Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Third Presidential Debate: An Analysis

The third Presidential debate was, hands down, one of the best 90 minutes of television I've ever seen, and Donald Trump won by a landslide. Hillary was on the defensive on nearly all issues presented at the debate, from immigration to under-the-table campaign donations. Here's a recap of what happened issue-by-issue.

The Supreme Court

When Hillary was asked about her plans for Supreme Court nominees, she stated that she would "do what's best for the people and for America", instead of having a clear stance on how her justices would interpret the Constitution.

Trump, on the other hand, was very clear on what his plans are. He stated that his nominees will be well-educated conservative judges with pro-life stances, and that a Supreme Court under his administration would interpret the Constitution as it was written, with the spirit of the Founding Fathers in mind.

In my personal opinion, Trump won this because of his use of explicit detail and facts in his explanation.


When Hillary was asked about her stance on immigration, she pivoted from her pro-open borders position to a more moderate "wait-and-see approach, and when Trump confronted her about her remarks during the recently-leaked Goldman Sachs speech, she tried to explain it away as a proposal for a continental power grid.

Trump continued his current position on building a border wall, extreme vetting on asylum requests from refugees in the Middle East, and deportation of illegal immigrants from Mexico, other South American countries, and visa overstayers. 

In my opinion, Trump won this portion of the debate because of the consistency of his position, and his ability to defend it and continue his point.


Hillary continued on her pro-abortion stance, and she showed continued support for Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortions. Nothing new here.

Trump continued on his pro-life stance, and said that during his presidency, abortion would be a state issue, and he brought forth several negative points in Hillary's position, one of which is that under her plan, all abortions, including late-term and partial birth abortions, are legal. Hillary continued to be on the defensive on this one.

In my opinion, Trump won this round because of his ability to appeal to morality, and to defend his position effectively.

Firearm Laws

When asked about this, Trump agreed with the moderator, in that he wants to remove magazine size restrictions and assault rifle bans. He affirmed his support for the Second Amendment, and recognized his endorsement from the NRA.

Hillary continued her vague stance on gun control, claiming that she would create "common sense" gun laws that would, according to her, keep children safe and reduce firearm accidents.

In my opinion, Trump won this round because he had a clear stance on this issue, and did an excellent job presenting it.

In Conclusion

This debate was no contest. Trump was on the offense for the entire debate, and he was hammering Hillary on all the issues. He was consistent on his positions, and he showed confidence that wasn't in previous debates. Trump handily won this debate.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The Julian Assange Situation

As most of you have probably heard, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, had his internet connection severed by a "state actor". In addition to this, John Kerry is threatening Ecuador with military action if they did not release Assange from their embassy into US custody.

Considering some of the blatant illegalities, acts of fraud, and moral debauchery documented in the Hillary Clinton and DNC leaks, it leads me to believe that Assange was sitting on something enormous, and of bombshell proportions.

What could be in these leaks that was so disturbing and damning, that Assange's internet connection was compromised, and his host nation threatened over them?

We'll see soon, after the Wikileaks contingency leaks are released, and more information comes out about the Assange situation.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Hillary & The Media

Had I seen some of the events unfolding in this election cycle two years ago, I would've had a stroke. I used to believe that TV shows like Veep, Braindead, and House of Cards were parodies of the inner workings of government.

But I was wrong. Dead wrong. The reality of Beltway politics is much, much worse, and Hillary Clinton is the star of the show.

From threatening to "drone" Julian Assange to provoking Russia of the Ukraine and Syria, Hillary and her cabal of corruption have done many horrible things, and the John Podesta emails released by Wikileaks have shed new light onto them.

Many of these emails are mundane accounts of day-to-day operations, but a few have shown the unethical practices and outright cheating committed by the Clinton campaign, from joking about her commission of Federal felonies, to receiving primary debate questions ahead of time. She even facilitated the rigging of Democratic primaries over email.

How much media coverage did all of this get? None. All they're doing is running Donald Trump's garish (but perfectly acceptable) comments on loop, and clutching their collective pearls over it.

Combining this with the fact that Hillary lets the press fly with her on the Clinton campaign jet leads me to believe that there is collusion between Clinton and the press, and emails released by Wikileaks indicate there is. Here's a snippet from an email exchange over a WSJ article:
Ran the quote past HRC and she asked (with no prompting) that “average” come out. So here’s what I shipped off to Peter Nicholas at the Journal. AS for the NYT, looks like it won’t run for a few days if not next Sunday, so will circle back on that as it develops.
 And here's more from a discussion over a New York Times article in the same thread:
I think this piece turned out well. But when we define our goals, we have to be clear that we are concerned with helping people who are getting crushed by rising costs and stagnant incomes, not that we're worried about offending high income groups (our donors). My guess is that this sentence will cause us some problems on the left. One of Mrs. Clinton’s broader goals is to develop ways to address economic anxiety without sounding like a combative populist or demonizing high-income groups, said a person familiar with her thinking.
This is unprecedented. This is why I don't trust the media anymore.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Weekly Photoshopping #1

Feel free to use these images any way you'd like, as long as you attribute them to me when you use them. Creative derivatives are welcome!

Download them here.

Provoking Russia?

These days, it looks more and more like the Regressive Left *wants* war with Russia. They are openly and blatantly threatening Russia with acts of war. In the past it was limited mostly to drone strikes and rebel troop movements in Syria, but now they are threatening Russia directly, according to this snippet from NBC News:

The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.
For one thing, releasing this in a press conference with reporters from major news organizations doesn't really help with the clandestineness of an operation like this. If Russia KNOWS you're going to penetrate their networks, along with you accusing them of fiddling with the general election, they're going to respond in kind, and both sides will escalate to full-on war.

This leads one to conclude that you're actively provoking them into war, so the current administration can influence the outcome of the election. Since Joe Biden said that the function of this operation is to "send Vladimir Putin a message", it may be true.