But what's always more interesting than the actual debate is the various spins from various party hacks you get in the aftermath. And by "interesting," I of course mean "maddeningly asinine."
First up: Trump himself:
“I had a problem with a microphone that didn’t work. My microphone was terrible. I wonder, was it set up that way on purpose? My microphone, in the room they couldn’t hear me, you know, it was going on and off. Which isn’t exactly great. I wonder if it was set up that way, but it was terrible.”
Really? Your mic was cutting in and out? Because in everything I've read about the debate, there is no mention of you ever asking for a new mic or complaining about the mic quality or blowing into the mic and asking "Is this thing on?"
Maybe you were talking into a pen?
Also, the mic didn't seem to have a problem picking up every time you sniffed like a cartoon bloodhound!
Next: Rudy Giuliani:
“If I were Donald Trump I wouldn’t participate in another debate unless I was promised that the journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker.”
Well, from what I've seen, Holt was neither ignorant nor incorrect when fact-checking your lying buffoon of a candidate. And fact-checking is actually a huge part of the job of a journalist. I know, it's hard to remember when actual journalism was done on the regular, but back before journalism became overpaid stenography, you'd have been laughed out of the newsroom for suggesting that journalists shouldn't check facts.
And let's see who is incorrect in this exchange between Trump and lester Holt:
TRUMP: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out.
HOLT: The record shows otherwise, but why—why was…
TRUMP: The record does not show that.
HOLT: Why was—is your judgment any…
TRUMP: The record shows that I’m right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows?
Okay, Trump is lying. Or maybe he mis-remembers. But either way, what he's saying is untrue. He didn't say "I don't know, maybe, who knows," he said "yeah, I guess so." And honestly, if he had said "I don't know, maybe, who knows," that's not opposition to invading Iraq. That's saying that you don't have an opinion either way. Or that you're ambivalent or have mixed feelings. That's not even similar to saying "I'm agianst it."
I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important.
Again, that's not opposition. That's prioritizing. Here's what Trump said to Cavuto when asked if George W. Bush should focus more on the economy or on invading Iraq:
“Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,” Trump said. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.”
That's not opposition. That's like saying "kids, finish your homework before you watch TV" and then telling your wife "Oh, yeah, I totally told them they aren't allowed to watch any TV ever. Not in my house!"
Trump's objection is not to the potential invasion of Iraq. His only objection is to the dithering. Saying "either do it or don't do it" is hardly opposing it.
Here's the closest he comes to opposing the war:
“Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
YET! Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it YET!
So, it's pretty obvious that Lester Holt was neither incorrect nor ignorant when he fact-checked the man with no facts. Especially when Trump himself said of Holt immediately after the debate: "I thought Lester did a great job. Honestly I thought Lester did a great job. . . .Yeah, I thought it was very fair." (source)
Oh, and Trump also said this to Holt trying to convince gullible voters that he had in fact opposed the war before it's inception:
I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said—and he called me the other day—and I spoke to him about it—he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war.
HOLT: Why is your judgment better than…
TRUMP: And when he—excuse me. And that was before the war started. Sean Hannity said very strongly to me and other people—he’s willing to say it, but nobody wants to call him. I was against the war. He said, you used to have fights with me, because Sean was in favor of the war. And I understand that side, also, not very much, because we should have never been there. But nobody called Sean Hannity.
You know what, Sean Hannity is on TV for an hour every fucking day! And he's on the radio for three fucking hours! Every day! And he worships you. He loves you like I love Hagen Dazs Rocky Road. You are a guest on his show All The Time. No one calls Sean Hannity? You call him! Call him up and say "hey, Sean. Would you mind next time you're on the air maybe letting people know about those conversations we had back in 2002/2003 where I was so totally opposed to the war and you were the stupid idiot that was in favor of it? Remember? How I was right and you were wrong because I'm super-smart and you're not? Thanks, that's be great!" And he would be all like "How else may I serve you, master?"
As you wish, my dark lord!
Next: Katrina Pierson, the second worst Katrina in American history:
During the post-debate panel, Pierson was asked to comment on Donald Trump’s recent proposal to get more cities to adopt the kind of stop-and-frisk policy in New York that was found unconstitutional back in 2013.
“It actually did work in New York,” Pierson said of stop-and-frisk. “But we have to get down to why, because that’s why we’re here today.
Well, I guess it depends on how you define "worked." Did the NYPD catch some petty criminals usinf stop-and-frisk? Probably. Because if you stop and illegally search any random group of people, you're going to find a few that have dime bags in their pockets or pistols in their belts. Was it worth violating the civil rights of thousands of black and Latino citizens? I would say no, but I guess reasonable people can disagree on the importance of tossing several weed-smokers into the hoosegow as opposed to preserving the 4th Amendment.
We have two candidates who have very different views. The reason why we have this problem, the reason why stop-and-frisk was implemented, was there were disparities with regard to who people were pulling over. And it’s profiling, criminal profiling, not necessarily racial profiling, even though it comes across that way.
Wait, the reason that stop and frisk, the policy that resulted in thousands of dark-skinned people being racially profiled by cops, was necessary was that there was too much racial profiling going on?
That can't be what you're saying, is it? So the cops are pulling over too many people of colr, so the answer is. . . stopping people of color on the street instead? I'm lost.
They just stop the suspicious people.
It only looks like racial profiling because all the suspicious people are racial!
But the reason why we had it was that we had the First Lady of the United States who went out on the national stage and dehumanized young black children… this has been the conditioning of the American public where black children have been demonized, Hillary Clinton owns that.”
Okay, so it's Hillary Clinton's fault! Oh, now it all makes sense! She said "superpredators" on TV, so Giuliani was, um. . . forced to institute, racist policing policies? Or was it just the power of suggestion, maybe? Once Hillary Clinton said "superpredators" Giuliani somehow got it into his head that he didn't like black guys? Do you even listen to yourself talking?