Month: October 2016

Having just finished watching the final debate, I will once again go through a stream of consciousness on what I thought.

Stylistically, I thought Donald Trump was much more disciplined and prepared for this debate than the other two. He did not interrupt Hillary as much as he did in the previous debates. Trump was far more restrained than he was in the first debate. He sounded like a president. He was also much more articulate and to the point in his answers. Hillary Clinton was her usual self, although she was on the defensive far more in this debate than the previous two. I think Trump showed a better arc over the course of the debates by improving over time, while Hillary did not change and even regressed last night.

Chris Wallace was the best moderator out all of the moderators in the three debates. He asked both of them thought questions and did not show any bias towards either candidate. The previous moderators asked questions that favored Hillary. Wallace was willing to challenge their stances and their responses. I think last night provided good exposure to people on both sides of the isle to hear each candidate’s arguments.

On the issue of the Supreme Court, Donald Trump gave the same answer he gave in the previous debates and in speeches in the past. He was going to appoint justices from the list of 20 people that he had compiled. Trump also said that they would interpret the constitution the way that the Founding Father’s intended. He did not believe the constitution is a “living document,” just like Antonin Scalia did not. Hillary said that she would appoint justices who defend Roe vs. Wade and look to overturn Citizens United, which she thought kept “dark, unaccountable money” in politics. She would certainly know about “dark, unaccountable money” given how she received millions for giving speeches to big banks and millions from foreign governments.

I was glad that Trump mentioned how the Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Hillary claims to be a supporter of women and gays, but took money from governments that press both groups. He asked her to return the money on principle. Hillary did not deign to reply to that point.

On the issue of abortion, I think Clinton did come off strong for her base in defending Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. It is so great to see a Democrat trust people with making their own decisions. Clinton did not give a clear answer about where she would draw the line when it comes to abortion. She said that it is the most “painful” decision a woman must make and bureaucrats should not be involved. This position would clearly allow for later term and partial birth abortions. Trump gave a visual of what would happen in those situations saying that it would allow for 9-month-old babies to be ripped out of the womb.

With regards to gun rights, Hillary will most likely overturn the Heller decision with the justices that she appoints.

On the issue of immigration, Hillary immediately made an emotional appeal by mentioning a girl named Carla who was scared of her parents being deported. This appeal is meant to get voters to forget about the rule of law and make a purely emotional decision. She said that she supported a pathway to citizenship, which is another way of saying amnesty. Hillary also tried to scare the American public with Donald Trump’s “deportation force” that will be rounding people up. We already have a deportation force, and it is called Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Donald Trump has consistently said that he wants to uphold the rule of law and deport people who entered the country illegally. I am especially glad that he mentioned how unfair amnesty is to people who are waiting in line and following the rules to enter this country. This is a point that I have made, as my family followed the law when entering America. Carla’s parents were irresponsible to put their family in jeopardy by entering the country illegally. Carla is also an anchor-baby, by Hillary’s own admission. Her family is probably signed up for many, many government services, especially on Carla’s behalf. Illegal immigrants are a huge net drain on the country in spite of all the taxes that Hillary says that they pay. Carla’s parents are concerned that the gravy train is coming to an end. I have no sympathy for this.

Where is Hillary’s sympathy for all the families in the Middle East that have been destroyed by her foreign policy decisions? What about the families in Iraq and Libya who destroyed in the wars that she supported? Is she sad about the children affected by the migrant crisis? I cannot believe her when she says she has sympathy for families after seeing her record as Secretary of State.

On the issue of taxes, I find it shocking how economists are able to predict what the national debt with accuracy. How will they know what the tax receipts will be? How will they know the demographics of the country? How can they predict the exact of effects of deporting or giving amnesty to illegal immigrants? If they are so good at predicting the future, why don’t they predict stock prices in the future? If they could do that, they would become fabulously wealthy. Donald Trump mentioned how his policies could potentially create economic growth, which is what our country needs to help pay down the debt. Hillary Clinton wants to enact more of same policies that Obama enacted, in terms of increasing government spending. Everyone who is productive in this country will see more of their money being wasted on ineffective programs.

When Hillary was asked about a speech she gave where she said she was in favor of open borders, she pivoted to Russia. There is no conclusive evidence that Russia was involved in hacking those emails. Wikileaks has actually released information in the past that is not complimentary of Russia. She wanted to deflect from the fact that she is favor of open borders. Trump has advocated for negotiations with Russia to improve our relationship with them. This would be practical given that the Cold War ended and Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. Russia is preparing for war with America in the event that Hillary gets elected. What is worse, Trump’s words about Putin or the possibility of war with Russia? Even Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, said that Hillary’s election will lead to war with Russia. Hillary has advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria. Russia has aircraft in the area. Russian airplanes will have to be shot down in order to enforce the no-fly zone. That is an act of war, and it will escalate very quickly. Stein went on to say that Trump is the peace candidate. To all military age men in this country, take this into consideration when voting. If a war starts with Russia, you will be drafted to fight. Not the women who vote for Clinton.

As expected, Chris Wallace eventually brought up the sexual assault allegations made against Donald Trump. The allegations have been debunked. Stefan Molyneux has done a video on the accusers and demonstrates how their stories did not make sense and that the people around them said that they were not true. I was glad that Trump then mentioned the Project Veritas video that showed how Hillary Clinton’s campaign coordinated with Democratic operatives to incite violence at Trump rallies. Hillary did not even deny this when Trump brought it up at the debate. She just went on with how Trump supposedly insulted those accusers at his rallies. Have any news channels had sit down interviews with Bill Clinton’s accusers?

I was very happy that Donald Trump had the courage to call the Clinton Foundation a criminal enterprise on the debate stage. He also repeatedly pointed out how foolishly our government has acted under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump pointed out the Hillary voted in favor of the war in Iraq (and he did not). She also took part in removing our forces in a way that allowed for a power vacuum that let ISIS thrive. As Trump said, she has had a lot of “bad experience.”

After the debate, everyone was astonished with how Donald Trump said that he would “keep you suspense” about accepting the results of the election. CNN analysts said that it was the most shocking moment in presidential debate history and it destroyed his candidacy. That was supposed to be a gotcha question. I don’t see the gotcha. Do they honestly expect Trump to organize a coup d’etat? Is he going to get his supporters to cause civil unrest? He has the right to say that he does not like the results of the election, or even reject the results. There will still be a peaceful transition of power. Donald Trump does not have the guns of the state at his disposal  to disrupt that. It is funny that the CNN analysts had no problem with Al Gore not accepting the results of the 2000 presidential election. Gore took a case to the Supreme Court and held things up for a month. The CNN analysts even mentioned how Gore won the popular vote, which goes to show that they are still bitter about that election. However, Donald Trump cannot question or say anything about the results.

It is also hard for Trump to say he accepts the results when Project Veritas videos show high level democrats conspiring to commit massive voter fraud. How about getting the 4 million dead people who are registered to vote off the registry? Furthermore, the DNC also worked actively to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee. Trump would have to evaluate the circumstances of the election to say whether or not he accepts the result.

I think Donald Trump won last night’s debate handily. He showed the country how disciplined and restrained he could be. He also made better arguments on policy and had Hillary on the defensive for most of the debate. CNN’s analysts was scrambling afterwards to paint his performance in a negative light, which only goes to show how good it was. I think Trump’s performance would have helped him amongst undecided voters who may not have been exposed to his ideas without the media’s filter. I think we will see Trump’s support rise again as we head towards election day.

As we come within one month of election day, I thought it would be appropriate to make another plea to the American electorate. I did a post earlier this year about why I support Donald Trump. I consider this a sister post, only in this post I am making the case against Hillary Clinton. It is for the good of the Republic that Hillary Clinton loses this election. She has a history of corruption that dates back to her time as first lady of the United States. Clinton is the confluence of all of the worst aspects of the status quo: a corrupt party establishment, media bias, shady financing and a long history of immoral behavior.

The corruption in the Democratic National Convention was put on full display thanks to Wikileaks. In a leak of 20,000 DNC emails, it was found that the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders in order to ensure Clinton received the nomination. The Observer article notes that “the party’s rules, including the use of super delegates—who disproportionately endorsed Clinton before the primaries began—are intended to provide the Democratic Party leverage over the election process. Throughout the primaries, decisions were made by DNC officials to help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders.” Clinton used the Democratic establishment to her advantage in order to drown out the voices of disenfranchised voters, who were hopeful of a Sanders candidacy. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the DNC, was hired by Clinton after resigning in light of the subterfuge. It is worth mentioning that Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, was the former chair of the DNC before Wasserman Schultz. When Donald Trump confronted Clinton in the second presidential debate on “not winning fair in square” in the primaries, he was speaking the truth. In spite of this, Clinton was vindictively smiling as Trump attacked her. She was smiling because she knows that she does not have to care. The whole world knowing that she was the beneficiary of a conspiracy within her own party will not affect her campaign. It is clear that Clinton has the Democratic establishment in the palm of her hands and is willing to unethically use its power and influence to her own personal benefit. Should she become president, one can only imagine what she would do with the IRS and the Department of Justice at her disposal.

With regards to media bias, it is clear that her associations with the media are more than just cordial. She is very chummy with reporters. Only look at how she welcomes reporters on her private plane to see how sycophantic the media is to her. She treats them like house guests, not journalists who have come for information. The press are embedded in Clinton’s campaign, given treats and goodies on board of her private plane. How can we expect the press to be objective in this environment?

Wikileaks also revealed that the Washington Post and the DNC actually hosted a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post was having a party, and the DNC took the opportunity to see tickets to the event to donors. It would be illegal for them to hold a joint event, so they did not publish ticket prices as to avoid leaving a paper trail. Clinton has both the DNC and a major news outlet colluding to support her, yet another sad example of corruption in the media.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News also claimed that news organizations have pressured their employees not to support Trump. Media organizations have threatened to terminate employees who support Trump. I don’t see why O’Reilly would fabricate that, given how bizarrely specific it is. It is not surprising given that Trump threatens the status quo and the interests of major news outlets.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Google has been subverting search results to favor Hillary Clinton. Google’s Eric Schmidt has publicly backed Hillary Clinton, and the bias in the search engine itself is obvious. Roger Epstein found that the search engine’s autocomplete function was showing positive results for Clinton while at the same time displaying negative terms for Trump and Sanders. For example, when the words “Hillary Clinton is…” are put in the search bar, the only results Google shows are “Hillary Clinton is winning” and “Hillary Clinton is awesome,” even though they were not the most popular searches for Clinton. Bing and Yahoo showed much more derogatory suggestions. Google claimed that its policy filtered not negative suggestions, but autocomplete showed “Donald Trump is dead” when the words “Donald Trump is…” was entered on the search bar. This tactic was also used to cover up Clinton’s recent health problems. Epstein says showing negative search results for one candidate and only positive results for another, you can direct people’s searches and alter their views on candidates. This is a subtle way that Clinton is using her allies to influence the way the electorate perceives her.

James O’Keefe’s recent video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging. Birddogging refers to creating a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Scott Foval, the National Field Director at Americans United for Change said that “it doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.” Foval and Clinton are certainly a match made in heaven. Or hell. Foval claims that he was participating in “conflict engagement” and that he is “starting anarchy here.” By “conflict engagement,” he means that he “pays mentally ill people to do shit. Make no mistake.” However, it is more efficient for him to call his union friends, because “they do whatever you want.” Foval said that “if you’re there and you’re protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies. That’s what we want.” Foval hired thugs to disrupt Trump rallies and provoke violence. The media would then play its part by branding Trump and his supporters as violent, saying that they needlessly provoked hostilities with their hateful rhetoric. “The media will cover it, no matter what happens,” Foval said. He gives the agitators “a script of engagement” in the hopes that “the crazies bite.” He said that there is a “central agitator training” which prepares the volunteers to start confrontations. He then sends them to wherever Donald Trump and Mike Pence have events.

In addition to this, Foval said that he was contracted to both the DNC and the Clinton campaign. He openly admitted to a conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and the DNC to incite violence at Trump rallies. Foval gave away the whole chain of command, “the campaign (Hillary Clinton) pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group (Foval’s company), the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.” Foval is acting with the approval of the Clinton campaign. He also admitted to being an intermediary between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Campaign laws do not allow for those two entities to interact with each other. Foval said that it is important to have a “double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC” so that “they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.”

At the Trump rally in Chicago, which was cancelled due to security concerns, the DNC clandestinely organized violent protests outside the event. Aaron Black, the DNC rapid response coordinator, said that “the Chicago protest where they shut all that, that was us.” A DNC operative has admitted on camera that the violent protests in Chicago were his doing. “None of this is supposed to come back to us…we don’t want it to come from the party,” added Black, whose actual name is Aaron Minter. It is unfortunate that the mainstream media won’t cover this story. James O’Keefe’s video is a smoking gun revealing how the Clinton campaign conspired with the DNC to rig the election by fomenting violence at Trump’s events. This was intended to give good footage to reporters in the media who favor Clinton. I find this unbelievably reprehensible and everyone who plans to vote should learn about this.

In addition to these despicable acts, Hillary Clinton’s financial backing reveals the degree to which she is in bed with special interests, particularly the large banks. Hillary and Bill Clinton made $153 million in speaking engagement between 2001 and 2015. The two made 729 speeches for an average payday of $210,795. The two also made at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Citigroup. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collected at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. Moreover, she refused to release the transcripts of her speeches. Wikileaks obtained excerpts of her speeches from John Podesta’s compromised email account.

When Clinton was asked about having “public and private positions” in the second presidential debate, she used Abraham Lincoln as an excuse for her dishonesty. An example of her being two-faced are her public and private positions on the Syrian refugees. She said in a speech to the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon on October 28th, 2013, that Jordan “has hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all of those refugees, so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.” This is the same woman who wants a 550% increase in the number of Syrian refugees brought to the United States. Another example of her deception is with regards to her position on changing the tax code. She said in a speech to ECGR Grand Rapids on June 17th, 2013 that “we can become same money and become more competitive with a simpler tax code” and that the corporate tax code is “kind of a dinosaur waiting to be changed.” It seems that paying Hillary Clinton a quarter of a million dollars for a speech is enough to make her adopt Donald Trump’s position on an issue. She did not mention making the rich “pay their fair share” when speaking to special interests in private. I guess that is just her “public” position. This is why Trump confronted Clinton on not doing away with the carried interest provision in the tax code in spite of being a Senator for decades. “The reason you didn’t is because your friends take the same advantage that I do,” said Trump. It was her “private” position to keep the provision in place. Based on the excerpts from her speeches, Clinton will certainly take care of her donors when elected.

In addition to her speaking engagements, 59% of her campaign contributions are large individual contributions. If you do not make a large contribution to her campaign, she does not care what you have to say. Not listening to you will not cost her money. However, not listening to the big banks will cost her. Donald Trump does not have this albatross on his shoulder.

Hillary Clinton’s unethical behavior could use its own post. However, I will boil down the most important instances in recent memory.

The email scandal revealed Clinton’s criminal arrogance and the contempt with which she holds the rule of law. U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071 states the following:

The Podesta emails also revealed that Clinton campaign knew that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS. The reason why they do not say or do anything about this is because both of those government have donated to the Clinton Foundation. The Saudi Arabian government has donated between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation through June 2016. The State of Qatar donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. How can we believe that she will fight ISIS when her foundation receives donations from their benefactors?

To conclude, a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for the current system of cronyism, false promises, an inordinately powerful party establishment and a corrupt media. The reason the media in particular has gone all in for Clinton is because Donald Trump is going against all of parties that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The lobbyists, corporations, big banks and media have created the current system to benefit themselves at the expense of the American people at large. If you really want to see the current system destroyed, then you would have to vote for Donald Trump. Trump was not a politician before this election cycle. He never made promises to constituents that turned out to be false, unlike Hillary. Trump will not be beholden to special interests when he is in office. He is largely self-funding his campaign and has not received millions from Wall Street, also unlike Hillary. Regardless of what you think of Trump, he is not a crook. If Clinton is elected, it will be the end of the rule of law in America. If she can get away with all of her crimes and become President of the United States, we cannot reasonably convict anyone else of the crime in our country. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has threatened to start a war with Russia. The Russian government has started placing missiles near Alaska and has also asked that Russians living in America should fly back home. Donald Trump is the peace candidate, and hopes to make a deal with Putin. Trump has never taken part in destroying a country. He never conducted air strikes in the Middle East. He also never giggled about killing Muammar Gaddafi. I think these reasons are enough to inspire any American who loves his or her country to come out and vote to save the Republic.

I have just finished watching the vice presidential debate and am going to give my opinions on all the points that stuck out at me. I will go through those points as a stream of consciousness.

Stylistically, Mike Pence appeared far more polished and controlled than Tim Kaine. Senator Kaine interrupted Pence far more and was on the attack for the first half of the debate. Kaine did a good job of cornering Pence by characterizing Trump’s positions and indefensible. Pence was not very assertive in terms of attacking Kaine in return. He was trying to act polite by not interrupting or retaliating. As a result, Pence was on the defense for the first half of the debate and only started to push back in the second half. Pence showed that he was far less bombastic than Trump. He showed that he is a good foil for Trump’s more assertive personality. Perhaps the American people will be surprised to see that Trump has chosen such a dignified and eloquent man as his running mate.

With regards to trustworthiness, Tim Kaine’s point on Clinton having a passion was irrelevant. He did not address the email scandal or her record of corruption. In fact, he hurt his own credibility when he misrepresented Trump’s words and business practices. Trump did not say that all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. He was talking specifically about certain illegal immigrants from Mexico, not all Mexicans in general. Also, it is worth noting that when we are talking about illegal immigrants, we are talking about a group that is composed entirely of criminals, given that they entered the country illegally. Trump went on to say, “some I assume… are good people.” Kaine conveniently left that part of the quote out, which Pence later criticized him for. He also mentioned Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University case. Trump did not say that he could not judge the case because he is Mexican. He said that the judge is a member of organizations that are pro-Mexico and illegal immigrants. This is true, Curiel is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which has spoken out against Trump’s positions. The HNBA released a statement on July 2nd, 2015, saying that they “cannot remain silent and allow Trump to promote such racist and discriminatory behavior.” It also called for a boycott on all of Trump’s businesses. Curiel was also a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association 2014 Scholarship Selection Committee, which awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants. These are clear conflicts of interest when trying a case involving Donald Trump.

Kaine also characterized Trump as benefitting himself at the expense of the American people. In order to make money as a capitalist, you need to provide value to other people. They must be willing to voluntarily give you their money in exchange for what Trump has to offer. Trump’s wealth and success are a testament to the value that he has provided to others. No transaction in the free market occurs without both parties benefitting. Therefore, Trump did not enrich himself at the expense of America.

When it came to the topic of the economy, I think both candidates did a good of articulating their plans. The Clinton-Kaine economic plan was essentially more of the same policies that Obama implemented. Kaine wants the government to invest more money in infrastructure and clean energy jobs. Both of those investments have proven to be lousy. After the billions of dollars spent on infrastructure after the stimulus bill, our nation’s roads and bridges are still in poor condition. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, America’s GPA for its infrastructure is a D+. The government has also failed in creating clean energy jobs. Only look at Solyndra as the perfect example, which failed after receiving $529 million in subsidies. Since 1973, the US government spent $154.7 billion on renewable energy with little to show for it. There is a laundry list of renewable energy companies that have received subsidies and later failed. Solar power only makes 0.2% of the electricity in America after all of that investment.

Kaine also said that he and Clinton would make tuition-free and debt-free college. Even though he used the word free, it really means that the tax payer is going to foot the bill. The students and families will still pay for college in the form of taxes and national debt. It will not be “free” by any means.

Raising the minimum wage would work to increasing the unemployment rate by pricing low-skilled workers out of the market. The workers who are retained will benefit, but many others will be fired on not be hired in the first place. Many jobs may become automated all together if the minimum wage is set too high.

Kaine then brought out the shopworn policy of having women receive equal pay. While it is true that women earn less than men, it is not due to discrimination on the part of employers. It is already illegal for employers to do so. Stefan Molyneux does a good job of debunking this myth in his video on the gender pay gap. Men are more likely to go into higher paying STEM fields than women are, which can account for the pay gap. Men are also more likely to work overtime than women are. It is also worth noting that women who have never been married earn about the same as men who have never married. More legislation to even out the pay gap is not necessary. The pay gap exists as a result of the choices than men and women make.

The fifth point on taxing the rich is also a tired proposition. The wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the income tax revenue. The top 1% pays almost half the income tax in 2014. The top 20% of earners paid 84% of the income tax. The bottom 60% of income earners in America actually received more money from the government than they paid in taxes. The idea that the rich need to pay more in taxes is ludicrous.

By contrast, Pence and Trump are proposing a different path than the one that has already been tried over the last seven and a half years. They want to cut back on regulation and decrease the tax burden on the American people. Trump’s tax plan will simplify our tax code to four brackets (0%, 10%, 20% and 25%), instead of the seven that we have now. They are cuts across the board, not just for the wealthy. This will are capital for private investment instead of the government taking it squandering it. The plan also includes cutting the corporate tax from 39% down to 15% to incentivize American companies to bring their money back to America. The amount of money those corporations have overseas is approximated at $2.5 trillion.

With regards to Trump’s tax returns, he said that he will release his tax return only after an IRS audit is complete. His lawyer advised against releasing the tax returns while under an audit. The New York Times illegally published Trump’s 1995 tax returns. The reporter said that he would be willing to go to jail for publishing them. The tax returns showed that he lost a billion dollars in a single year. It also shows that he had a billion dollars to lose in the first place, which means he is really rich and successful. He is on record of saying that he lost hundreds of millions of dollars when Atlantic city tanked. Trump used his losses to reduce his tax burden in future years, which is in complete compliance with the law. The law is made that way so that people can be encouraged to take risks. If he is not legally required to pay a tax, it does not mean that he is dodging the tax. Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to his family, his company and his employees to pay no more tax than is legally required. His fiduciary responsibility is a binding agreement to act in the best interest of the company. He is obligated to maximize the resources available to his company. As far as the claim of Trump not paying taxes for 20 years, he has actually paid enormous sums of money in taxes. Even if it was not through the income tax, it was through property taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. Trump did pay for the schools and the military through those means.

One entity that did not pay taxes in 2014 was in fact the New York Times. This is not to say that they broke the law, but it is hypocritical of them to accuse Trump of not paying his taxes.

As someone who supports Trump, I can tell you that I did not support him because of what may be in his tax returns. I support him because of his policies and ideas. That is what his supporters are judging him on. His tax returns were brought up as a distraction from the issues that Trump has brought to the forefront of the political discussion.

On the topic of social security, I do not see any way that we can keep the program solvent in the future. With $20 trillion in national debt and another $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the program will collapse under its own weight. I think privatizing it would be a good solution to this problem. I am disappointed that neither Pence nor Kaine were willing to lead the way in entitlement reform.

When discussing law enforcement, I was impressed with Pence’s response on how the police should not be maligned for implicit bias or institutional racism. While there may be some bad cops in the country, we cannot paint with a broad brush. Hillary Clinton said that everyone in the country was guilty of implicit bias. The relationship between the community and the police has been destroyed by the black lives matter activists. They have promoted the lie that cops are killing unarmed black men for sport and getting paid for it. They have driven a wedge between communities and law enforcement which must be healed. I am glad that both candidates wanted to work on that healing process.

On the issue of immigration, I have written about this at length on my post about why I support Donald Trump. He plans to build a wall, increase border patrol, deny federal funds to sanctuary cities, and deport all illegal immigrants in the country. I think all of these steps would work to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Both Pence and Kaine agreed on deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes and strengthening border control. However, Kaine proposed that families of illegal aliens can remain together in the country through amnesty. He also wanted to grant amnesty to those “who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, and take criminal background record checks.” Illegal immigrants are by definition not playing by the rules. Every moment they spend in this country is a violation of the law. My parents and I followed the immigration laws of the country to the letter. We entered and gained citizenship legally. Is it not unfair to me and my family to grant amnesty to immigrants who broke the law? I cannot reconcile this injustice.

With regards to terrorism, I am glad that Mike Pence pointed out that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama left a power vacuum in the Middle East when they chose to withdraw soldiers from Iraq. ISIS filled the void that we left. In light of the terrorists attacks in Europe and America, it can be objectively said that we are less safe now than we were eight years ago. I was also impressed with how Pence mentioned that we squandered the sacrifices made by our servicemen in Iraq when we withdrew. That argument would certainly resonate emotionally with many Americans.

The turmoil in Syria was also discussed at length, in which both candidates were in favor of creating safe zones in Syria. This is a policy that I agree with as well. It would be much better than bringing the migrants into Europe. I think the migrant crisis that is plaguing Europe right now can actually be traced back to Hillary Clinton’s decisions of withdrawing from Iraq and overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya. Her foreign policy destabilized the region and displaced millions of people. I think it would be wise for us to stop immigration from the Middle East for the time being.

The most interesting question of the night for me was the one regarding faith. I was actually impressed with Tim Kaine’s answer regarding executions. Although he was personally opposed to the death penalty due to his faith, he still upheld the law. Pence inevitably directed the discussion towards abortion. The practice of partial birth abortions is sickening to me and I too cannot understand a party that supports it. Kaine responded by saying that he supports Roe v. Wade. The proponents of Roe v. Wade have never set time for when the pregnancy can no longer be terminated. Presumably, they would be alright with late term abortions, just as Pence said.  Kaine also said that the government should punish women for making reproductive choices. While I agree with that, the trouble is whether or not they are murdering a child when they make that choice. Roe v. Wade did say that a woman has a right to choose, but does not specify at what point she can no longer make that choice. We do not know when human life really begins in the womb. Why should we take the risk of committing a murder by supporting abortion?

To conclude, I think Senator Kaine came off as more assertive but not as strong on policy as Governor Pence. I think that Pence won the debate on his ideas and for showing his respectable demeanor as Donald Trump’s running mate.

These are all my thoughts on the debate. I hope my rambling did not test your patience too much.