campaign.pngI just finished listening to the last debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  My guess is that the news media will play up Trump’s refusal to say a priori that he will accept the results of the election.  Instead, he simply said he will wait and see.

Is Trump supposed to say something just because it looks good? Didn’t Trump say Clinton belongs in jail? She is crooked. She should not be running for president.

Given the corrupt nature of the opposition, if he thinks they are trying to rigged the election, why should we expect Trump to say he doesn’t really believe the Democrats are trying to rig the election? Does he know how far the Democrats are willing to go to steal the election? Do any of us?

We are a divided nation. Because we have made our government so powerful we have reached the point where some people will do anything to be in charge of it. Anything.

Hillary Clinton belongs in jail. She can deny it with a straight face, but the facts make her unshakable composure a lie.

Consider, for example, how Clinton responded to the question about WikiLeaks. She blamed the Russians.  Now the Russians are our great enemy? And they don’t want another president like Obama in charge? Did you note that she never said that the WikiLeaks documents are not truthful?

Am I comfortable with what WikiLeaks does? No, but we don’t disregard information just because we don’t like the source.

You think otherwise? Then I suggest you need to do more research. Instead of just listening to the mainstream media, that portion owned by just six huge corporations, check out some of the smaller guys. We need to get our news many different angles as can.

Here are just a few sites worth visiting, and they don’t even have to be news sites.

20 thoughts on “THE LAST DEBATE

  1. Yes, I said that. There is no problem with voter ID other than it doesn’t address any particular problem and it has the potential for excluding lawful voters. I assume you have no problem with any requirement that credentials be changed being accompanied by resources and a program to ensure that every lawful current voter gets the new credentials conveniently, at no cost and in a timely manner to prevent these voters from having problems at the polls in the next election.



  2. Read from more than one source Tom. Listen to yourself. One can hardly keep up with debunking all the conspiracy theories here. This has gotten beyond the tinfoil hat stage. How many times do you think that Sasquatch votes for the Democrats? The constant lament here is finding repressive solutions for those mythical problems of unicorns, fairies and leprechauns. 😂

    If Trump were losing only in one swing state and by a slim margin, then it would at least make some sense to “canon your heart out” upon your Republican Great White Whale of vast conspiracies of Democrats evilly plotting to steal the vote. But to put it as one Republican elections head put it: “We’ve made voter fraud hard and voting easy.”


    1. @Tony

      Yeah, requiring a voter to be a citizen, alive, and to present a photo ID is so extreme. How could I believe that anyone would be so dishonest as to commit voter fraud? It is only the government, after all. Nobody ever fights over the government. Nobody ever executes devious designs to get their own way. That sort of stuff only happens in fairy tales.


      1. Tom – your 0958 comment is virtually unintelligible and doesn’t really respond to my earlier comment. My point is not that there isn’t such a thing a voter fraud or that there shouldn’t be a good system of IDs. My point is that Voter ID only protects against voter impersonation fraud and that that kind of fraud doesn’t happen, at least not in any statistically significant way. Given your very low opinion of me, suppose I decide that I want to rig an election to ensure the victory of my Republican candidates for President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, Member of the General Assembly, Board of Supervisors, Dogcatcher. So I pretend to be my neighbor, or my brother or someone else and go cast a vote for my favored Republican friends. Bingo!, the election is turned around. All my guys win. Right?

        Wrong. If I proposed such a scheme to anyone, they’d have me locked up in the looney bin. Even If I could go get a hundred like-minded fraudsters (tough task, that) to do the same thing – same result. No change in the outcome. Even at the local level. Especially when the real person whose identity I’m impersonating either shows up to vote or has already voted when I try to steal his identity at the polling place.

        It may be theoretically possible to commit sophisticated, large-scale voter fraud, but it won’t come through lack of photo IDs. It will come through cyber manipulation of electronic voter tallies or through a massive absentee scheme (one that probably would be detectable, at least in retrospect), or some other channel about which we need to be alert and we need to be in the process or hardening our systems against. Chasing unicorns is a waste of everyone’s time. Having the Republican Party buy into approaches that are really designed to shrink the electorate, rather than expanding it, is a sign of advanced rot and decay within our Party. Enough of this silliness. Let’s develop programs and approaches to national security, economic growth, infrastructure repair and replacement, health care, international relations that appeal to the broadest possible segment of the electorate, and then spend the time in articulating the reasons that make those programs understandable to everyone. That’s the task.

        Scout (Known everywhere but here as a helluva a good Republican).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @novaDemocrat

          Vote ID is commonsense. If we make no serious effort to stop people from only voting once, then how do we know whether the number of people doing it is statistically significant?

          Want to know how voter fraud is done? Check out latest.


  3. Tom wrote:

    “Anyway, you have associated yourself with an unsavory liar…”

    THIS is character assassination. Why do YOU do it?

    The “rigged election” nonsense is just a way of whining because the American People are going to pick the right person for president. How much of a landslide for her does it have to be before it is not rigged? How many electoral votes over 270? Are you seriously questioning that the dark blue states are somehow rigged? Most of the battle ground states have Republican governors and legislatures. Why would they be rigging elections for Clinton? Why are the Republican heads of elections in these states coming out and saying that these rigging claims are unfounded and dangerous?

    By historic and world standards, we live in a place and time of unprecedented freedom and prosperity for average people, but the wailing and teeth gnashing here is amazing. No, the refrain here is that these historic blessings of liberty cannot be appreciated unless everyone else agrees to be enslaved to one narrow, right wing, rigid and extremist ideology. No one is allowed to be civil and to disagree. If the majority of Americans are turned off by such dogmatic extremism and demagoguery, and punish it at the polls, then the election must be rigged and the election’s legitimacy and the legitimacy of those elected must be questioned? Right? Good luck with that. If you refuse to play well with others, and they still beat you fair and square, then you cry foul and just take your ball and go home.😭


    1. @Tony

      When Trump first started talking about a rigged election, he spoke of the news media. The news media then took that one word, “rigged”, and started implying that Trump was talking about election polling. When the videos at started coming out, that blew up in their faces (and the Democrats).

      As a matter of fact, Democrats fight voter ID and cleaning up voter registration rolls. In my state, the governor is doing everything he can (including violating the law) to give felons back the right to vote. Democrats are notorious for trying to get illegal aliens to vote.

      My “favorite” argument from Democrats about voter fraud is that voter fraud is rare. When you are doing everything possible avoid detecting it and to deny it exists, of course it is rare. The usual word for that is disingenuous, but lying is close enough.

      When Abraham Lincoln, became the president, the South seceded. Yet no one denied the accuracy of the vote. The argued over slavery, not over each others honesty. How times have changed.

      These days the splits are as large, but the decadence of our people follows no clear geographic lines. Moreover, the elites are relatively unified in their desire for power and wealth at any cost. That is, so long as it puts them on top, the “haves” are happy with the status quo. It is a great many ordinary people who don’t like what is being forced upon them by conniving busybodies who twist “living constitutions” to suit their own purposes.

      Yet voter fraud is a simple enough issue. When politicians argue against voter ID, they argue against one man, one vote. When people have to have an ID just to perform ordinary activities like driving a car, there is no practical reason they should not be able to present an ID to vote. What is at stake is simply too important. You made a big deal out of Trump’s refusal to agree in advance to abide by the results of the election. Nevertheless, your side refuses to approve simple, basic procedures that would ensure the integrity of our elections. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot protect your ability to steal the election and still expect your opponents to respect the results. You can only stick a gun up people’s noses and demand obedience or else.


      1. Just because it sometimes can help to throw a pinch of reality into discussions here, I’ll sprinkle some on this particular comment, Tom. Nothing new, mind you, but you go off on these voter fraud jags periodically, and, while your sensibilities are impervious to facts, some readers here might benefit from a more nuanced description of the issue.

        There’s no problem with voter ID in and of itself. As I think I’ve said here before, I don’t think very many people in either major party would have a problem even with full bio-metric IDs (e.g. iris scans etc.) IF, IF, IF it could be done without anyone who is lawfully eligible to vote being deprived of that ability by the imposition of a new credential. The difficulty is that if the state creates an essential new credential, it has a responsibility to make certain that everyone currently lawfully eligible can get the new credential in a timely, convenient, non-costly manner. If that isn’t tended to, the poor, the elderly, the sick, the isolated, college students away from home, military and diplomatic personnel stationed abroad, will have trouble asserting their franchise. In every case of which I am aware (there may be some exceptions, but I sure haven’t found them) of state legislatures getting on this voter ID bandwagon (for some reason it always seems to emanate from the R side of the aisle), there has be little or no effort to ensure that there is outreach to all these categories of present voters to make sure that their new credentials are provided them. This gives substance to the idea that perhaps the primary motivation behind new Voter ID requirements isn’t to protect the integrity of the electoral process, but to cull the field of demographic strata that tend to vote Democratic. In fact, some Republican elected officials and party officials have said as much. I’ve heard it myself when this fad got started and I know full well that it reflects what I see as a morbid sign of decay within my party – fear of the electorate. When we Republicans adopt policies based on a desire to contract the vote, rather than on expanding it, we’re admitting that we are in our final days as an effective force for good governance.

        A second problem with voter ID, one that you dismiss, but which is factually demonstrable, is that voter impersonation fraud, the kind of fraud that could be controlled by improved IDs, virtually never happens. Why doesn’t it happen? Because it can’t work. There is simply no way, even with the most rudimentary registration requirements, that enough people could pretend to be other registered voters and effect an election, particularly at the state or national level. So all this hoopla over voter ID wastes energy on solving something that isn’t a problem, thus making its champions (who are largely of the Republican stripe) look like fools. And then, this, of course, concerns Republicans like me, who don’t like to be associated with foolish people, and diminishes our enthusiasm for Party activities.

        Of course there are voting integrity issues in this country. But they go more to administration. We don’t have a good system (and current technology would make it perfectly possible to have such a system), for automatically annulling prior registrations when someone relocates and registers to vote in a new jurisdiction. We don’t have good systems in place everywhere for clearing off deceased citizens from the rolls. As we move toward more absentee, early and on-line voting, we haven’t really dealt with the possibility for fraud in these areas, areas that are more vulnerable to false votes than are people pretending to be someone else showing up at a polling station. And, as this year’s events have shown, we now have to be concerned about foreign powers probing our election systems for vulnerabilities. So all those things merit reasoned analytical examination. If you were focussing on this type of concern, I would take you seriously. But you’re quite wrong to say “voter fraud is a simple enough issue . . .” etc., It’s simple only in the sense that the kind of fraud you are addressing, voter impersonation, isn’t a threat to the integrity of the system because it isn’t to anyone’s advantage (in terms of outcomes) to engage in it, and changing the credential requirement without ensuring access to the new credential will disenfranchise statistically significant swathes of eligible voters.


        Liked by 1 person

        1. @novaDemocrat

          Thanks for trying to bring us a pinch of reality. If only good intentions were enough.

          Next time could you bring more than a pinch of reality. Assuming you ever held any part of reality, what you brought us was so infinitesimally tiny it seems slipped out of your hand. So we never got to see it.

          So long as our polling systems are largely controlled by local and state governments and our people maintain relatively high moral standards, I am not much concerned about the integrity of our voting systems. Of course there are moves afoot to centrally control everything, and we have become a more decadent people. You want to argue those two points? Then you can figure out how we quantify such thing first.

          We establish legal processes and procedures so that people on all sides can see their side has had a fair hearing. The same is true of collecting and counting the vote.

          What is at issue when we collect and count the vote? Whether we like or trust the people we elect or not, we must submit to their rule. We must allow them to tax us and boss us around.

          Because we have a republic, we place stringent limits upon the powers of our elected officials. Because we are human, the electorate will sometimes ignore those limits and let our elected officials improperly use their powers to abuse the rights of minorities. That fear is why we must be able to trust our electoral system even when we do not trust our elected officials. Government, even rotten government, is better than no government. And if a rotten government is what the people want, then the minority can rightfully only oppose that rotten government by refusing its assent to its immoral dictates. On the other hand, if the electoral system itself is dishonest, then what reason does the “minority” have to believe that it is in the minority? Why shouldn’t the “minority” rebel against tyrannical rulers?

          Anyway, the Federal Government taxes and spends trillions of dollars. Relatively minor changes in Federal statutes, regulations and tax laws can radically affect many lives. Thus, the notion nobody would try to steal an election is ridiculous (to put it mildly). Don’t people rob banks? Why? That’s where the money is, and our Federal Government has a lot more wealth, power, and prestige to steal than any bank.

          Of course, I don’t expect that bank analogy will work with you. Like as not the next thing you will be telling me is that banks don’t need vaults. Vaults are just too inconvenient for depositors. So are bank tellers.

          Consider this reality. Have you heard of a bank that just kept money neatly stacked on a table so that its customers could just walk in and take what they needed? You have? What a reality you must enjoy!


  4. Tom wrote:

    ‘The picture above is that of a “nasty woman”’.

    You obviously do not listen to yourself. Mathew 7:1-5. Listen to yourself.

    I do not disagree with the man, Donald Trump, but with his advocating vice as virtue. I really do love the man. Ultimately Trump is quite lovable if one learns to love another for who they really are, narcissism and all, not for what you want them to be. And as I have told you, if Donald Trump constitutionally becomes president, I will not like it, but I will accept it and defend that constitutional principle with my life.

    If Clinton is constitutionally elected, will you do the same? Do you really believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, or not? This is not really something any serious constitutional scholar argues about. This is not even constitutionally controversial. This part of the Consitution has not changed in quite some time. Will you do what the Consitutional unambiguously says? If not, quit pretending to be a constitutionalist. You are not.


    1. Read a little farther, the next verse, and Matthew 7:1-5 makes more sense.

      Hillary Clinton is not campaigning on the issues. She is trying to win the presidency by destroying her opponent, and you are imitating her. Nasty is putting it kindly.

      You want to brag about being a character assassin?

      You avoid talking about H. Clinton. You don’t try to explain her positions or defend her. You just attack Donald Trump. More often than not you don’t even offer a specific charge. Even H. Clinton feels obligated to lie or exaggerate Trump behavior, but all you do is enumerate his supposed character flaws. If that is the best you can do for your candidate, I….. Well, we will eventually have to explain our conduct to our Maker.

      You say there is at least one constitutional principle you feel obligated to defend with your life? Excuse my cynicism, but I can only suppose that principle currently fits into your agenda. Must be that way. There is no such principle in the Constitution.

      The Constitution assumes fair elections — one man, one vote. When we have credible reasons to believe the Democrats are trying to rig the election, how do we know in advance we will have a fair election? We don’t. Therefore, any candidate worth his salt considers the possibility of voter fraud BEFORE conceding an election.

      Anyway, you have associated yourself with an unsavory liar, and you have not even explained why. You have just attacked Trump. That must get extremely tiresome. Why do you do it?

      You want to climb up on a pedestal by stepping on someone else? You want to haul your candidate up there with you? You think you can win an election that way? You might be right, but you will lose more than you win.


  5. Tom,

    I voted for Bush in that election, but I was concerned about our constitutional system more than I was concerned about my candidate. I did not vote for Gore but I admire the way he conceded for the sake of the republic, even when many Democrats thought he should not.

    Politics is not a “form or war”. It is, at least under our constitutional system, a substitute for war. Christ would be (and I honestly think is) proud that we don’t kill each other in His name. We argue, often vehemently. We win. Sometimes we lose. But we do not fight in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. That ultimately is what we are taking about. Jesus is the power of love.


    1. @Tony

      If politics is not a form of war, then why are you trying to destroy Donald Trump?

      I consider H. Clinton a lawbreaker. I am not thrilled about Trump, but he does not break the law.

      Because she does not respect the law, I consider H. Clinton a threat to our constitutional republic. She openly advocates choosing judges who will legislate from the bench. Obamacare is a small example of the harm such judges can do. So I oppose her policies, and I don’t think she is honorable. But I don’t continually call her names.

      Instead, I talk about H. Clinton’s policy positions and record. If I ridicule anything, it is her sexism. She wants people to vote for her just because she is a woman. That would be as dumb as voting for Obama because he is black.

      We don’t need a black president or a female president. We need someone competent who loves our country. That was not Obama, and it ain’t H. Clinton.


  6. Too scatterpated a response on your part to even know exactly how to begin.

    I did not even mention the “nasty woman” comment, (which actually made the crowd gasp as I remember it). It is strange that you focused on that. It sadly says how far gone this whole the Trump campaign has gotten from real humble Christian civility than anything else.

    More on topic, read the actual transcript of the debate. See the actual question that Chris Wallace asked about accepting the results of the election. In the specific question, asked twice, Wallace was not talking about any “results” that were contested (such as in Florida in Bush v. Gore). Wallace was asking about the actual final results of the election. And Trump choked.

    The question for you is: Will you accept as legitimate the final constitutional results of this election, even if it definitely elects Hillary Clinton? There is no daylight here between you and I and the love and respect that I have for you, but indeed brother, shame on you if you do not. You took an oath as I also did. You claim to believe in our constitutional form of government. You took an oath to support it.


    1. If it is “living constitution”, then to what have we sworn an oath? You have no way of knowing. So spare me the high and mighty theatrics.

      Gore did not accept the results of the election until the Supreme Court forced him to do so. Meanwhile, Democrat-run counties in Florida kept trying to produce more votes for him. Nevertheless, I have no doubt Gore would have answered that question the same way Hillary answered it and then sneered at Trump for stating the obvious. Yet you are pleased with the lie.

      Politics is a form of war. We try to avoid violence, but some people won’t follow the rules. You are supporting one of them. If you choose to remain willfully ignorant of that fact, then what good is your oath?

      I love you brother, but I will not let you browbeat me into silence.


  7. @Tony

    You have actually stooped to a ridiculously low level. When Trump attacked H. Clinton, he did so by pointing to stuff she has done that is illegal or two faced, activities related to her service in public office. Hillary attacked Trump personally, and the material she uses is either made up or just plain silly. That’s why when Trump said, “Such a nasty woman!”, many people just nodded.

    What worthwhile accomplishments can H. Clinton claim? Has she earned your vote or bought it?

    Will some women get behind H. Clinton just because Trump said: “nasty WOMAN”. I suppose so. Some people are just that dumb. Instead of voting for the best candidate, the vote based upon genitals or skin color, but that is where your party is at. It has been racist, sexist, and divisive for decades. Now it is at the point where it just considers the Constitution and archaic nuisance, you have the gall to call Trump reckless?

    Look at the unmitigated crap you write. You substantiate nothing. You just attack Trump’s character. All you are doing is demonstrating your own lack of character. Shame on you!

    Think for a moment about the person you are supporting. What does she support? How ethical is it? Have you ever looked into Planned Parenthood, how it got its start. Search on Margaret Sanger and eugenics. You will find a mix of articles including some like this =>

    I expect Planned Parenthood has given up on its relatively more lofty goals. Now it is just about money, and it finances political campaigns to get at taxpayer dollars. Thus we have the oddity of a person who once headed the Children’s Defense Fund, a person who wants to protect children from gun violence, a person whose primary goal is to protect women and children; enlisting in the cause of abortion, including late term abortions. Undoubtedly, if Planned Parenthood insists upon using substandard medical facilities and harvesting of body parts, that nasty woman just look the other way.


  8. I liked the part where Clinton called Trump Putin’s puppet – pretty accurate discription.

    I also thought it interesting how the crowd laughed when Trump seriously said that no one respects women as much as he does. I have no doubt that Trump actually believes that, but, after Trump’s female crotch grabbing brags, I don’t think even his supporters will buy that whopper any more. Another favorite of mine was Trump’s “bad hombres” reference – that one has become an instant meme with millennials who seem to revel in word play irony.

    The best line of the debate for Clinton and the most damning line for Trump came out of Trump’s own mouth when the conservative Faux News moderator, Chis Wallace, threw Trump a soft ball, twice, and was surprised that Trump still struck out and lost the whole game by saying that he would not recognize one of the most fundamental tenants of our democracy.

    You can make all the excuses you want, but Americans from all political parties who love our country and its institutions saw it for what exactly what it was, a not-so-veiled threat made by spoiled manbaby. It was irresponsible and incendiary.

    I loath practically everything that Trump stands for and I think that he is unfit for the job of parking lot attendant, much less POTUS, but I would not question his legitimacy to be President if it were the constitutional will of the voters. To even imply otherwise about either candidate is dangerous and, as Clinton so aptly put it, “horrifying” coming from the representative of one of our two great political parties.

    Shame on Trump! Shame on the members of the GOP who excuse and support such recklessness! Shame!

    The visuals throughout the debate were no good for him, but Trump actually had some good moments, and Clinton had a couple of rocky ones. However, Trump blew his whole debate performance and his rapidly receding chances of election victory right out of the water with that one incredibly dangerous answer.

    Even Trump doesn’t expect to get elected at this point. Trump is already peddling his own network to investors. Who will want to touch his brand after this? The guy is an amazing huckster, even if he is incredibly irresponsible. I guess we’ll see.


  9. And nothing about whether he, Donald J. Trump, supports the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Just another indication that he is about as pro-life as Hillary Clinton.


Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Mental health 360°

Raising awareness through personal and professional experiences

The Curmudgeon

Not afraid to offend

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

We gathered life only to find...

...'Twas just the willow-wisp of time

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.


Finding Clear and Simple Faith


Author Alexander Hellene - Pulp with Style

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Luis C. Almeida, Ph. D.

College Professor


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: