3rd Debate


I didn’t watch the third debate in real time last Wednesday, but later that night I googled it and watched the talking heads. NOTHING was a surprise, nevertheless it angered me and got me upset (my own fault, 'cause I knew how it would be reported and I knew how I would react . . . “Don’t touch the hot stove.” ~does it anyway~ Some sort of morbid curiosity, I guess.)

Anyway, some observations and thoughts. (BTW, I’m not a Trump fan, nor a defender, but HE WAS a victim of the biased MSM . . . not that he doesn’t make it a whole lot easier for them.)

(It wasn’t 'till I got to the the third page of google results that I finally saw something favorable to Trump.)

First, the “who won?” issue.

MSM: “Clearly, Clinton won. Take a look at this . . . he didn’t even answer the question. Why? Because he didn’t have an answer.”

FOX: “Clearly, Trump won. Take a look at this . . . she didn’t even answer the question. Why? Because she didn’t have an answer.”

No surprise there. Honestly, they said pretty much the same thing. It’s as if they passed around a script that said, "blah, blah, blah . . . {your favorite candidate’s name here}, blah, blah, blah . . . "

If you didn’t think talking heads were useless, this should convince you.

  1. The “Who looks presidential?” issue.

How in the heck do you “look” presidential?

Does Trump, with his arm talking and fingers pointed up (that’s always bothered me), lips puckered, and wearing an oversized baseball cap, “look” presidential?

Does Hitlery, with that phony smile, tone that’s like fingernails on a blackboard, and a glance at Trump that says “I’m your first grade teacher, and if you don’t shut up, I’m going to smack your knuckles with a ruler” . . . look presidential?

Neither one won “clearly” (though I think Trump did pretty good 'TILL HE GOT TO WHAT I’M ABOUT TO SPEAK TO IN #3 BELOW.)

Neither one “looked” presidential to me.

  1. Now this is the one that really got my shorts twisted.

The MSM, AND Fox, reported Trump SAID he advocated the violent overthrow of the government if he did not win.

This made me furious, because not only is it NOT what he said, it isn’t anywhere near what he said.

Here are the two exchanges they were referring to, AND WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID:

  1. *WALLACE: Your running mate, Governor Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you — his words — “will absolutely accept the result of this election.” Today your daughter, Ivanka, said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely — sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?

TRUMP: I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time.*

  1. *WALLACE: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

TRUMP: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?*

So, Trump DID NOT “say” what the media said he said!!!

Can it be REASONABLY inferred that Trump’s meaning was that he was advocating violence if the election didn’t go his way? IMO . . . NO!!! (Even with the violence we’ve seen at Trump rallies . . . which, now BTW, a video shows may have been caused by a dirty tricks organization connected to Hitlery/the Dems, though the authenticity and the author himself may be suspect . . . the jury’s still out on that one I think. My gut tells me it’s authentic though.)

Can it be REASONABLY inferred that Trump’s meaning was that he would CONTEST the election if he thought there was voter fraud that swung it to Hitlery? Perhaps.

If that indeed was his meaning, it’s not the first time the loser failed to CONCEDE.

Al Gore did it when he lost to George Bush. Rather than concede, Gore contested the Florida vote (remember the “hanging chads”?) and took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Minnesota, the Senate race between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman ® was contested by Coleman and that one went to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

In any case, neither Gore nor Coleman conceded when the vote was first in, so Trump would not be the malicious character that’s being painted by the media.

However, you COULD consider Trump “malicious” when he did his slam on Heidi Cruz. With that kind of history, Trump has made the media’s job of smearing him much much easier.

His blunt way is sometimes refreshing . . . sometimes NOT. His origins OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY are an advantage, one that I don’t think he stresses enough. He’s unabashedly politically INcorrect . . . sometimes an advantage, sometimes NOT.

Over 60% of the population is fed up with politicians. Trump is not a politician . . . sometimes an advantage, sometimes NOT.

People are angry and frustrated, and Trump has ridden that wave to where he is today. He saw an opening there, and he took it. In another time, when there wasn’t so much anger and frustration, Trump wouldn’t have gotten as far as he has today. He would have been laughed at and considered a crackpot.

For example, in the 1960 election, when people were still in the warm glow of the Eisenhower years, Trump would be a joke. But right now, he fills a need. He is not a “politics as usual” kinda’ guy, and that’s just exactly what people want now. It’s the “perfect storm” for someone who is not "inside the Beltway"and NOT a politician.

There’s a scene in “Back to the Future” where Marty McFly is trying to convince the Doc Brown of 1955 that he’s from the future. The dialog goes like this:

Dr. Emmett Brown: “Then tell me, future boy, who’s President of the United States in 1985?”

Marty McFly: “Ronald Reagan.”

Dr. Emmett Brown: “Ronald Reagan? The actor?”

Dr. Emmett Brown: “Then who’s vice president? Jerry Lewis?”

Dr. Emmett Brown: “I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!”

If the future was 2016, after the election and Trump won, Marty would have answered the question about who was president with “Donald Trump”.

And Brown probably would have said, “Who’s Donald Trump?”

Marty: “Some guy who failed at owning a casino, a die hard Birther, has had a series of trophy wives, a gazillionaire, and has a bad comb over.”

Doc: “Huh?”


I have to admit that I’m shocked at how far the media goes to be one sided. If I were a democrat & I watched the exchanges I would still be shocked. One would assume that the media would be fair simply because it’s their job to be fair, but they obviously aren’t. I do wonder if the democrats see it or not though.


I always took Trump refusing to accept the result as meaning “I’m going to keep saying I won, loudly, on tv, until the day I die”.


There you go again CW. What he was conveying is that I won’t accept an illegal election and the DimOkRat stench is already coming from voting booths across America…


I’ve seen stories that quote it right, but too many people draw the wrong conclusion. We hear it in plain English. It makes sense. “I’ll wait till it happens.” Of course, Trump really does answer it lousy, and everyone who hates him reads the wrong thing into it. But as you say, Algore contested the election in 2000, and the liberals were gushing their support for the Algore who refused to accept his loss and “broke the tradition,” so to speak.


Has* anything *in this campaign indicated to you that Trump would be a gracious loser, under any circumstance?


CW, I suspect he would be (my guess) if the loss was not tainted by corruption. This morning on TV it showed and said illegals are coming over the border by the 1000’s “so they VOTE” and “help Hillary win so she will give them citizenship”. Even the Coyotes are in the act by telling this narrative to the people…

I am sorry but the vote for POTUS should be free from illegal activities…