Home | About | Donate

Ten Things That Should Have Come Up During the Debate But Didn’t


Ten Things That Should Have Come Up During the Debate But Didn’t

Sonali Kolhatkar

It seems as though we dread elections in the United States. Over several past races, only 50 percent to 60 percent of eligible voters have cast their ballots. More and more Americans are tuning out of the electoral process. Monday night’s debate, the first matchup between the two major-party candidates, was a perfect showcase for explaining voter apathy.


This election isn't really about policy. Trump doesn't really have policies and what passes for his policies change all the time, often within one interview. Clinton has many policies detailed on her website. They now have a striking similarity to Bernie's Sanders policies so if you liked Bernie's policies you will probably like Hillary's. If the Republicans win the Senate and House they won't matter much anyway. The main thing that came out of the debate was another demonstration of Trump's attitude toward women. We found out that even a Miss Universe gaining 15 pounds was more than he could take sending him off into "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping" rants. We also found out that Trump can't debate for beans in a one-on-one debate against a skilled debater who is fully prepared. And we found out once more that Clinton can be a great debater and even against the blustering Mr. Trump with all his interruptions was able to excel.


This debate was indeed not about issues or policy, it was tantamount to a Hulk Hogan wrestling match designed to draw as many spectators as possible and bolster TV ratings.


The fix is in and the election (and every other election) was decided by these 2 men and the Deep State a long time ago. "How the Elites Control the Masses" https://www.facebook.com/thefreethoughtprojectcom/videos/1827925474094378/ The media totally ignores Jill just as they did Bernie until the primaries. Jill Stein 2016.


Climate change came up only briefly. Considering its importance to the United States and the human race, it should have dominated the debate. Perhaps if the candidates were briefed by experts from the National Academy of Science and the Department of Defense it would get serious attention.


1 America's insane love and madness for war.


That led to one of Trump's most obvious lies during the debate. He claimed that he never said climate change is a hoax although it is well documented that he has said that.


This was not a debate.


The number one thing that should come up is why one candidate had a monitor visible on the podium, and the other did not?

What's wrong with Hillary that she needed a monitor in front of her? We can see it being turned off at the end of the debate. When we see side-angle pictures, Drumpf's podium has no monitor showing in front of his microphone, but Clinton's does.

You can argue about policy misrepresentations all you want, but this is clear evidence of Hillary Clinton's unfitness, in her present state of decay, for the the rigors of the job. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a cloud of anonymous handlers tasked with keeping her appearing lifelike.

Two corporate parties offer one set of policies in the most critical areas, Hillary isn't the anti-Trump, and Trump isn't the anti-Hillary. If Trump or Hillary is not to your liking, the Greens are the ones with the alternative policies. If the DNC was really all that concerned about Drumpf, would they have rigged the primaries to field the weaker candidate? They don't buy their most compelling campaign argument, why should any of us?

Warmongering neocons support Hillary. What do you have in common with warmongering neocons, Henry Kissinger and Banking CEO's?


This is what they won't talk about:


Thank you, Ms. Kolhatkar, for pointing out that survival itself has increasingly become a challenge for so many of our poor -- an issue that has been of little media interest. Our poverty crisis -- which media recently implied isn't so terribly bad (?) -- is a complex issue that demands attention, not only with a focus on the survival of fellow citizens in poverty, but on the impact that years of ignoring US poverty has had on the overall economy and culture.


They are tales told by idiots

Full of sound and fury

Signifying nothing so much as the insanity of our age


Although Sanders did move to the right for this campaign, specifically on core socioeconomic policies, to appeal to middle class campaign donors. I didn't bother reading Clinton's official platform, since her record speaks for itself -- pro-military aggression, anti-poor, pro-corporate empowerment, etc. The bottom line is that Trump/Clinton have strikingly similar ideologies, so most of us lose in the end.


Bernie and Hillary have almost the same foreign policy. If you watched the debates then you saw that the differences were subtle. Bernie voted for every military intervention except Iraq and of course he voted to fund all the military interventions, Sanders supporters cannot have it both ways. The can't claim that Hillary is pro-military aggression and then claim Sanders isn't. If Hillary is pro-military aggression then so is Sanders. They both favor the use of drones, bombing in Syria, etc. The Sanders supporters are hypocrites in that respect. Plain and simple. Some people on the left did not support Sanders because of his foreign policy and at least they were not being hypocritical. The were being consistent. Trump doesn't have an ideology. And he certainly is not a progressive which is what Clinton is on domestic issues based on her campaign agenda. Saying Trump and Clinton have the same ideologies is meaningless statement. Trump is a white nationalist. That is his core politically. Clinton certainly is not that.


The losers in the November election will be the working class. Although the election had not occurred the winners will have all been the candidates of the capitalist class. Substantive differences between Democrats and Republicans, Greens and Libertarians, liberals and conservatives, are virtually nonexistent. Their differences are as meaningless as different sitting positions under the upas tree. Worse, the capitalist victory will be by default. No working-class party backed by the economic might of the working class even contended.

Given the manifest problems of decadent capitalism, the absence of a working-class party is cause for grave concern. In politics, in the economy, in the media, in education--everywhere is the monopoly of the capitalist class. It would be easy to despair, to write off the working class as hopeless, as class-comatose. But Socialists should never give in to such feelings. They are not justified. As Wendell Phillips, the great abolitionist and champion of the early labor movement, once said:

"No matter where you meet a dozen earnest men pledged to a new idea--wherever you have met them, you have met the beginning of a revolution. REVOLUTIONS ARE NOT MADE: THEY COME. A revolution is as natural a growth as an oak. It comes out of the past. Its foundations are laid far back." (emphasis added.)

If workers do not become class conscious and do not organize themselves as a class politically and economically, then they will not defeat capitalism and will never establish socialism. If capitalism collapses, workers' intuitive measures of self-defense will not likely succeed. What would lie ahead is something like fascism, industrial feudalism or even a new Dark Ages. The progress of humankind could be arrested for centuries.


Every single paper and pundit who attacked Sanders are now ALL attacking Trump. Neo-cons now love Hillary e.g. Billy Kristol, Kissinger etc., as do the obscenely wealthy like David Kock (sp -oops!) as well as weapons dealers and defense contractors (who have donated at about a 5:1 ratio for Hillary). So my response is to do the exact opposite of what the corporatocracy desires (as well as their paid minions on comment boards such as this one).

Personally, I'll vote for Jill Stein. If Trumpy wins, that's fine by me. I won't be forced to vote for a warmonger, corporate toady like Clinton. Ever.