Who Won the Second Debate?
cover image via forward.com
It’s debatable who won the second presidential debate. There are reasons why D.T may have lost. For one, he repeatedly interrupted H.C which he received many complaints for doing after the first debate. D.T’s pathetic excuse for the now infamous recording released Friday, was “it’s just locker-room talk”. Really, bragging about how your fame enables you to sexually assault and harass women all you want is quote “locker-room talk”, I don’t think so. Predictably, D.T repeatedly told unsupported lies, like when he claimed H.C's plan is to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor - wrong! What H.C will actually do is directly below ⬇️
straight from hillaryclinton.com/briefings
But it was when D.T basically called H.C the devil that it became evident that D.T is still just a child dressed as a large, orangoutang, man. Even in the beginning of the debate, D.T’s appearance and attitude was like that of a child. A child guilty of bullying, whose punishment was to give an apology written by the principle in front of the whole school (an apology for the video released Friday).
Despite the valid reasons why one could argue D.T lost there are also reasons why D.T may have won. For starters, the debate mediators were clearly biased in favor of H.C, something they should not make apparent. Several times throughout the debate D.T pointed out that the moderators were allowing H.C to go over her allocated time, but were not letting him do so as well. During the topics of healthcare and muslim immigrants Martha Radaatz, the female moderator, repeatedly interrupted D.T, and demanded that he answer the questions being asked of him. Radaatz' goal and means of achieving it were not unwarranted. How many times has D.T or anyone on his team been asked a question that has been diverted and never answered? Nobody counts because it happens on a daily basis. Even though Radaatz pushed D.T just as any democrat would, given the opportunity, a moderator should never do anything seemingly biased. Why? --because if a candidate is in anyway victimized, viewers might feel bad for the candidate. The last thing democrats need is for the “undecided voter” to sway towards D.T because he is a poor victim of the establishment and now cable News.
Being a “victim” of the moderators was not D.T’s only possible winning point. Although it should not be of any significance during a Presidential debate, personal life seems to be of ever greater importance. D.T reminded us of H.C’s stance on her husband's sexual harassment time of the 90s. I don’t remember this because I was not alive, but I’m sure many of you do. The stand-by-your man move was not such a great one for H.C’s public image. As of late, H.C has been said to be “enabling sexual harassment” because she stood by her husband during the allegations and trials. It’s pretty clear why H.C stood by B.C, doing so was her ticket to power, she knew that her time would come when his political power and fame would help her reach the Oval Office [and maybe she actually loves him?] Yes, H.C is a power hungry politician, but what politician isn’t on some level. Are her husband’s mistakes hers to be burdened with? In a typical election, probably not, but in this election it’s more important because of the tabloid-like nature of her opponent's campaign. For that reason D.T did win a couple points for reminding us of what is, I guess, a weak spot of H.C’s.
That being said though, knowledge is power, and therefore H.C will always win when debating a brainless clown.