Like What You're Reading In This Blog? Then Forward it on to Someone!
Right Now, Up Front, Here's a Reading Assignment
(Note about clicking on links to articles published elsewhere: Up until last year, I frequently included entire columns in this blog. No one ever complained, but a professional journalist who occasionally follows the blog pointed out that actually, I was infringing on copyrighted material. So to keep everything "kosher," while I may still quote a few lines from a published column, I switched over to providing links on which readers might click to read the entire original column. (JL)
The First Presidential Debate
* * *
And here is an "addendum," written after hearing some of the "morning after" comments on the tube.
The folks at Fox TV actually thought Trump had won the debate. One of their blonde a.m. anchors quoted a poll from Variety (that's a show-biz magazine) giving Donald a 75-25 edge. Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, whom she was interviewing at the time, snickered and said that "real" polls were showing the contrary. Getting to the meat of the debate, however, the general consensus was that Hillary kept Donald on the defensive. Some wondered why, other than an offer to trade his tax returns for Hillary's 30,000 emails, he didn't inject the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi and the emails themselves into the debate. On Fox, one "analyst" complained that there were no questions posed by the moderator on those subjects. Sadly, many Trump supporters don't recognize that the demands of governance go beyond that! Far beyond that! Of note is the fact that immigration wasn't mentioned. I suspect that it's a subject Trump handles well at his rallies before his supporters, but was unwilling to raise with Hillary poised to counter his statements. And she just didn't have time to raise the subject.
So my initial analysis was correct. Clinton won. Unless the remaining two debates can be limited to the emails, the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi, (or Trump can successfully twist them into that) anticipate a steady decline in Trump's numbers. Johnson's and Stein's support will drift to Clinton, just as will the crucial "undecided" 10%. Trump doesn't have a clue as to what is required of a President, and it showed.
Donald Loves to Use Other People's Money
This is known as "self-dealing" with “OPM” and any tax accountant or lawyer will tell you it is a crime.
$38,000,000,000 U.S. Military Aid to Israel
But, this increase is not quite so much as it appears to be because the 500 million dollars which is paid for Israel’s missile defense each year is now included in this annual number, whereas formerly it was separate. Nevertheless, 38 billion dollars over the next ten years will purchase quite a bit of military aid, including the missile defense money.
Two changes, tightening up this aid package, reflect the less than ideal relationship between the United States and Israel. The agreement is not subject to revision over the next decade and the existing provision allowing Israel to spend up to 26% of the money for military items made in Israel, rather than in the United States, will be gradually phased out.
aid to Israel is taking place.
Hillary Clinton is in agreement with it. While Donald Trump, along with Clinton, has indeed pledged to protect Israel, his position on a one or two-state Palestinian solution and on military aid is ambiguous. In fact, a few months ago, Trump actually was insisting that Israel itself pay for military aid, but he eventually reversed his position on that, as he does with many issues which he does not understand in depth.
Becoming myopic, they don’t look much further than that. But I don’t know of any anti-Semites in Hillary Clinton’s camp. They are all backing Donald Trump!
She may be the first to wise up to the evil powers which are waiting in the wings, rubbing their hands as their egotistical, narcicisstic and flamboyant candidate does his thing for the gullible and naive.
Living among seniors in South Florida, one encounters a lot of women in Hillary Clinton's age range. There are many in their sixties, seventies and eighties who remain quite attractive. That's because they take care of themselves, particularly their hair. Almost all of them sport relatively short haircuts which look great. As they grow older, they just don't look right with long hair (like Ivanka Trump above).
This is true of Hillary Clinton and most of her campaign pictures show her with short hair. That's smart! Jump over to the Trump campaign, or take a look at a lot of the clips used on Fox News, and you will see more of Hillary with long hair. She looks awful in such pictures and that is why they are used by her opponents.
Here are two photos to illustrate my point. The bottom one is from the Benghazi hearings where she is wearing an ugly green suit and has long hair. Everywhere else she seems to favor blue, but that day, it looks like she went to the Goodwill Center and picked out that green suit. She looks awful in green. Maybe it was St. Patrick's Day? The Republicans are having a field day with that photo! I believe that Secretary Clinton needs a permanent style consultant. But please, don't let her hair style or choice of apparel on any given day control the way you vote. Forget the hair on her head. It's what inside that counts.