161013-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

It’s a question. Whether it was asked in the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it.

This is how the UK sees the US presidential race: “Would you like to chew on my weird hair?” v “I see dead people”.

It doesn’t help that the US seems to see the US presidential race in much the same way. I refer you to this YouTube video of the first debate:

And this one of the most recent:

Most scandalous of all is the fact that the subtext to all of this nonsense is so serious it could be deadly.

Whoever gets to be president-elect after the vote in November will most likely have to try to sort out a peaceful solution to the current tensions between the West and Russia, that have flared up massively over the war in Syria and Nato military movements on Russia’s western border.

They will have to find a way of reconciling the hawks in the US military-industrial complex with the bears in the Russian government.

That is, of course, if we all manage to live that long, nuclear trigger-fingers being as itchy as they are.

The world’s audience awaited, as the two contestants in the grand final of ‘Who Wants To Be A President?’ reached its penultimate stage.

First, the moderators canvassed the two candidates’ political commitments. Whereas Trump averred that “It’s time to make America America again”, Clinton demurred “America is already America because America is already America”.

It wasn’t just the candidate’s policies which were clarified, however – we got to know them on a personal level, too. While Trump asked the audience “Would you like to chew on my weird hair?”, Clinton simply stated “I see dead people”.

At this point, the debate become more heated. Trump stressed the need for America to invade certain countries in North Africa, steal their natural resources for the United States’ own benefit, and – in the process – commit a number of war crimes. Many – if not most – pundits were agreed, however, that this was an example of mansplaining, and therefore injudicious.

On much the same tack, Clinton asked undecided voters to consider a series of questions: first, whether a man like Trump – who has such anachronistic views on sexual equality – was really a suitable person to oversee the export of modern weapons to friendly dictators, for them to use on crowds of civilians.

Second, whether somebody who once wore a ‘No Fat Chicks’ t-shirt at a frat-party possesses the moral authority needed to order military coups, occupy foreign countries, and supply allied war criminals with imprecise munitions.

Finally, Clinton asked whether or not Trump’s attitudes towards women might indicate that he simply isn’t patriotic enough to hand suspected foreign terrorists over to the CIA, to be tortured.

The evening drew to a close. Viewers were asked to cast their vote – unless watching on a +1 hour channel, in which case their votes wouldn’t count, but they may still be charged.

Source: The Clinton-Trump Debate, Reduxed. | A New Place Of Exile

ADVERT




Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in eBook format here:

HWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook