Presidential Debate Vol. 1
SO…….
The first debate happened.
It wasn’t exactly dignified. Or civilized. Or orderly. Or even informative.
Oh, but it was eventful.
The first Presidential debate was not what the American people needed to help decide which candidate was best to lead the country. The facts and plans were not the main reason for watching the debate last night, because there was hardly any debate of the actual plans for the country. The back and forth was the reason to tune in, even though it was essentially empty political calories.
What it did do, however, is show where the candidates clearly stand on specific issues, and give you a clear understanding of their demeanor, manners, and temperament. While both men were clearly annoyed and frustrated with one another, Trump made it a point to interrupt Biden EVERY time he spoke, showing a clear disrespect to his opponent, the rules, and the moment, which shows the clear entitlement of someone who is used to doing what they want when they want, without challenge. That’s White Privilege. And I’m not saying that Biden didn't do it as well, because he did, but the VAST MAJORITY of the interruptions came from the President. Very unbecoming of someone who is supposed to exude dignity and poise. The way he attempted to bully and demean Biden isn’t very becoming who is supposed to be a leader of the free world (Which we, as black people, and some people oof other races know ISN’T a free world at all.)
First, when it came to the six questions the moderator asked, Trump directly answered 1 of them, and immediately began to tell people about what the Democratic Party has not done, as opposed to what he and his constituents have done/will do. Certain questions, he specifically wouldn’t answer, including one of the most telling responses to a very direct question: “Condemn white supremacy.”
This was his response:
After that, he claimed not to know the Proud Boys.
Seems kind of clear where he stands, correct? Or what about when he spoke about law and order, stating that the protests would destroy the suburbs? What does that mean? Black people are poorer than most, therefore more than likely, we live in the inner city, and white people who can afford bigger homes, actual houses, live in the suburbs. So, what he was saying was the protests of the marginalized people, even though most have been peaceful, are threatening to destroy the white peace in the suburbs. Even though people of all races are protesting and some are rioting, he chose very specific language when describing “law and order.”
And it gets even worse, but instead of me writing them all down, let’s just post the entire debate for your enjoyment, for those who missed it.
Enjoy.