Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Logical me

“Then Trump let loose. He spoke truth and how venerable America has become under King Obama and Hillary.”


Uh, not venerable - that would be respected. I’m pretty sure that you meant to say, “vulnerable.”

The rest of your post was spot on - he came through as genuine, concerned for this country and its citizens, while she came through as a very polished political hack...which is exactly what she is.

The Dems and their hangers-on have been making the point that she “won” the debate. Well, maybe she had a few more zingers, maybe she would have won a college debate on points, but she didn’t win. First of all, Lester Holt interrupted Trump on 6 different occasions and interfered in the debate by “fact-checking” him - none of which he did to Clinton. People noticed that, and it did NOT help her. She also slipped - she mentioned testifying in Congress for 11 hours. Well, WHY was she doing that? Because of Benghazi, that’s why - and people noticed that, too.

Winning a debate in a Presidential Election is very different from winning one for the college debate team - you don’t have a bunch of nit-picking pros deciding things, but rather the entirety of the American People. We, as a people, don’t really give a damn if the President is the most glib guy out there (like Obama is, if he’s got his teleprompter working right), they care about what the person DOES. On that score, she came across as glib (and condescending as Hell), whereas he came across as someone who despises what politics as usual has done to our country.


27 posted on 09/27/2016 8:01:45 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Ancesthntr

Great points.

Regarding “winning” a debate: It’s possible to “win” the debate and lose the election. Like winning the battle and losing the war.

I don’t care at all about whether a person scored technical points in a debate. I care about whether they got their point across to the listeners, whether they were honest and believable.

I don’t think Trump did particularly well, but I thought Hitlery was awful. And considering Trump had to debate both Hitler, and Holt (and by proxy the entire media machine), it was not too bad. I do wish he had been a little more prepared. For one thing, he needs to learn to NOT be defensive. That’s a liberal tactic to deflect attention away from their own YUGE faults and on to someone else’s minor flaws. Answer briefly - or even admit guilt on a small point - them move on and drop the hammer on Hitlery’s gigantic criminal flaws. Stay on the attack. Stay off of defense.


54 posted on 09/27/2016 8:52:53 AM PDT by generally ( Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson