Presidential Debate of 2016: Trump and Hillary (My Impressions)

September 26, 2016 Presidential Debate from New York’s Hofstra University.

I think back to a phrase Rush Limbaugh used last week concerning the debates: “It’s not what you say that people will remember.  It’s how you make them feel.”  There are so many directions I would love to pursue, but the primary feeling I have is “not good.”

Trump made a big point, in the days leading up to debate night, he was campaigning instead of preparing, and it showed. I saw one post-debate commentator (not a Hillary supporter) say Hillary was on the ball, Trump was on the defensive, and he failed to make the point she is not prepared to be Commander in Chief. Clinton came off “poised, charming, Intelligent, and for the first time – likable.” (Judge Napolitano, Fox News Channel.)  He is absolutely right from a stage presence point of view. Smoke and mirrors.  The substance is what matters,but it will get ignored.


I understand the tension and adrenaline to say what you have to say and make it count, but this is as much a television show as it is war of words.  He could’ve made all his points, and made them well, if he had pulled back and floated them like a paper airplane gliding through the room, and less like a home run hitter swinging a bat.  This is where George Bush’s “aww-shucks” works.

His points were right on the money and frankly didn’t need to change.

  • The economy (which she would exacerbate the problems)
  • Law and Order
    • “No fly, no buy”  in agreement with Hillary, but no Gun Control
    • Stop and Frisk is legal and works
  • Jobs (a problem exacerbated by NAFTA coupled with high US Corporate Taxes)
    • Bring businesses back with lower regulation and taxes
  • Military wipeout of ISIS  (his point of broadcasting to our enemies ahead of time what we will do being stupid is a very good point)
    • That Hillary oversaw US Policy during the rise of ISIS
  • Inner city neighborhoods being taken from granted by politicians
  •  I loved how he swerved into the emails controversy – offering to release his Tax Returns if she will release her 30,000 delete emails  (yeah, I’m pretty sure that is an irrecoverable set of disks)

He needed to change his delivery. That is everything, especially in our modern “Feelings” based culture. The intangibles of tone, delivery, body language couple with the message is what will stick in viewer’s minds.

I think of the following Proverbs:

15 A soft answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
2  The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,
but the mouths of fools pour out folly. 

A soft answer keeps a listeners heart open to receive what is being delivered.  Knowledge, not force of how something is said, is what will win the day.  If your opponent pours out folly, even though it may not seem it at the time, the folly will reveal itself and work as a detriment to their case.

In this case because of “how” Trump said it, people will look more negatively upon him rather than listening to his content.  His opponent Hillary on the other hand, while she spun the same old lines and even lamely pulled out the racist card and sexist card, will be largely overlooked because attention was drawn to Trump.

4 A gentle tongue is a tree of life,
but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.

Seriously, state the truth, be plain, be passionate, but don’t be a wrecking ball.  “Gentle” doesn’t mean coward.  People will hear the message in a word succinctly delivered.

When he got REALLY excited he commingled Global Warming with jobs and economy with ISIS/Military and Putin. He jammed so much together in 30 seconds at one time I lost all the topics.  And when Lester, the moderator, got back to Hillary she just smiled calmly and handled the softball delivered to her.  {Edit/Update} She was even able to say “Wow” like she was the adult in the room.  But What about the substance of what he delivered?  Was it wrong?  No.  It was overwhelmed by “how” he made people feel when he said it.

I watched Trump be interviewed by  Fox News’ Sean Hannity about the end of the debate, the lead-up to the “mean” response and not saying what he was going to say:

Sean: At the end of the debate maybe as a sign of desperation she tried to attack you as sexist, what is your response to that?

Trump: Well, I didn’t want to say, her husband was in the room along with her daughter – whom i think is a very nice young lady – and I didn’t want to say what I was going to say, about what’s been going on in their life … I thought it would be very disrespectful to Chelsea and maybe to the family.

I must admit I was too busy switching between Twitter Facebook and TV to catch the entire context live, and this makes sense.  Trump was literally trying to take the high road, and there are probably some of the debate characteristics I missed as I was monitoring things.


As for Hillary, like I quoted above, she looked poised – and as one person said, Robotic.  I was going for the “Valium” angle, but Robotic is a good explanation.

Her points were the same drivel mixed in with some outlandish accusations of racism and sexism:

  • The economy
    • Not surprising she wants a “Fair Economy” (Government dictates pay == socialism/ communism)
    • She wants government to “create” great paying jobs in certain sectors – technology for example  (more socialism communism)
    • Supports the  Trans Pacific Partnership agreement
  • Law and Order
  • Jobs – bring businesses back with lower regulation and taxes  (doesn’t work.  Who’d want to bring their money back to get taxed?)
  • Military wipeout of ISIS
    • Never really addressed the issue.
      She pounded that Donald was for the war before he was against it
  • Inner city neighborhoods – did
    • Calls the men “Predators” in this area and Trump calls her out
  •  The emails controversy
    • {crickets}

I had a nice chuckle when Hillary asked “What is Donald hiding” in his Federal Tax return? She used that as a point to pounding on Donald having a 0% Tax Rate.   He didn’t go after her about her email server in a closet with US Secrets and no security.  He didn’t press her on her health records.  And what about her $250,000 per speech fee to the banks?  Why not release transcripts or recordings of what she said?  She is the one with a lot to hide.

She took an immediate chance to accuse Donald of being a racist.  The Democrat Party has always used the Race Card to some extent.  Whether it was to endorse Slavery, Jim Crowe laws, Support the KKK as their militant arm or resisting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pushed through by Republicans.  Now they are the “Affirmative action” party.  They must always have one skin color over another.  So much for Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream.”

And of course she had to pull out the “Sexist” card where Trump accused Rosie O’Donnell of being bad inside and out, and having called a Pageant contents a “pig.”  Stand alone with no background they are pretty bad sounding.  Of the Pageant contestant I have no familiarity, but Rosie case I do remember it occurring and thinking even at that time, why do gals like this get away with making decent people look bad?  Rosie deserves the hits she takes.

Again, without a label to demonize, Hillary just doesn’t feel at home.


Lester Holt

With her campaign accomplice, Lester Holt, she was able to get away with that without asking what she was hiding concerning her Health, her email server, or Benghazi. Really?  The punchline on said it all:  “LESTER HOLT: THE THIRD DEBATER…

How many times did Lester go after Hillary to clarify, or to answer fully, or to be limited on time?  I Watched the debate with the rest of you.  Once maybe to clarify.  She was given a wide berth.  As many speculated leading up to this event, Lester saw how Liberal pals savaged Matt Laurer for “going after Hillary” for the above items and may have worked to correct a “wrong” or to avoid the same treatment.

He pressed Donald almost mercilessly at time, and Donald Handled it mostly well, while to Hillary he gave a wide berth. He did a fine job about asking questions no one cared as much about.  There are other scandal items that needed to be addressed before moving forward.  But being an expected partner with Hillary, I won’t hold me breath.

This Tweet said it all:

No questions On
Clinton Foundation
Destroyed emails
Good job
Libs dig it

To wrap, one thing I greatly appreciated was Trump not allowing Hillary to say outlandish things without challenging them.   He didn’t allow Lester Holt to go all Candy Crowly on the Republican contestant (as an unchallenged 3rd debater … thank you Matt Drudge for that characterization.)

But for the next debate please please please Mr. Trump, remove the word “I” from your vocabulary – The viewers want to hear how you will benefit them, with or without your credentials.  The world is watching.  Make it count, as a servant leader, not sounding or coming across as someone looking to be served.  #ServantLeadership

And the Lightening Strikes … 199 Miles Long

So I came across an intriguing article browsing web news sites today: “Record 199-mile-long Lightening Bolt” linking to the following article:

I asked the natural question: how can anyone determine the length of a lightening bolt?   I found this paper by Martin A. Uman, Southern University Florida: “How Long and How Wide is the Lightening Channel?”

So the two things they use determine lightening length are 1) photography and 2) Radar.

Through photography, when a lightening bolt is captured,  the length two known points is measured. Sounds basic but flawed.

Radar sends out let romantic pulses that travel at 186,000 miles per SECOND! When a bolt goes out and radar happens to catch it, those pulses bounce off the lightening channel back to the radar making measurement possible.

According to the article, The longest lightening according to the article was 199 miles in 2007 happening in Oklahoma.  The longest lasting lightening strike recorded was 7.74 seconds in France.

Now I know. And so do you. 😜👍

What you want to Know about Trump


Watching Bill O’Reilly “Talking Points Memo” Friday night, I wanted to responded to his “What you want to know about Hillary” segment, due to his bending over backwards to not appear critical or analytical.  That Blog Entry can be found at this link:   “Hillary: It Makes all the Difference in the World

As a “fair” bookend I wanted to respond to his “What do you want to know about Trump” section.  As almost expected, this section was more loose in its reporting by the mere fact Trump is more open about his thoughts, feelings, sensibilities.  Hillary by contract is more close, secretive, and selective about what she shares – to a manufactured fault. Otherwise she would expose her “true” self before its time (before the election)

So here are the Trump questions:



[Summarized Response from B.O’r] June Trump said he would put them in a blind trust. But he did say the business would be run by his kids”  


I must admit this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.  As originally founded the office of President, Congress, was to mostly be a secondary position to their primary: the business or job that paid the bills up to that point.

In our day of the professional politician, this may play a role, but it is my sneaking suspicion this type of rule is in place to protect the Elite Establishment class from having their power overruled by a powerfully wealthy outsider.



[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Trump has said he’d think about it – its a possibility.



I hate to sound blase’ or plagiarizing, but “What does it matter at this point?” (Quoting my last blog, which was quoting Hillary Clinton.)  The damage has been done:

  • The FBI is shown to be corrupt – with the Director taking the fall in a political game  (I suppose more on that another time.)
  • We are shown no longer to be governed by our peers, but rather a Bourgeoisie Elite made of longtime politicians, probably some media personalities, and powerful business people who have snuggled up to government to protect from market downturns and harmful regulations:

Prosecuting her at this point would just put this country in a turmoil it wishes not to have.  The Clinton’s only care about one person (themselves,) and that is to the exclusion of each other as well.



[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Trumpwould more likely leave the Pot situation to the states.”


This is a states rights issues.  Feds stay out.  The Feds have gotten too heavily involved in telling the states what to do the last 50-60 years.   We are a Republic, not an outright democracy.  Power is derived from the states but the Feds have usurped this and every is just okay with it – unless of course the states are legalizing drug use or perversion.  The Feds applaud that … and then pass laws forcing other states to emulate the “model” of the leading states (Like Drug usage.)



[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Trump addressed that in June on CNN – the cost of goods is lower, a standard business decision.”


I like Bill’s response: standard business decision. Lower costs is key.



[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Trump said on a number of occasions he WOULD NOT touch SSI, not even to reform it”


Every election cycle it is normally raised by Democrats those E-e-e-e-vil Republicans want to take away their Social Security, to scare seniors who depend on it.  Donald brings a great many other controversies upon himself.  Dealing with the fake war on Social Security is good not to have.

At this point in our history, the only thing to do with Social Security is to strengthen it (pour more money into it) while making behind the scenes structural changes to make it more solvent.


[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Vague – no firm position. Opinion, he doesn’t care about it.”


Really, is term limits for Congress even a thing that could pass.  Not with the Elite Establishment in control of congress.  This falls under the same category of Trump having to put all his assets in a Trust just for becoming president.


[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Trump didn’t start openly critizing the war starting in September 2003. Before with Tepid support (to Howard Stern on Radio) he was never a big fan of the war”


I listen to John MacArthur’s podcast of “Grace To you”  His Friday 9/12/2016 show was impactful to me, and spoke to this very issue:  When the peace is broken, a Government, whose job is to punish evil doers and protect those doing good, must go to war until peace is restored.

For a whole host of reasons, including the above, I believe the Iraq War, to have been a just war in which God himself drew us into it to repay the evil of Sadaam Hussein back on his own head.  (Conjecture I know, but consider God whistling for Babylon to come destroy Jerusalem in the BC era.)


[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Campaign says he spent about $60 million of his own money. By the end of July the Campaign has raised about $128 Million”


Seriously, just because someone has a ton of money, I do not behoove them the right to raise money to campaign for public office.  All the other candidates are allowed to raise money for campaigning regardless of background or financial status. A wealthy person has every right to try to preserve as much of his hard earned money as he deems fit hopefully to the honor of God.  Our freedom is a tricky thing.  Some people do not like us to exercise that freedom if it conflicts with their convictions.


Trump is a brash man, but he is what I would deem honest.  His honesty and outspokenness is a breath of fresh air in this age of Political Correctness.  It is what has both attracted people to him as well as repelled others.  I personally thought the attacks on Ted Cruz’s wife and Father in the primary were underhanded, but as Rush Limbaugh said during this whole process: This isn’t a kiddy Game, they’re not out there playing bean-bag.  They are playing for keeps.

Trump proclaims he is a winner.  It is apparent he will do what it takes to win at all costs.  He is a perfect match for Hillary who has the same mindset.  Other Republic candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole would’ve taken the “High Road” – and would have gotten their butts handed to them in a massive loss this year (2016.)   Trump is willing to match the Democrats blow for blow, not letting a bad narrative about himself stand.  In this year, that is what is needed to keep HIllary Clinton out of the White house.

Hillary: It makes all the difference in the World

Bill O’Reilly “What you wanna know about Hillary” section


Note to readers: Links are included in the text for your reference (should you believe I’m full of it.) They are not intended to bog you down with mounds of words.


Watching Bill O’Reilly “Talking Points Memo” tonight, we was being very matter of fact when answering viewer questions for “What you want to know about Hillary.”  I was initially somewhat turned off by what appeared to be a bending over backwards to not appear critical or analytical.  I now believe it was just that: “What do you want to know (just the facts.)  I still think his viewers would have been better served if it were “What do you want to know (what it is)

So to satisfy my own desire for “What it is” I decided to grab some context and put it in a document under each of O’Reilly’s summarized question.


[Question #1] “What is Hilary’s stand on Black lives matter?” 

[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Mostly supportive in an instructional fashion:No Democrat would dare to oppose the group “Black Lives Matter.”  


Interesting fact about this Organization, it is supported by Rich “WHITE” Liberals who promote Socialism:
“BLM might have been founded by blacks, but the movement requires money to operate — for protest signs, bull horns, and transportation of protesters to protest sites. The national scope of BLM requires an infrastructure, which includes regular communication among BLM activists. Who pays for their phone calls, faxes, iPhones, and Internet? How can BLM activists do all that if they also work at a regular job? And if they don’t have a regular job, who is paying for their food and lodging and transportation?

In other words, who actually fund Black Lives Matter and therefore are responsible for the violence, deaths, and injuries of BLM protests?

The answer: two groups —

  1. Democracy Alliance, comprised of very wealthy Democrats.
  2. Freedom Road Socialist Organization, funded by big corporations and foundations.”


[Question #2] Speculation about Hillary’s health, when did she last release her medial records?

[Summarized Response from B.O’r] Her Doctor Lisa Barnack released a summary of her health in July 2015: Seasonal Allergies and hyp-thyroidism but is generally in good health.

(NOTE: The previous night he smugly impugned “conservative” media for making a big deal about hillary’s coughing spasm.)


This is an interesting taking point because it involves so much speculation and outside observation based on her performance/appearance from public events. 

Despite the pressure to demonstrate via official health records she’s in tip-top shape, there is mostly silence.
A Google search of “Hillary’s Health,” news articles over last 24 hours from the time of this writing read:


Given the dishonesty from Hillary herself and the dishonesty of the news media (how they slavishly cover for Hillary) I wouldn’t doubt there is a real health issue with Hillary, but really, do Democrats or casual-attention voters actually care?  Probably not.  Should they?  Well, yes.  That could very well mean Tim Kaine becomes president.
Finally, Some site called has a YouTube channel twith a Center-right summary of the health issue: 

[Question #3] How did Hillary get concussion before her testimony at the Benghazi hearing:

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  Dec 2021 Hillary fainted while sick with a stomach virus sustaining a concussion.  She had a blood clot in the skull addressed by blood thinners subscribe by her doctor.  Later she told the FBI she couldn’t recall some of the testimony.


I think this rolls up into Health Question above.  Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.  It very well falls into the Health Speculation above.

[Question #4] Why didn’t Hillary respond to [Benghazi] Ambassador Stevens request to move the Embassy?

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]   We can find no evidence of a request ever made but he did ask for more security (Bill says was denied by undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy):
{Video Clip from House Benghazi hearings}
– 1st Qtr 2012 just over 100+ increased security requests  (Hillary denies receiving them)
– 2nd Qtr. 2012 172-ish 
– July/Aug and Weekend before attacks – 83
   (By house count there were over 600 requests)
Congressman” : Did none of those reach your desk? Is that correct?
Hillary: That is correct.
{Video Clip End}

Bill O’Reilly replies (as if being just CSPAN giving play by play announcement): “Bottom line, Former Secretary of State maintains she was unaware of ANY security request from Libya”


This is the topic that prompted me to start this blog entry.  Bill flatlined his response reading “Just facts”, but he omitted contextual facts.

  1. Hillary is a pathological liar.
  2. Her office received over 600 security requests. ** Not a single one was elevated to her attention???  **I live in the real world.  Not believable at all.
  3. Benghazi:
    1. … has been revealed as a gun running operation to “Syrian Rebels” of whom some have since formed themselves as ISIS
      1. Link:
    2.  ISIS is a brutal organization, Al Qaedas dream
      1. Escaped Isis militant reveals reality of the jihadist group’s brutality: ‘They abused and mutilated dead bodies’ : ‘They were extremely brutal, killing women and the elderly who did not obey them,’ the former jihadist said
        1. Link: 
What is the likelihood Hillary wanted to cover up her destructive actions which helped Strengthen and form ISIS?  Don’t play us for fools. 

[Question #5] What was the flesh colored device in Hillary’s ear? 

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  Campaign maintains there was no device.  Lighting reflection gave rise to the suspicion.”


Uhhh, sure.   I don’t really believe Hillary needs to have someone chirping in her ear about what lies to tell.  And even if she does, it is a (very small) drop in the bucket for the larger pond of her dishonesty and subterfuge.

[Question #6] What’s Hillary’s association with the radical Saul Alinsky.

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  Hillary did her Wellesley college thesis on Saul and had very nice things to say about him.  He offered her a job, but turned him down to go to Law School at Yale. {Then Bill points out} she was a Barry Goldwater supporter in High School.


Saul Alinsky is held up as the proto-type community organizer, and his book “Rules for Radicals” is the manifesto.  

  • Humorously (and sickly) he dedicates his manifesto to “Lucifer, the original radical”.  (Makes me a little heart sick even typing that)

Another influential philosophy of the time was the Cloward-Piven strategy:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. [1][2]
  • Wikipedia softballs here quite a bit.The Correct Context: Ultimately this kind of Philosophy leads to a Soviet-style Communism/Socialism.  That is the only system that claims to end poverty.  It also stifles human spirit by driving a “sameness” among the country class who is ruled by an “Elite” Establishment.
I can draw this out in another post, but we see the 60’s radicals who have made it into our government implementing the Alinsky/Cloward-Pivens philosphies today, accelerated during the Obama Administration:
  • Heap lots of debt onto our country and our system. (Obama increased our debt from 4 Trillion to 19+ Trillion in 8 years, diverting attention from himself while blaming Bush.  A lapdog media in agreement is very useful in spreading this propaganda.)
  • Cause chaos and confusion (community organization) to rile up the people to protest for change.
It’s a perfect storm, of which both Obama and Hillary are students – desiring to bring the U.S. into a more socialist style control : country class ruled by the Elitist Establishment (themselves.)
An article from National Review addresses this if you have the fortitude to wade through the depth of context : 

[Question #7] What are the facts in Hillary leaving the Watergate investigation?

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  She left because Nixon resigned.  As an attorney working for the house judiciary committee when Nixon left her job was over.


Nothing for me to add here.  Pretty bland question surrounded by controversy.  If she got fired 40 years ago, so what?   I have heard things (not repeated here) about her driving dislike of Nixon, but I don’t have any immediate sources and it only gets a dismissive mention here.

Yet, it is fascinating how many in the Establishment Media are comparing Hillary’s email server (and the missing Bleach-bit emails) to Richard Nixon’s 18 1/2 minutes of gap in recordings [source: ].

[Question #8] Can you sue any federal official if you don’t like their conduct in office?

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  1985 Supreme Court makes it almost impossible to win a case against any official


Interesting how the Establishment covers for itself.  The Founding Fathers would Flip their wigs (literally) if they knew this was going on.

Some boring “Just the facts” documents about this:  Quoted below:
The Supreme Court held in Stump v. Sparkman that judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damage actions for their “judicial” acts.
I especially “liked” this section:
Absolute immunity bars any action against officials in the conduct of their office even for actions taken maliciously or in bad faith. Absolute immunity focuses on the governmental function being performed and the nature of the responsibilities of the official, not on the specific action taken.
All I can say is: #Establishment 

 [Question #9] Where is Brian Pagliano?

[Summarized Response from B.O’r]  Long time aide to Clinton and handled private server out of Chapuqua home – but what he told the bureau remains a mystery.  And where he is right now is also a mystery.


Now we know about a person named Brian Pagliano. This personality in the whole Hillary email coverup escaped me over the last few months.

My Final Thoughts

So I have to ask myself, why do I blog such things?  Simply, I am interested in these matters.  If such personalities get control of our government I believe (I know) they will dictate the direction our nation and culture take for years to come.
Having said that, perish the thought another “Clinton” rise to power in this country.  They will do great damage to both nation and culture, as they already have.  (Lewinsky anyone? – “Its just sex”)
No, it wasn’t just sex.  It was:
  • Adultery
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Inappropriate Relations between a boss and subordinate
Then Hillary comes along with Benghazi and these emails:
  • Lies about the nature of the Evidence and the Truth discovered
  • Spreads lies about why the attack happened (a video for which the producer was put into jail)
  • Leaves snake-wiggle cushion for herself when she says:
    • “I believe” everything is turned over
    • “To the best I recall” …
  • Diverts attention from herself (and her warts) by wantonly charging her opponent with Racism/Bigotry/Misogynistic hater (all emotional, unprovable, subjective.)


During a Senate Investigation hearing into Benghazi, when asked if it was a video/protest at Benghazi she shot back: “What difference does it make at this point?”

Hillary is a pathological liar.
It makes ALL the difference in the world.