I watched last week’s presidential debate and truly got irritated with Donald Trump
I watched last week’s presidential debate and truly got irritated with Donald Trump. You’d think an obviously intelligent man advised by so many obviously smart people would have done better.
He blathered, constantly repeating himself as if he was in a schoolyard shouting match. Good grief, at minimum I expect clear and measured sentences reflecting clear and measured thoughts.
Hopefully there’ll be marked improvements in the next two debates assuming he’ll watch replays of this performance. I think this election is his to lose but if we have another 90 minutes of repetition and clown faces, it’ll become hers to lose.
But even given my total disappointment with his circus, I’ll still vote for Trump. I simply have no other choice.
I don’t want another 60,000-plus Syrian Muslim refugees imported into this country unless we’re 100 percent certain there aren’t terrorists among them. After all, 99.9 percent isn’t good enough for me and I do have that choice this election.
In this same vein, it may be nothing more than a rumor but I’ve heard there are proposals circulating among Democrats about re-populating Detroit with Islamic refugees. I suppose that means we’d simply give them a mini-Caliphate, essentially a country within our country! Is that even possible?
Hopefully, it’s nothing more than a ridiculous rumor spread by people like me. But we already somewhat have a “country within a country” dynamic going on with sanctuary cities, so it’s certainly within the realm of possibility given what Democrats have become. I don’t want “sanctuary cities.”
I do want America to have tight borders and existing laws regarding illegal entry enforced, which isn’t any part of Hillary Clinton’s agenda. In fact, amnesty for illegal immigrants would be on her wish list. I want borders and laws so I will opt for them with my vote.
I want the Constitution to be literally interpreted - as written - but clearly liberals want constitutional interpretations reflecting current “moods” of the people. They see words of the Constitution as being “adjustable” to what they believe the framers “should” have said or “intended” to say. I don’t want it turned into a game of Scrabble.
Clinton was glib, composed, well-prepared and spoke in clear sentences, yet the content of her remarks contained nothing new from the liberal well. Higher taxes, more regulations and tiptoeing around Islam are standard dishes from the liberal kitchen.
I never particularly liked Trump and would’ve much preferred almost any one of his primary challengers, but he’s the hand we have. The stakes couldn’t be higher. I do so hope he gets his act together, stops his repetitive echoes and does away his silly Frank Gorshin facial impersonations.
I did get some political comic relief last week. A political pollster called for a survey. I heard only my wife Ann’s side of the conversation until she hung up and filled me in.
He asked who she was voting for at that particular moment. She told him she’d vote for a goldfish before Hillary, so hence the answer was “Trump.”
He then asked her preference regarding Richard Burr and his opponent. She again confirmed her choice of the goldfish over any Democrat.
I look forward to the latest polls. I wonder if the goldfish is trending?
Otis Gardner can be reached at email@example.com.