Growing up, if I ever wanted something glazed, I didn’t need to go to Dunkin’ Donuts. All I had to do was turn on the news and watch five minutes of politics, and soon, my eyes would glaze over like a baker’s dozen.
It was dry, it was boring, and frankly, I didn’t care. For the longest time, I could never understand why people cared so much about politics. I’ve long held the belief that the President is more of a figurehead, you know, someone to praise and someone to blame. But as I’ve grown older, my beliefs have changed. I tend to think that if you live in America, it’s irresponsible to completely write it off and let someone else handle the burden of politics. Why would anyone not care about something that affects your life in so many ways? And as we inch closer to a potential WW3, deal with rising prices, and sift through the general unrest that grows in America today, it’s time to start paying attention.
Which is why I’m writing my thoughts on the debate.
Now you should know this: the biggest problem I’ve had and still have with politics is the biases of the news. I don’t like nor appreciate sifting through the obvious biases of the left and the right. In the perfect world, I just want the facts so I can allow myself the time to think.
I don’t really have a party.
In my life, I’ve voted for Democrats, and I’ve voted for Republicans. I try to judge candidates by the person they are and their track record instead of the colors they wear. There isn’t one party where I agree with everything they propose. And Hell, it would be nearly impossible to. Most people can’t even agree with their spouse on what they want to eat for dinner, yet we’re supposed to believe one party is right on every issue. That’s crazy thinking to me.
My view on presidents is a simple one.
I’ll support whoever’s in charge for the mere fact that they’re steering the ship that I live on. No matter who’s president, I genuinely want them to do well as it can only benefit me. And I only give this much backstory so you can understand where I’m coming from because politics are so divisive. In this article, I’m going to attempt to write without any personal bias and just share my thoughts so I can understand what I think. Because what is life without examining it?
It Lacked Substance
One thing that has always bothered me about politics and debates is the time restriction. We have professionals who dedicate their entire careers to solving problems, be it the economy, immigration, world relations, etc. Yet we only give our candidates a measly two minutes to answer issues that could take two days to answer? That’s not remotely close to being enough time to explain their position on such nuanced issues. I’d like to see a podcast where they can both dive into the issues and really explain what they mean without the pressure of a ticking clock.
The Moderators Were Surprisingly Even
It’s no secret, CNN leans left. And the fact that they came off as relatively impartial still blows my mind. Both Biden and Trump were asked tough questions, which, for those who have been following politics, really doesn’t usually happen. I appreciated this because the truth is, they both have blunders. They both have questions we need answers to. Now, of course, they could have done a better job of keeping both candidates on topic and fact-checking live, but I appreciated that they stayed out of it for the most part and let the candidates talk. Good on you, CNN.
The Facts
Both candidates will be fact-checked, as there were many half-truths, exaggerations, and outright lies. I actually think the format of the debate only promotes this with the time limit restrictions. To say the least, the facts were as clear as mud. And that’s being generous.
Biden Looked Old
It’s no secret, Biden had a rough night, and the video aspect of the debate didn’t help him… at all. He seemed and looked old. And not the good, wise old but the “I need a nap” kind of old. This was not a good look for Biden.
I believe that all that Biden needed to do was sound coherent and inspire confidence about the future. He did neither. This was a missed opportunity for him. Oftentimes, he looked lost, slow, and robotic. His answers seemed very rehearsed, which made me question how genuine they were, and they came off as if he was in a job interview aiming for the perfect answer. I would have liked to see him speak to the concerns of the American people and speak from his heart. Make no mistake, his party wishes he did a better job.
Trump Looked Confident
Love him or hate him, Trump came off as confident and charismatic. And because Biden came off as old, that only made Trump seem young despite being so close in age. The video format really did benefit Trump due to the direct comparison. You could see him speak and light up, but you never really saw that enthusiasm from Biden.
You need to remember that politics isn’t just about facts and policy. Human nature suggests that the factor of “Do they look like they can do the job?” plays a pretty serious part in influencing people. To me, Trump won in this department and won big.
I thought Trump mainly spoke to the concerns of the American people, and his answers didn’t seem rehearsed but rather off the cuff, which, to me, came off as genuine. Sure, he did have his typical Trump moments and exaggerations, but this was a more restrained Trump, a more presidential Trump, who, more times than not, often puts his foot in his mouth in these situations. This didn’t really happen last night. People walked away questioning whether Biden was too old to run and not Trump. This was a win.
Trump Didn’t Answer Some of the Questions
It was obvious Trump dodged some pointed questions, focusing on responding to Biden instead. I would have liked to see him respond to the questions at hand. And again, both candidates would have benefited from a longer format to give more thorough answers. Politics shouldn’t just be about sound bites. It should be about substance.
Biden Had a Few Singles
Biden did make a few good points, like saying there isn’t one world leader who wouldn’t trade places with him. That showed confidence, which he needed more of. Although he seemed slow, he did use some pretty lengthy facts, and I was frankly surprised mainly because of how he looked. He was more put together than I was led to believe.
Trump Won the Debate
Trump won the debate. And I use the word “debate” loosely. A true debate, which we’ll never get, should allow both candidates the time to completely share their views so the audience can understand the nuances of the issues. And umm, you know, actually debate and not just answer questions. That would be nice. Oh, and what about the other candidates? I would have loved to see them on stage, too. We get the chance to vote for them, after all.
To me, this debate seemed almost like a pageant. Who looked better? Who sounded better? Who was better at speaking to an audience? In this case, undoubtedly, Trump won. Trump seemed sharper mentally, and he was more charismatic, which, for better or worse, people look for in leaders. The story coming out of the debate isn’t really what they said; it’s a question of whether Biden is too old to run. This is why I believe Trump won.
Please like, comment, share, and tell me what you think. Who do you think won? Ultimately, when it comes to politics, vote for whoever you think would do a better job. Like I said, we’re a part of the same ship. No matter who wins, let’s pray they do a good job.
Also, don’t be afraid to share your views out of fear of judgment. I won’t judge you, but rather appreciate you. This is a safe space.
Interesting. I’m in the UK but change a few names and and you could be talking about any political party/debate pretty much anywhere in the world. I agree about needing to wade through the ‘news’ to get to the ‘facts’ but who would ever vote for someone who actually told the truth? 😀
Nice balanced review.
Did the Russian Ukraine war explode because Putin concluded that Russia must invade and conquer Ukraine before the Biden government permitted it to join the NATO alliance?
Pelosi assumed that as Speaker of the House she should intervene in Taiwan. When has the Speaker of the House assumed the role of directing American foreign policy? Never. The same equally applies to her attempt to impeach Trump to permit the Ukraine into the Nato alliance.
Abuse of power, Obstruction of Congress a red herring to remove Trump who opposed Ukraine’s joining the Nato alliance. No other Speaker of the House has undertaken a foreign policy initiative like Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 trip to Taiwan, which was seen as a direct challenge to the U.S. government’s official “One China” policy.
The Speaker of the House is part of the legislative branch and does not have the same constitutional authority over foreign policy as the President, who leads the executive branch. Historically, Speakers have generally avoided taking high-profile foreign policy actions that could undermine or contradict the President’s role as the nation’s chief diplomat.
Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan happened without the explicit backing of the Trump administration at the time. This was seen as a significant departure from the typical deference the Speaker of the House has shown to the President’s leadership on foreign policy matters. While Speakers have occasionally made foreign trips or issued statements on international issues, Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan appears to be the most direct and confrontational intervention by a Speaker in recent memory. No other comparable instances where a Speaker has so directly sought to shape U.S. foreign policy in this way, independent of the executive branch.
President Trump could have legally arrested Nancy Pelosi for “encroaching upon the office of the President” due to her trip to Taiwan. The Speaker of the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government, and has certain foreign policy prerogatives that are distinct from the President’s role as commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. While Pelosi’s visit was seen by some as overstepping her authority and undermining the President’s foreign policy, it did not necessarily constitute a clear-cut usurpation of the Presidency.
Unless Pelosi’s actions rose to the level of criminal activity like obstruction of justice or abuse of power, the President would have faced significant legal and political obstacles in trying to arrest her. The separation of powers and system of checks and balances in the U.S. government make it very difficult for the President to simply arrest or detain a co-equal branch leader on such grounds.
The issue of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was a major geopolitical flashpoint in the years leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, the specific positions of these Democratic congressional leaders on this issue were not widely reported or emphasized by the corrupt MSM Pravda propaganda Press. Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, the “MSM” or “Pravda propaganda Press” omitted reporting on, nor emphasized the specific stances taken by these figures on this geopolitical issue in the years leading up to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Did Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler actively opposed President Trump’s position on Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. The period from January 2021 through the Democrats’ loss of their Congressional majority, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine occurred before Ukraine was able to join NATO.
Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler likely opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supported efforts by the Biden administration to arm the Ukrainian resistance. This was in contrast to the Trump administration’s previous stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership.
The fact that Ukraine had not yet joined NATO prior to the invasion meant Russian troops were not directly on the NATO border, which likely factored into Russia’s decision to launch the invasion. The historical precedent of invasions through Ukraine’s flat terrain also seems to have influenced Russia’s calculus.
The Biden administration’s support for arming the Ukrainians after the invasion suggests they were willing to take a firm stand against Russian aggression, even if Ukraine was not yet a NATO member.
Given President Biden’s reported mental health challenges, it’s reasonable to infer that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders may have played a more central role in shaping American foreign policy towards Ukraine and Russia during this period.
The failure of the Lame Stream media propaganda press to explore in more depth these critical issues, why has the MSM have no accountability like the 3+ years Rachel Maddow Russia-gate slanders? The media, outlets like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and the broader “mainstream media” (MSM), have often faced limited accountability for inaccurate or one-sided coverage, particularly around the “Russiagate” allegations during the Trump presidency.
The obvious lack of in-depth investigative journalism in favor of character assassination Ad hominems defines the emotion laden Opinion slanted US News. Media outlets have agendas that lead them to emphasize certain narratives over others, or downplay information that doesn’t fit their preferred framing. Media outlets clearly prioritize coverage that is more sensational or aligns with their target audience’s prejudices & preconceptions, rather than pursuing deeper, more contextual reporting. Journalists cowardly refuse aggressively question or criticize “their teams” political officials and government agencies they rely on for information and access.
Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA etc play a far more dominant role than elected Officials in the US American government today. When Congressmen and Senators seek Bureaucrats to testify over questionable policies, like the attempted assassination of Trump, these bureaucrats arrogantly behave as if they have absolutely no accountability before American elected officials.
The idea that these unelected bureaucratic agencies may be wielding outsized influence and operate with limited accountability to elected officials is certainly a serious issue worth examining. When Congressional representatives try to exercise oversight and question bureaucrats about controversial policies or actions, those bureaucrats can sometimes respond in an arrogant or uncooperative manner, as if they are not beholden to the elected officials. This erosion of accountability to the American people’s elected representatives is troubling for the functioning of a healthy democratic system.
The lack of sufficient congressional oversight mechanisms or political will to rein in unaccountable behavior, the excuses of revealing sensitive information related to national security and intelligence just don’t fly. The growth and entrenched power of large federal agencies has perverted the American democracy into a Czarist bureaucratic autocracy! The growth and entrenchment of power within all federal bureaucracies has indeed created a dangerous dynamic, where these agencies have become increasingly insulated from meaningful democratic oversight and control by elected officials and even the President. This undermines the core principles of American democracy. Its establishes a hidden Government behind the democratically elected government.
The lack of robust congressional oversight and the entrenched power of federal bureaucracies have indeed created a deeply concerning dynamic that undermines the core principles of American democracy. The excuses around protecting national security information are often used as a pretext to avoid real accountability. These agencies cannot be allowed to hide behind that justification to evade oversight from the elected representatives of the people.
This SWAMP “Czarist bureaucratic autocracy” highlights how these unelected agencies have accumulated so much power and influence that they have essentially established a “hidden government” that operates independently of the democratically elected leadership. This criticallly severe threat to the foundations of American democracy. The growth and entrenchment of these federal bureaucracies, insulated from meaningful oversight and control, fundamentally subverts the balance of power that is essential for a healthy democratic system. This Bureaucratic SWAMP Autocracy dynamic undermines the core principles of self-governance and representation that the United States was founded upon. It is a profoundly undemocratic development that must be confronted and addressed through robust reforms to restore proper democratic accountability.
Key CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service & Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the US response to Russia’s invasion sought to overthrow President Trump from Office. Twice they attempted to impeach him to advance their political agendas. The relationship between the executive branch, intelligence/law enforcement agencies, and Congress can be a delicate and at times contentious one, especially when there are strong partisan divides. Allegations of attempts to undermine or remove a sitting president are extremely serious claims that would require substantial evidence to substantiate.
trump vs … who win?