Critiquing The Debate

On Friday, Breitbart posted a list of the eleven biggest lies Joe Biden told during his debate with President Trump. I am simply posting the list. Please follow the link to the article to read the details.

The list:

  1. No One Lost Their Insurance Under ObamaCare
  2. America was Cozy with Hitler
  3. I Never Opposed Fracking
  4. I Didn’t Oppose Trump’s China Travel Ban
  5. Illegal Aliens Show Up For Asylum Hearings After Being Caught and Released
  6. Raising the Minimum Wage Does Not Hurt Anyone
  7. No One Brought Up Biden’s Troubling Ukraine Conflicts of Interest During Impeachment
  8. Trump Never Told Putin to Stop Meddling in American Elections
  9. Hunter’s Emails are Part of a “Russian Plan”
  10. Trump Refused to Take ‘Responsibility’ for the Coronavirus
  11. Trump Has Alienated ‘All’ Our Allies

Politicians need to remember that in the age of the Internet, it is very easy to compare current comments and policy positions with past comments and policy positions. Some of these lies can be researched easily with a quick Internet search. Some of these lies simply go against common sense. At any rate, the truth seemed to elude Joe Biden during the debate.

 

The Next Debate

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the moderator for the next presidential debate.

The article notes:

The next debate moderator has been selected.  The October 15th debate will be moderated by Steve Scully, a former intern for Vice-President Joe Biden and a self proclaimed member of the “never Trump” resistance group. 

The article includes the following:

I am not looking forward to the next debate. It would be wonderful to have the debate commission choose an unbiased moderator, but I guess that is too much to ask.

Facts vs. Lies

There were some very misleading lies told in the Presidential Debate last night. I would like to highlight a few of them. Unfortunately, many of those lies were told by the moderator Chris Wallace. It is also true that those lies painted a negative picture of President Trump. I do not believe that Chris Wallace was a neutral moderator. These lies are not necessarily in any particular order. This is the link to the transcript.

Lie number one:

Chris Wallace: (19:34)
You talk about the economy booming. It turns out that in Obama’s final three years as president more jobs were created, a million and a half more jobs, than in the first three years of your presidency.

The facts:

When President Obama took office in January 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7. When President Obama left office in January 2017, the labor participation rate was 62.8. That was the rate when President Trump took office. The labor participation rate before the coronavirus was 63.4 (February 2020). With the lockdown, the rate dropped to 60.2. At the end of August it was 61.7.

Lie number two:

Chris Wallace: (25:43)
No, less than you have. Let’s please continue on. The issue of rice(sic). Vice-President Biden, you say that President Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville three years ago, when he talked about very fine people on both sides, was what directly led you to launch this run for president.

This is a Democrat talking point. The quote is taking totally out of context. This is the exact quote:

You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

Lie number three:

Chris Wallace: (32:21)
This month, your administration directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory. Why did you decide to do that, to end racial sensitivity training? And do you believe that there is systemic racism in this country, sir?

Breitbart notes:

Trump banned a specific kind of racial insensitivity training, which involves “Critical Race Theory.”

…Critical Race Theory is the idea that the major institutions of the United States are tainted by slavery and racism because they were founded when slavery was still legal in parts of the country. According to the late Derrick Bell, who founded Critical Race Theory, the very institution of private property is tainted by racism because of slavery. Even the Civil Rights movement was regrettable to some extent, Bell believed, because it created an illusion of racial equality. Only a massive redistribution of wealth, driven by the creation of socioeconomic rights, can cure American society of its systemic racism, the theory holds.

On a practical level, Critical Race Theory teaches that social interactions are guided by “white supremacy,” and that society is corrupted by “systemic racism,” according to which black Americans must always be victims — even if unconsciously so. Critical Race Theory is the ideology animating the Black Lives Matter movement that has brought unrest to America’s cities.

These are just some of the issues. One of the other things that really bothered me was the comparison between the Trump children and Joe Biden’s son Hunter. There has never been any evidence that the Trump children are guilty of anything. There is significant evidence that Hunter Biden has continually been involved in questionable business dealings.

 

This Is Not A Surprise To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

I wonder if Las Vegas is taking bets on whether or not Joe Biden will debate President Trump. Biden is not out on the campaign trail. The rebuttal speech to the President’s acceptance speech tonight will be given by Kamala Harris. What is happening to Joe
Biden is sad. If you look at videos from him five years ago and contrast them with videos of him today, it is obvious that he is not the same person. He will not be out on the campaign trail, and I seriously doubt he will debate President Trump.

Today Just the News posted an article that may be the beginning of the spin to avoid a presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden shouldn’t debate President Trump.

“I don’t think there should be any debates. I do not think the president of the United States has comported himself in a way that anybody has any association with truth, evidence, data and facts. I wouldn’t legitimize a conversation with him nor a debate in terms of the presidency of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“I know the Biden campaign thinks in a different way about this. But I just thought what [Trump] he did in 2016 was disgraceful, stalking Hillary Clinton like that. I was disappointed the press didn’t say, ‘Go back to your station. You don’t own this stage. You have your own podium. She has hers,’ ” she also said.

The less Americans know about the Democrat platform, what Joe Biden stands for, and the general health condition of Joe Biden, the better chance Joe Biden has of winning. The goal is to keep him hidden until the election.

Still Rigging Primaries

Evidently the Democrat Presidential candidates are being winnowed down to fit on one debate stage. However, the winnowing process is about as fair as Bernie Sanders’ primary run in 2016.

The American Thinker posted an article today with their observations:

Iconoclastic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard did the unforgiveable in the eyes of the hidebound Democratic Party establishment: She knocked down one their favorites, Kamala Harris. 

…Now, through the miracle of rule-rigging, the Democratic establishment has maneuvered to exact a price from her: No appearance at the next Democratic debate. No more taking down the next favorite.

Yesterday Real Clear Politics posted an article about the exclusion of Representative Gabbard.

The article notes:

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates — especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

The article at RealClear Politics continues:

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC — through its mysteriously incoherent selection process — has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” — a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign — the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

In Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs proclaim, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I think that is the way the Democrat party runs their presidential primary elections.

 

Some Observations On The Presidential Debate Last Night

I think the interesting part of last night’s debate were the differences between what was discussed and what was not discussed. It is noteworthy that Hillary Clinton had to go back to a 1973 lawsuit to declare Donald Trump a racist. It has been reported that when Donald purchased his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago in 1985, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews.

It was somehow overlooked that the birther charges in 2008 were closely aligned with those in the Clinton campaign. There was absolutely no reason to bring them up last night–they are totally irrelevant.

There was no discussion of how the foreign policy during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East.

There was no discussion of the fact that the press conference held by James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails clearly showed that she had been lying about her emails from the beginning and had carelessly handled classified information. James Comey chose not to pursue the case, but clearly presented the evidence.

Donald Trump was not active politically during the run-up to the Iraq War. Aside from the fact that the history of that war has been totally rewritten by the left, Hillary voted for the war–Donald made a few comments. It is noteworthy that there are videos of Donald Trump with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto showing opposition to the war. Somehow the moderator chose not to pay attention to that information.

The discussion of ‘stop and frisk’ was totally misleading. One judge declared it unconstitutional–the case was not appealed because New York City got a new mayor who did not support the policy. At that point the question was moot.

Just for the record, Hillary Clinton did support the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.

The good economy during the 1990’s was composed of two bubbles–the tech bubble and the housing bubble. During his presidency, Bill Clinton accelerated the policies that ultimately led to the 2008 recession (see YouTube).

This was not a fair debate–the moderator and Hillary Clinton debated Donald Trump. That seems a little unfair to me. However, I am not sure the Clinton campaign got the results they wanted.