This post is not mine, but it has some very good points about what happened in the Trump / Kamala debate.

Well, I’ve had 12 hours to think about the debate and watch it over again several times. It’s an interesting process to slow things down just enough to think about everything that you’re seeing and observing. It’s like watching a movie a few times and noticing all sorts of things you missed the first time.

To truly understand the debate, one has to comprehend what has happened over the last four years. In this particular case, one would have to understand Kamala Harris's normal demeanor, Donald Trump’s normal demeanor, and the history of ABC’s view of both of them, especially over the last two weeks.

Within that framework, you begin to see things in a different light and with more context. Part of what makes a debate fair is found in the company hosting the debate, in this case ABC, and the moderators moderating the debate. By understanding ABC and the moderators, you begin to understand why they asked the questions they did and why they framed them the way they did. And of course, you also begin to understand why they didn’t ask questions that are of the utmost importance to the American people and the world.

Moderators are not supposed to take sides, nor are they supposed to correct those who are debating because that is the job of the opponent, not the moderator; they’re simply to ask the questions and move forward to the next question, while also managing the time clock. When a moderator enters into the debate and takes a shot, it is just like a referee in a boxing match punching a boxer with an unseen uppercut. Typically, in a debate, people express opinions that are not necessarily facts, but they’re not necessarily wrong either. They’re simply opinions. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris said plenty of things based on their opinions that people on both sides can take exception to. However, the moderators attempted to correct Trump six times and never attempted to correct Kamala even once.

The moderators also used a technique that is so subtle most people don’t even notice it. With Trump, the questions were framed as, "How do you defend your position?" whereas with Kamala, they were constantly asking her how she felt about a position. This naturally places one on defense and the other on offense. Of course, defense appears more negative to the listener, and offense appears to be more positive. It almost has nothing to do with the answers or the topic. It really has to do with the tone, cadence, and pace of the debate. It is designed to show favoritism without appearing to do so. But I saw it and caught it.

Leading up to the debate, ABC’s reporting of Kamala Harris was positive 100% of the time, whereas ABC’s reporting of Donald Trump was negative 93% of the time. There are plenty of positive and negative stories about both candidates to at least make their reporting 50-50. But ABC is not objective; as a result, they did these little tricks in the debate that only reflected the massive bias they had going into it. In a profound way, it really doesn’t matter who people think won the debate or lost the debate. As in most debates, both sides declare their side as the champion. The only exception to this was in the Trump-Biden debate where we unfortunately saw the display of the mental decline of a sitting President. Frankly, it wasn’t even a debate, but instead a profound confirmation of the deception of the DNC and the media elites who protect and masked the deceit because Media are aligned with them because they are paid by them.

In last night’s debate, we saw the unscripted Trump being Trump, and he was typically on the defense, making his case. Again, he was constantly on defense because of the way the questions were framed. But what was interesting to me was that Kamala was not the typical Kamala. I’ve watched hundreds of interviews of Kamala, and last night was unscripted Kamala, but a very scripted Kamala. There was no word salad at all, which is her natural state of speaking.

Now, at the very beginning of the debate, the moderator stated that neither candidate was given the questions beforehand, which I will take them out their word. But I believe that while Kamala wasn’t given the specific questions that would be asked, she was clearly scripted by her team for they knew in detail the general questions that would be asked. It’s a form of cheating but I don’t care because Trump on the fly can deal with. Because he has had infinitely worse to deal with from the DNC.

All of her responses were perfect in terms of a punch and counterpunch, with lots of demeaning innuendos,  accusations, harsh opinions, and statements that would place Trump on constant defense. They were designed to make it appear like she was getting under his skin when in reality, he was just defending his position. Sort of hard to get under the skin of a person that that DNC has been trying to fillet alive for the last eight years. In other words, the debate was an illusion, and I have to admit, a pretty good one.

The real question is who wrote the script. My conclusion is that whoever wrote the script for her is the same ones who have been running the government for Biden, who is clearly unable to run the affairs of state. And in a profound way, when one votes for Kamala, they’re really not voting for her; they’re voting to keep the people in power who are behind her, whom the voters do not even know. It’s obvious that there are very powerful players inside the administration who are lurking in the shadows pulling all the levers of our government.

So when you look at the debate and realize that it’s all an illusion, it really doesn’t matter what was debated. It’s like watching a magician and you’re not sure of what you actually just saw. Because it’s more important to understand what you didn’t see, because what you didn’t see is what actually is real.

Now, if you’re a Democrat, you would just be thrilled to see Kamala in her staged performance constantly placing Trump on defense. Every unkind thing that you saw her say about Trump, you would revel in, and you would think it was wonderful and amazing and so brave of her to look him in the eye and call him a convicted felon. All the pent-up hatred created by them media is enhanced and justified when she was doing her smack downs.

If you were a Republican, you would walk away from the debate disliking Kamala even more and feeling bad that Trump was constantly on defense about so many accusations that were not true. And again, you would see the moderators correcting him for his opinions, but never correcting her for her opinions.

Late last night and early this morning, I went through all the polling data from the debate. I would have thought based on what I saw that the debate would’ve been pretty even in the eyes of the general public. However, the majority of the polls—not all, but the majority of them—showed that the public felt that Trump won the debate. The outcome of any debate is in the eyes of the beholder, and everybody has different experiences in their life, which is why we’ll see the debate in completely different ways. For me, I’m more interested in the construction of the debate—the debate moderators, the questions that were asked, and the questions that were not asked.

And frankly, a 90-minute debate should center around three questions regarding the most consequential survival issues of our country, with detailed responses to those questions that would last 10 minutes each, followed by another 5 minutes each for rebuttals to the answers.

Here are three questions I would have asked:

1. How did we get into $36 trillion in debt over the last 50 years, and what policies are you going to implement to get us debt-free? And what year will it be completed?

2. Why did we become energy dependent on other enemy nations, transferring trillions of dollars of wealth to them to wage war around the world against us and our allies? And what policies will you enact to guarantee we will be 100% energy independent of any nation during your four-year term?

3. What specific laws that are on the books does our government ignore, allowing for a flagrant violation of our border laws? And why are we not fully implementing the laws, which is the primary job of any administration? What is the real cost in money, jobs, drugs, crime, and human trafficking to our nation?

The reason I like these questions and want somebody to explain them for at least 10 minutes is because then I know whether they really understand the nuances of the topic and they’re not just some talking head.

Back in the day, say, during Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt's time, candidates would go into neighborhoods and communities and large cities and expound for hours on the nuances of government policy. This is why I enjoy watching Trump rallies, because within every rally is a new talking point and new details, and I want to know the details. It would be great if Kamala could go off-script and talk for hours about policy like Trump. My gut feeling is she doesn’t do that because she can’t do it. And that is the issue.

Back in the day, they didn’t have any analysis of talking points or what would be popular to say; real politicians got up and spoke in real words with all of their faults and feelings, but from their hearts. The politicians we have today are marketing manifestations of polling data. While it sounds like they speak with conviction, it is an acting job, and at the end of the day, the only thing that matters are results from good policies.

And it’s for this reason that I will continue to support Trump because it’s real and not scripted. He is willing to go and take questions in front of press members who he knows has a personal hatred for him, but he does it anyway. How do I know Trump is unscripted because he’s one of the few who does not try to constantly hide his flaws. I accept the reality of his flaws like I accept the reality of my flaws, and the flaws of everyone I know and love in my life.  Just saying the obvious once again!