus. I really do think he means well, but he seems to lack the ability to show empathy or engage deep thought. On top of that, he has not shared any specific plans on what he plans to do as President... all of his "plans" seem to be in the ether. Not structured, whatsoever. If you're going to abolish ObamaCare, what are you going to replace it with, specifically? As a country, we are far to invested in it, just to drop it. While he did land a few good zingers during the 'battle', I don't think he did or said anything to sway undecided voters like myself. While I admit that Hillary should have received a LOT more unbiased scrutiny concerning her email server gaffe, his threat to retry her if he's elected President will NEVER happen. If he's elected, President Obama will no doubt pardon her before he leaves office; and if she is elected, she will pardon herself.
Clearly, Hillary's presentation was far more "polished" than Trump's. Trump is just not ready or mature enough to be POTUS. Just saying, "we need to do this or we need to do that..." without any specifics is just not good enough this late in the game. That's fine in the primaries... but not this close to the election. People need specifics, buddy.... or at least I do.
As for Hillary... ::sigh:: A true politician. A thoroughbred for sure. It seems very unwise of her to recklessly pin her private server email breach on the Russians. What gets me is that tonight she said that there's no PROOF that her private server was compromised. Are you f'ing kidding me?! People have resigned because of those email leaks & the DNC leaks. Perhaps her server wasn't hacked... but it was surely compromised by someone. People don't quit their jobs because of made-up emails. Those emails had to be legit in order for those people to resign and so quickly, mind you. Furthermore, when the Director of the National Intelligence says that THEY don't even have proof that the Russians were the hackers(see link below); how can this lady so confidently proclaim that a foreign Head of State is behind it all? That falls just short of an Act of War. I know a little about hacking and any hacker worth their salt covers their tracks extremely well... and it takes months, sometimes years to discover that the hack even happened, if ever. However, somehow we are expected to believe a handful of Clinton staffers we able to discover the hacker(s) less that 12 hours after the breach was announced? I mean the Clinton campaign is like 100% confident the Russians did it... and we are swallowing that conjecture, hook, line & sinker. Give me a break!
I'm just afraid that Hillary will say whatever she needs to say in order to get elected. I don't believe her to be sincere in the least and that's a concern. This concern was brought to light for me when she VERY cleverly side-stepped the question about her Wall Street speech when she said "you need to have a private and public position on policy." WTH?! You are a PUBLIC official.... first she tried to deny it was a Wall Street speech by implying it was said in a classroom setting; THEN implying that President Lincoln did the same thing to abolish slavery... Like, Trump. in this case she did not answer that question directly... very clever, that one. I read the excerpt... it was not in a classroom. Go ahead, fact-check me. On top of that, in other private speeches she called for "open trade and open borders" & a "Hemispheric Government"... that falls inline with the UN's report 2030 agenda, TPP(which she says she no longer supports and would spell the end to national sovereignty) AND the potential for a one world government(frightening)... it's very confusing to know where she really stands on anything... should we believe her public stance or her private stance... which stance will govern her Presidency?
On top of all of this... all of her shenanigans that went on while she was Secretary of State are simply mind-blowing. Do yourself a solid and research "Haiti earthquake recovery + Clinton Foundation" and "US Uranium, Russia + Clinton Foundation"... Mind. Blowing.
Now, for the Syrian issue. Why the hell are we even there? Is it really for humanitarian reasons or is there some ulterior motive? We have way too many domestic problems to try to police the whole world. Is that a self-centered point-of-view? Maybe... but as some obscure, Jewish Carpenter said some 2000 years ago, "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"(Matthew 7:3) We have a forest in our eyes, my friends... yet, we're overseas meddling as the UN's primary police force. Yes, they call it a coalition, but is it really? I haven't checked, but I'd dare say the US military probably makes up well over 90% of those "coalition" forces. It is apparent that America cannot handle being World Police and ensure domestic tranquility... so how about we focus on getting our own house in order before we go to other countries and try to "fix" whatever mess they have going on... at least until we get our act together.
I guess, in the end, given our two "choices"... Hillary is the better option. It pains me to admit that... but I'm being honest.
So, how did we get here? I blame the two-party system. In a nation with over 300 million people, it seems ludicrous to try to squeeze everybody's political ideology into one of two groups. That is just insane, yet we happily go along with it. This country's diversity is it's greatest strength... yet we squander it by tying people down with this lame 2-party system paradigm, then pitting the two parties against each other via extreme media influence. It's diabolical. That very wise, Jewish Carpenter I mentioned earlier also said, "...a house is divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3:25)... man, that Guy should really write a book or something...
I realize that everybody is busy... and the 2-party system makes is very easy to select a candidate without REALLY knowing what they stand for. You can assume that since they are running on a certain ticket... their core values generally line up with yours... That's a terrible assumption. That's how so many lame ducks get into office... we are not doing our due diligence by vetting these people BEFORE we elect them. The 2-party system more or less reduces the election cycle into a popularity contest. We are not forced to take a serious look at our candidates. We rely on very carefully crafted propaganda(commercials) to make decisions that have very long-lasting effects... then we complain. What's worse is that even though they usually don't do anything for their constituents, we re-elect the jerks... because "at least we know what we're getting"... Amazing. We simply have to stop re-electing career politicians. That's the only way real change will happen. As Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.' Well, pretty sure this falls into the insane category.
Now, here's how I think the Presidential "election" will go. Since this has been reduced to a popularity contest, I think Trump with win the popular vote... but the Electoral College tho... Hillary will win the Electoral vote, thus becoming POTUS. Then this nation's division will intensify... Oh joy, more strife! Good times! 😐
In November, when you vote I encourage you to remember the Preamble of our Constitution...
My heart breaks for this country's future... either way it goes.😕