web analytics
December 4, 2016 / 4 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘presidential’

Jews and Golden Calf: The 2016 Presidential Election

Monday, November 14th, 2016

According to a New York Times exit poll 70% of American Jews for Hillary Clinton while only 24% voted for Donald Trump. The huge differential is larger than the margin of Jews that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 (30%). This is bewildering from a pro-Israel standpoint. In an attempt to understand the confusing nature of Jews, non-Jewish friends of mine ask me how can so many Jews seemingly always vote for a candidate and a party against their people’s apparent own self-interest.

In 2016, to believe it still has anything to do with Truman or FDR, one is deluding oneself about the place where Israel stands in modern Democrat party politics. The booing of the United Jerusalem platform during the 2012 Democrat convention, the Israel flag burning outside the 2016 Democrat convention, the sea of “Palestine” flags within their convention hall and the swell of pro-BDS Muslim voters in the Bernie camp has to make one wonder why Jews would vote for a party that elevates these dangerous fringe elements? Why did Hamas-funded BDS supporters clamor around Bernie? Why does Hillary have the Huma Abedin, the daughter of the editor of a Saudi pro-Muslim Brotherhood newspaper as her closest confidant and whisperer? Why reject Donald Trump whose vows to tear up the Iran Deal, embraces Israel, and vows to defund the UN for their blatant support for Hamas and the anti-Semitic UNESCO?

In the last 20 years we have seen the rise of strong, prominent, popular non-Jewish New York Republicans who are ardent Israel supporters such as Al D’amato, Rudy Giuliani, Peter King, Donald Trump, George Pataki, while defiant Jewish Democrats such as Steven Israel, Jerald Nadler, Diane Feinstein, J street and others followed in lock step behind Obama during his march to force through the lie known as the Iran Deal?

Many will say that many American Jews fear Republican pro-Zionist Christians as a fake ally in disguise whose real motivation is mass conversion of Jews at some future “come-to-Jesus” time point. One would think that the radical global justice alliance of the Black Lives Matter movement with the violent BDS/Students for Justice in Palestine, who are both openly anti-Semitic and attack Jewish students on American campuses, would finally open the eyes of Jews who may equivocate in party affiliation. The Radical left constitutes the current grassroots of the Democrat party and will be its future. It is a cadre of groups such a Code Pink, ANSWER, SJP, Students and Graduate Activists, Students for a Democratic Society, LUPE, Legalization for All Network, and dozens of others that openly lend support to de-legitimization of Israel and Zionists as racists, usurpers, and murders. Dinosaurs such as Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein consistently haul in millions of Jewish Democrat dollars into a party that nurtures this growing anti-Semitic poison much akin to Rosemary’s baby, an evil that was nurtured dim- wittedly to maturity.

Ironically, I believe the answer lies in a 2013 Pew Research poll that states that only 40% of American Jews believe that G-d gave the Land of Israel to the Jews, while 82% of white evangelicals believe so, and even 54% of black evangelicals do. What is the matter with American Jews and their lack of fealty to their own religion and history? The answer is the corrupting socialist justice movement which has entranced a majority American Jews into thinking that godless universal secularism and global suffrage of “oppressed peoples” are the solutions to collective acceptance by the same radicals. The newly freed Israelites were hard worn to shake their old Egyptian ways, and when egged on by the trouble making Eruv Rav, rejected G-d and created a man-made idol, to worship and replace that G-d, even after the massive miracles of the Exodus and the Red Sea crossing.

In our time, we must return back and embrace G-d and His miracle in our time, the rebirth of Israel as the enormous first step towards Jewish renewal and reunification towards the time of Moshiach. We must renew our love for G-d and His gift of the Land of Israel, as commanded in His Torah, for us to inherit it, though we must fight for it like Joshua if we are to possess it. We must reinvigorate Zionism, and fight and defend our Birthright, otherwise when the wheels come off the cart for American Jews one day, many of us will wake up to the ugly reality of the assimilated German Jews in the 1930s- a repudiation by the society that they tried so hard to embrace. For now, and nothing lasts forever, the best friend of the modern day miracle of the fruit of Zionism, the State of Israel, is the evangelically based-Christian Zionist Republican party of Donald Trump, and Jews would be wise to embrace such as friend of the Jewish people. As we know, good friends are hard to come by.

Matthew Karlovsky

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, FirstOne Through}

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president has sought to portray her Republican challenger Donald Trump as a racist, and those that support him as racists. Both she and President Barack Obama should consider that those same people endorsed them as well.

David Duke

David Duke is a leader of the racist group the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and is currently running for the Senate from Louisiana. He proclaimed that he would be the “biggest supporter” of Trump from his position in Congress. Clinton used the endorsement as an opportunity to portray half of Trump supporters as “deplorables” who are “irredeemable.” In doing so, she sought to send a message that anyone that votes for Trump is either a “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,or is happy to associate with such people.

There is no question that David Duke deserves the charge of a deplorable and maintains the views that Clinton ascribed.  However, it was that same David Duke that came out in favor of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. Should that have been a warning that the Democrats were advancing a deplorable deal?

Iran

Iran is listed by the US State Department as an official state sponsor of terror (one of only three countries with such designation).   Iran celebrated the nuclear deal brokered by Obama.  Does its support mean that Obama strengthened global terrorism?

Qatar

The government of Qatar supports Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist group whose goal is the complete destruction of a US ally, Israel.

But the Clinton Foundation was happy to accept a $1 million gift from Qatar in 2011, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The Qatar government bought Bill Clinton’s former Vice President Al Gore’s cable channel, Current TV for $500 million in 2013. That deal netted Gore a personal gain of roughly $17 million.  That channel and social media site, AJ+, continue to spew anti-Israel commentary and incite violence against Israel.

Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a well-earned reputation of falling into Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.”  It is the only country in the world that received a ZERO for women’s empowerment by the World Economic Forum. It kills anyone that converts from Islam (apostasy), a right that is clearly protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The country also condemns people to death for homosexuality – even minors.

This deplorable country gave the Clinton Foundation well over $10 million according to PolitiFact.

The Washington Post listed many other problematic parties supporting Hillary Clinton, including Algeria, Kuwait and Oman. The Arab countries continue to support her candidacy.


Donald Trump did not solicit the endorsement of David Duke, but was nevertheless rebuked for not immediately distancing himself from the man (which Trump did do later). But Clinton hammered continuously on the campaign trail and in advertisements that Trump supporters were racists, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes. (The last claim is pretty remarkable, as Trump stood before the entire Republican National Committee, and drew loud applause for his pro-gay comments).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton actively courted the support of some of the most deplorable countries in the world, who are homophobic, anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist.

Does Clinton claim that any endorsement from a “deplorable” means that all all (or at least half) supporters are terrible as well? Hillary Clinton often claims that Russia supports Trump and is behind her email scandal.  But that same Russia also supported the Iranian nuclear deal.  Does she want us all to revisit that toxic deal negotiated by Obama, Kerry and herself?

As Clinton and Obama trash the “deplorable” Trump supporters, they should consider their own tainted glass houses, in which some of the worst deplorables in the world gave them direct financial support and endorsed their most controversial policies.


Related First.One.Through articles:

A Deplorable Definition

Al Jazeera (Qatar) Evicts Jews and Judaism from Jerusalem. Time to Return the Favor

An Easy Boycott: Al Jazeera (Qatar)

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Paul Gherkin

Shiloh Musings: Nastiest US Presidential Elections Ever!

Sunday, November 6th, 2016

Last night on BBC they broadcast Obama campaigning for his former opponent Hillary Clinton. The racist scare tactics and dangerously inciting negative comments about Donald Trump would get someone jailed if it had been against a non-white candidate.

But since the Left is firmly coated in Teflon, even linguistically, he can get away with it.

TEFLON = ON LEFT

This is a nasty campaign. The so-called “debates” were more like street fights using verbal knives and sharpened sticks.

As poorly as our Israeli politicians sometimes act, I think that the Americans have been dragging politics to an even lower level.

More than that, this entire election season, from the runup to the primaries and now as the candidates slug it out to the final voting deadline, the entire world can see how disunited the United State really is.

  • There is no “American People.”
  • The “melting pot” has failed to make a tasty “cholent.”
  • Even though the rates of all sorts of racial and religious intermarriage has never been higher, the disparate groups of people living in the United States of America are just getting more and more suspicious and hateful of those they consider “different.”
If Hillary wins, I just can’t see her undoing the social damage of the campaign, especially after her repeated “deplorable” comments stereotyping and condemning Trump supporters.
And if Trump wins, so many Americans can’t stand him and don’t trust him. I can’t see him calming the waters either.
Neither of the candidates have displayed the talents, personality and character that the USA needs in their president right  now. And Obama’s anti-Trump campaigning has been so vicious that there’s no way he can undo the damage.
The lines separating the disparate groups of American society may have been redrawn, but they seem deeper than ever. And trust between them is at an all-time low.
Neither Trump nor Hillary has shown his/herself as “presidential,” or does the word and concept “presidential” have new meaning in the twenty-first 21st century?

Good luck America and Jews come home!
Batya Medad

Shiloh Musings: Time for Me to Just Wait and Watch American Presidential Elections

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

With just over a week to American Election Day, I think it’s time for me to just find a comfortable seat to observe the fireworks. This is possibly the most bitter election campaign ever. Even when in 1964 Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon B. Johnson, two very different candidates, it was nothing like this. OK, in 1964, nominees were still chosen by politicians and party “machines,” not by primaries. So, Goldwater didn’t have the super long build up of primaries campaigning that Donald Trump has had.

And if you don’t know, Goldwater was totally trashed by LBJ. I was in my teens, and I still remember one of, or the main, campaign slogans you heard from the Goldwater camp:

“In your heart you know he’s right.”

Now over fifty years later, decades after Ronald Reagan did the unthinkable and got elected by the “silent majority,” I see Donald Trump as another step in the rising confidence of the Right.

America has changed a lot in these last fifty-two years.

Hillary Clinton was also a teenager when Goldwater ran against Johnson. I wonder if she had her plans to run for President hatched by then. Or was she more inspired by the aim to correct George McGovern’s highly competent wife, Eleanor, who seemed to make peace with her role as hostess during the 1972 Elections, rather than using her talents for higher office. And just in case you don’t know, Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern.

And about the upcoming American Elections, there’s no unity in the polls. It seems that the various companies or NGOs that poll people about their voting plans each ask different segments of the American public whom they plan to vote for, because there are enormous discrepancies. Also,  there has been a rise in Trump’s numbers and a drop in Hillary’s.

I watch BBC TV News, and they are now trying to prepare people for a surprise. There’s no consistency in poll results, so they have just been showing the range of numbers.

Considering that Hillary’s supporters find Trump despicable, and Trump’s supporters consider Hillary a criminal, whoever wins will have an awfully hard time governing and making Americans feel like one country.

And it’s not just a matter of how the two disparate groups of supporter feel. I don’t remember ever hearing such foul and nasty remarks by presidential nominees about opponents ever before. This does not bode well for the United States of America!

Batya Medad

The 2016 Presidential Election

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

Until the presidential campaign got helplessly mired in the failings and missteps of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the long-awaited clash between the left of center and conservative approaches to American governance seemed to be at hand. Mrs. Clinton embraced and in many respects promised to add to the former while Mr. Trump urged a pullback in specific areas and a general shift toward the right.

Unfortunately, attention soon began to focus on the candidates themselves rather than the positions they advocated. This is not to say that aspects of a candidate’s makeup are not valid campaign issues. It is just that the hope for a principled debate soon became dimmed.

In our view, therefore, readers must consider all of the issues – personal and substantive – and decide for themselves which candidate, when all is said or done, comes closest to their own perspectives and which candidate can be trusted to carry through on campaign promises.

As far back as May, The New York Times – which has strongly endorsed Mrs. Clinton for the presidency and roundly condemned Mr. Trump – featured an astonishing news analysis headlined “Emails Add to Hillary Clinton’s Central Problem: Voters Just Don’t Trust Her.”

In pertinent part the analysis noted:

For more than a year, Hillary Clinton has traveled the country talking to voters about her policy plans…. But as the Democratic primary contest comes to a close, any hopes Mrs. Clinton had of running a high-minded, policy focused campaign have collided with a more visceral problem.Voters just don’t trust her.

The Clinton campaign had hoped to use the coming weeks to do everything they could to shed that image and convince voters that Mrs. Clinton can be trusted.

Instead they must contend with a damaging new report by the State Department’s inspector general that Mrs. Clinton had not sought or received approval to use a private email server while she was secretary of state.

It is not just that the inspector general found fault with her email practices. The report speaks directly to a wounding perception that Mrs. Clinton is not forthright or transparent.

After months of Mrs. Clinton’s saying she used a private email for convenience, and that she was willing to cooperate fully with investigations into her handling of official business at the State Department, the report…. undermined both claims.

Mrs. Clinton, through her lawyers, declined to be interviewed by the inspector general as part of the review….

And then there were all those instances when Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails were subpoenaed by Congress, some of which went “missing” and then there was a scrubbing of others that remained; her claim that she exercised due care for official documents and never transmitted “classified” information but also said she didn’t recognize the “classified” marking. She was criticized in Congress for these actions, and for her erroneous claim that her lawyers had vetted all of her e-mails and separated official e-mails from non-official ones. And of course many attorneys have expressed the opinion that the FBI report on Mrs. Clinton’s clearly points to criminal liability on her part and that the FBI broke with procedures in giving her a pass.

Similarly, with respect to the terrorist attack on an American facility in Benghazi while she was secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton insisted for five days that the attack was the result of a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video movie. Yet it emerged afterward that she was aware it was a planned Islamic attack against an American facility (and this despite President Obama’s assurances that Islamic forces had earlier been driven from the area).

Then came the cascade of information about her habit, as secretary of state, to grant special access to people making large grants to the Clinton Family Foundation and offering her husband extraordinarily lucrative speaking engagements.

Most recently, there was WikiLeaks material quoting her to the effect that she believes elected officials must often take two positions on issues, one for public consideration and one for private, serious consumption.

For those reasons Mrs. Clinton became the main issue, not her agenda.

As for Mr. Trump, a recently uncovered 2005 tape of his employing crass and sexist language created a firestorm and made his character a central concern for many voters. Actually, from the start his campaign was defined largely by the pointedly general rather than specific observations on policy questions that marked his speeches and, significantly, his tendency to speak more forcefully and emphatically than many had been accustomed to hearing in polite company.

For example, as a way of stemming crime on the part of illegal immigrants and the ability of terrorists to slip into our country, he called for a temporary halt on Muslims entering the country and a severe tightening of our border with Mexico. In the process he referred to many illegal aliens as sexual predators. He also spoke of the need to plan for the deportation of those already here illegally.

Mrs. Clinton, a compliant mainstream media, and many Republican officials roundly condemned such blunt talk and succeeded in painting Trump’s proposals as ludicrous and not thought through. Yet to do more than broadly call for such measures is impossible without an intimate knowledge of the federal agencies involved, something one gets from actually being in office.

To be sure, Mr. Trump used excessive language in describing illegal immigrant lawbreakers, opening himself to criticism in that regard. But the issue he raised is a valid one, deserving more ventilation.

With respect to foreign/military affairs and trade policies, Mr. Trump’s arguments for more robust America-oriented approaches have been ridiculed by Mrs. Clinton as naïve for not taking into full account that other countries have their own interests to pursue. Yet Mr. Trump’s point is that the U.S. cannot and should not continue to promote the interests of other countries without paying due attention to its own.

One of the more disturbing issues raised by some of the WikiLeaks documents concerns quotes from Mrs. Clinton indicating that she supports open borders, which would mean the end of the America we have come to know. Allowing groups of foreign nationals unrestricted access to our shores means the end of any incentives for newcomers to blend into our society.

Editorial Board

Ten Questions About Israel For The Presidential Candidates

Friday, October 14th, 2016

Israel has barely been mentioned in the current presidential campaign. This is disappointing to the many millions of Christian and Jewish Americans for whom America’s relationship with Israel is a significant foreign policy concern.

Here are ten questions that I think the candidates need to address.

  1. There have been reports that President Obama may take some sort of action against Israel during the period between the election and the inauguration.

Are you prepared, right now, to urge President Obama to refrain from any December Surprise?

  1. After President Obama attended the funeral of Shimon Peres, the White House issued a press release that referred to him visiting “Jerusalem, Israel.” Then it issued a corrected version with the word “Israel” deleted.

In what country do you believe Peres is buried?

  1. The Obama administration has strongly condemned Israel for planning to build 98 homes in the Jewish community of Shiloh.

Is it your position that Jews in Shiloh should not be permitted to build additional homes, but Palestinian Arabs who live in nearby towns should be permitted to build as many homes as they want?

  1. Israel has announced plans to rebuild the famous Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue in the Old City section of Jerusalem, which the Jordanians destroyed in the 1948 war. That part of the city is beyond the pre-1967 armistice line.

Do you regard the rebuilding of the synagogue as “illegal Israeli construction in occupied Arab territory”? And how is the construction in the Old City of Jerusalem different from the construction of the homes in Shiloh?

  1. Immediately after this past Sunday’s terrorist rampage by Mesbah Abu Sbih in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority issued an official call to Palestinian shopkeepers to go on strike in honor of “the martyr Mesbah Abu Sbih.”

What action would you take, as president, to pressure he PA to stop honoring terrorists?

  1. Sunday’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem took place in the neighborhood of Ammunition Hill, some of which is beyond the pre-1967 armistice line. The Palestinian Authority referred to the 60-year-old woman who was murdered as “an Israeli settler.”

Do you agree with the PA that those parts of Jerusalem are “occupied Arab territory” and that the Jewish residents are “Israeli settlers”?

  1. The British government has suspended its aid to the Palestinian Authority because of the PA’s payment of salaries to imprisoned terrorists and the families of dead terrorists.

Do you think the United States likewise should suspend its $500-million annual gift to the PA until the PA stops subsidizing terrorists and their families?

  1. As a U.S. senator, Hillary Clinton once referred to the anti-Semitism in Palestinian Authority school textbooks and summer camps as “child abuse.”

Do you, Secretary Clinton, stand by that characterization? Do you, Mr. Trump, agree with it? And if elected, what would each of you do about it?

  1. The Palestinian Authority has never responded to Israel’s 36 requests for the extradition of terrorists, something that is required by the Oslo accords.

Do you agree that the PA should fulfill its Oslo obligation to surrender the terrorists? And if so, what would you do about it as president?

10, The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) are on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Both the PFLP and the PLF are still member-organizations of the PLO, which is chaired by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.

What steps would you take to pressure Abbas to expel the PFLP and PLF from the PLO?

Stephen M. Flatow

Presidential Debate #2: Trump By A Knockout

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Lid}

As people prepared to watch the Sunday evening debate there was an undercurrent that America was about to see something ugly, and perhaps it was but it was also very necessary. In the end the debate was as ugly as predicted, and Donald Trump may have done what was needed to right his campaign.

If there is any question about how Donald Trump handles pressure that was answered during the second debate. He faced greater pressure going into the debate than any candidate in presidential debate history.  He not only handled the pressure but was exceptional and won the second debate by a knockout.

In the first debate Donald Trump seemed to have missed every opportunity to go on the attack, Trump corrected that mistake in Debate number two. The two candidates threw everything but the kitchen sink at each other, and everything that Hillary didn’t throw, the moderators picked up an threw at Trump also.

It was interesting that the moderators began the debate with asking about the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the eleven-year-old audio where Trump said disgusting things about women. Yet Hillary’s scandal, the WikiLeaks release of parts of her Wall Street speeches was given a lower priority relegated to later on in the contest.

That eleven-year-old Trump video dominated the early stages of the debate. Anderson Cooper of accused Trump of bragging about sexually assaulting women, which Trump argued was a mischaracterization. The first few times Cooper asked about the tape, Trump expressed regret about his remarks and said he was deeply embarrassed about it, then pivoted to real issues like ISIS and crime. After the moderators asked about the tape three times, and Clinton had a go at it, the moderators picked a “civilian” question about the tape, making it four questions. That’s when Trump “went there,” talked about Bubba’s sexual assaults, and Hillary’s attacks on those women (three of they were in the audience, along with a woman who was a rape victim of a man Hillary defended in court then mocked years later).

It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I’m not proud of it. But that was something that happened.

If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.

Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight.

The presence of the four Clinton victims seemed to throw Hillary off a bit. But it was this exchange that really threw her back on her heels.

Hillary Clinton said Trump should apologize for birtherism, and Trump pointed out that birtherism began with Hillary’s buddy Sid Blumenthal, and then segued into talking about the deletion of Hillary’s emails after receiving a congressional subpoena promising if elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her emails and other lies. That’s when to use a boxing term, Ms. Clinton stuck her chin out.

CLINTON: … I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people.

So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.

Ouch, that had to hurt.

When asked about her speech to Wall Street where she implied that politicians needed to be two faced, Hillary in part,” As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.”

Again she left herself open for a Trump jab.

WikiLeaks that just came out. And she lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That’s one that I haven’t…

OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That’s a big, big difference. We’re talking about some difference.

A question about his 3AM tweet about the former Miss Universe Hillary used to attack Trump, he pivoted perfectly to Benghazi:

TRUMP: By the way, just so you understand, when she said 3 o’clock in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3 o’clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn’t answer it, because when Ambassador Stevens…

COOPER: The question is, is that the discipline of a good leader?

TRUMP: … 600 — wait a minute, Anderson, 600 times. Well, she said she was awake at 3 o’clock in the morning, and she also sent a tweet out at 3 o’clock in the morning, but I won’t even mention that. But she said she’ll be awake. Who’s going — the famous thing, we’re going to answer our call at 3 o’clock in the morning. Guess what happened? Ambassador Stevens — Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help. And the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who’s her friend and not a good guy, by the way. So, you know, she shouldn’t be talking about that.

There were more, but those were the three best.  The bottom line is that Trump did what he had to (and what he didn’t do during the first debate). He put the 11-year-old tape aside and discussed issues even more than Hillary. And in the meantime he was able to throw in a few great zingers.  I predict that the “you’d be in jail” line will be shown for years to come.

Now we have to see how the voters see it. That will become apparent in another week or two.

 

Jeff Dunetz

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/the-lid-jeffdunetz/presidential-debate-2-trump-by-a-knockout/2016/10/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: