I like this guy. A good starting point. My thinking has been to-and-fro on the subject. The "debate" was so inept, as a debate, that it almost amounts to putting a bear and a tiger together to clash, and call it a "debate."

But the point that becomes clearer to me is that I see a lot of commentators lamenting that "Trump took the bait" and defended himself. I didn't feel there was anything wrong in his handling of the situation, and now I am growing opposed to that criticism. This criticism comes from the theoretical ideologues who are impatient that their favorite talking points are not in the forefront, with the eloquence they desire. But the criticism also stands on a moral flaw: submit to slander without opposition, and thereby give credence to the slander. Well, that is simply bullshit. The critics do not understand street fighting---which is how Trump looks at these debates. Remember, his favorite conflict sport is NOT chess, but boxing. To allow any slander to prevail just shows that you are a wimp, either incapable of defending yourself, or unwilling to defend yourself. Both possibilities incite disdain. To respond and refute slander is to neutralize it. Time is lost, but not one's "street credibility." I don't call it "he fell for the bait." I call it "he didn't let that slip by."

The ideologues maintain that what is at issue is a choice between policies. They are blind. What is at issue is a choice between CANDIDATES, who are more than a collection of policies. We want TRUMP, not some policy wonk with spectacles and a pocket protector. (Full disclosure, I wear glasses and used to have a pocket protector.) We loathe Harris. Why? Yes, because Trump has definite policies that we would support. We don't know what policies she will attempt to follow. Why also? Because we KNOW Trump would follow through, because we see him in the ring. Because we KNOW Kamala Harris is a lowlife invertebrate. Policy concerns are worthless if the candidate is a worthless person.

So, I don't go along with this "he took the bait" criticism. Defending one's honor against slander is an absolute requirement. If you don't do that, you have no honor. You are just a nerd. I don't want a nerd, I want a champion. That's what I am voting for.

I like this guy. A good starting point. My thinking has been to-and-fro on the subject. The "debate" was so inept, as a debate, that it almost amounts to putting a bear and a tiger together to clash, and call it a "debate."

But the point that becomes clearer to me is that I see a lot of commentators lamenting that "Trump took the bait" and defended himself. I didn't feel there was anything wrong in his handling of the situation, and now I am growing opposed to that criticism. This criticism comes from the theoretical ideologues who are impatient that their favorite talking points are not in the forefront, with the eloquence they desire. But the criticism also stands on a moral flaw: submit to slander without opposition, and thereby give credence to the slander. Well, that is simply bullshit. The critics do not understand street fighting---which is how Trump looks at these debates. Remember, his favorite conflict sport is NOT chess, but boxing. To allow any slander to prevail just shows that you are a wimp, either incapable of defending yourself, or unwilling to defend yourself. Both possibilities incite disdain. To respond and refute slander is to neutralize it. Time is lost, but not one's "street credibility." I don't call it "he fell for the bait." I call it "he didn't let that slip by."

The ideologues maintain that what is at issue is a choice between policies. They are blind. What is at issue is a choice between CANDIDATES, who are more than a collection of policies. We want TRUMP, not some policy wonk with spectacles and a pocket protector. (Full disclosure, I wear glasses and used to have a pocket protector.) We loathe Harris. Why? Yes, because he has definite policies that we would support. We don't know what policies she will attempt to follow. Why also? Because we KNOW Trump would follow through, because we see him in the ring. Because we KNOW Kamala Harris is a lowlife invertebrate. Policy concerns are worthless if the candidate is a worthless person.

So, I don't go along with this "he took the bait" criticism. Defending one's honor against slander is an absolute requirement. If you don't do that, you have no honor. You are just a nerd. I don't want a nerd, I want a champion. That's what I am voting for.