As an avid liberal, I am disappointed that my party did not reach the debate or even the chance to become president. My third party affiliation has once again not made it to the final moments of the presidential election, but of course that is not out of the ordinary. Even with this fact, I still feel drawn to the debate, as it can bring up pressing issues of the time and might even bring some comic enjoyment. I watched the showdown between Hillary and Trump last night to see what the democratic and republican candidate had to say. This is what I have to say about it:
1.) I believe that Hillary Clinton made the better argument. She supported her statements more with facts than emotion, and as a logical person, I believe that she had more reason. She provided a plan with her taxing the rich more than the poor, even if I don’t agree with it, and had an arsenal of facts up her sleeve in order to combat Trump. This was especially true regarding the accusations involving her website and having a fact checker. This to me shows transparency and that if she herself were to provide a lie or false testimony, then her OWN website would fact check her. I even checked out the website and it was updating live with references to known sites and institutions. Hillary knew her history and showed that through the debate.
2.) I think that Trump blamed all the problems of the world on Hillary and Bill. Trump made references to NAFTA being the worst trade agreement(which Bill passed), He made references to Isis(which he blamed on Hillary and her futile efforts), and he blamed Hillary for all jobs being moved to foreign countries. It just seems like he is attacking her more than her policies. It almost seemed personal. I, personally, don’t get excited or invigorated during these accusations because I believe that fact rules the world and that emotion should be very limited. The role of president is a very big job and the fact that he is bringing in all of these outlying statements just makes him seem less qualified.
3.) They both never answered the question of EACH of their conspiracies. Trump starts it off as a question of his tax audit. He states that he will not release them because he does not want to release them prematurely. The thing is that it is so close to the election and that he should release them because it seems as though he is hiding them. It seems as though he is prolonging the release of these documents because there is something that he does not want us to see within them. I cannot get on board with anyone who wants me to stick around without full information. Hillary was no better. When Trump shifts over the conversation from him to Hillary, she does not really address the accusations either. She says that she made a mistake and moves onto another one of her policies. They both dodged the questions regarding the contents of the tax releases and the emails. This is why I am not voting for either of them! I want more transparency and cannot get behind their unknown agendas.
These are my personal opinions and anyone can disagree with me. I am not fact but I do make logical judgments on this sort of content. Overall, if I were to vote for either of them right now based on the debate alone, I would vote for Hillary. She has more experience, more knowledge of past politics, and is not as rash in her statements. I mean imagine Trump negotiating with China…WOW! I would love to hear anyone’s comments below as it is a very interesting time in presidential history. Happy Voting!
6 Comments
Do you mean “libertarian” in that first sentence? Or “liberal”? Funny because if you were a Bernie supporter, who is considered more “liberal” than Hillary, then maybe you were referring to Bernie not being in the debate. But then there’s Johnson… I enjoyed reading this assessment. It’s a thoughtful rendition of your thinking and of your experience that builds a lot of ethos.
I actually was a Bernie fan but decided that Johnson was a better decision. Bernie, although knowledgeable, does not quite fit my view on education. He is in favor of more standardized tests and traditional school rooms. This view is why i decided that Johnson is the better candidate. The sad thing is that he really didn’t even get to start up in this election, which is predictable because he is a third party. I think that this is one of the most interesting debates in the past few decades, or at least the most media and horse-race journalistic one.
So you meant libertarian? What do you think about Johnson’s apparent inability to speak to global issues or specific relationships between the US and other countries? Do you know much about libertarianism?
Yes I did mean Libertarian. Also, Johnson does have the ability to speak global issues as he acknowledges them during his lifetime. This link here can provide a site that explains some of his stances through up to the past couple of decades into this year. Almost all these beliefs, such as abortion, state and local education, drugs and the crime associated, link up to my beliefs on these issues. I do acknowledge the whole ordeal of him not being able to name a foreign leader he looks up to, but I do think that there is some truth in that. He definitely has a history with these moments, but just as with Hilary’s emails and Trumps…well everything, I think that this is an election based on choosing who is the better of the evils. These prclaimed “Aleppo moments” are just a snag as it is possible he has trouble with names. I recommend to watch the video here as it is a raw interview of some of his views. Lastly Libertarian is a party that believes in freedom of the people and that humans should have the control over their body and their property. I think of it as parenting in that a child should have someone there to watch over them and be there when they gets hurt or is ill, but should let them explore, not be coddled, and not be weighed down with various burdens.
The issue (well… an issue) I have with Libertarianism in general is the foundational notion that society regulates itself without government. The notion of “self-governing” systems doesn’t make sense to me as something different from “government.” Libertarians that I know (all of the white and male, by the way, and I don’t think that’s a fluke) (Rand be damned) seem to value the notion that the strong “naturally” will rise to the top of a free system and thus deserve the top. That’s how it should be. That doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you? How do you understand Libertarianism?
Remember that correlation does not equal causation (LOL). I agree with your friends that society does have the ability to maintain itself within a “self-governing” system. I look at it as natural selection. Those who are very willed in reaching the top, will reach the top. They use their strengths in order to make themselves who they are. Coming from a family of hard conservatives, this really surprised them, but a free market system definitely promotes more freedom for people to reach the top. I hope I answered your question. 😛