The ‘Great Debate’ – Who Won?
Winners? Losers? The pundits all want to score last night’s debate. We take a slightly different look at the 2016 presidential race and last night’s debate.
Ron Paul: Hello everybody, thank you for tuning in to The Liberty Report. With me today is co-host Daniel McAdams. Daniel, it’s good to see you.
Daniel McAdams: Good morning, Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul: There was a great debate last night; 90 minutes straight, no advertisements, it was serious business. Did you do your homework, did watch the whole program?
Daniel McAdams: I have to confess, I did watch the whole thing. But to save my sanity, I sarcastically tweeted throughout it.
Ron Paul: Oh okay, that relieved a little bit of the tension. I don’t tweet well, I have comments in my own mind, and I jot down messages, but I didn’t do that. But I have to confess, I didn’t do 100% of the homework. I had it on the whole time, but there were times when the frustration level got so high, I had to get a little reprieve and leave the room. But then I got back, thinking, “Well, I got to know what’s going on, somebody might ask me a serious question”. But the question is, who won? I can’t figure out exactly who won, but I have an opinion about who lost. As far as I’m concerned, I think the American people have lost. Not only did they gain nothing last night, because liberty was not refreshed in the minds of the people, but the American people are losing in the whole campaign.
I think the American people basically have been losing for a hundred years, because we have lost our way from a true republic to one of an empire that has undermined our liberties, and we are not really debating this. Do you want to voice your opinion about who might have won, maybe one person had a little bit of edge over the other one?
Daniel McAdams: Well, I think on the philosophical level, there’s no way I can argue with you about who lost. But I think everyone wants to treat it as if it’s kind of almost a reality TV show, and I guess that’s part of the fun of it or something. I would say, as a recap, I thought at first Donald Trump was starting slow, but then Hillary Clinton started attacking immediately, and so he responded because he can’t help himself. And he is quite comical, his facial expressions are very comical. I think if he does win, the caricaturist are going to have a field day with him. But then, in the second half it was very strange, because I think Hillary Clinton found her sea legs, and she did a very good job, and Donald Trump passed so many opportunities to hit some of these issues we’ll talk about. But I think the reason Hillary Clinton won is because everyone was worried about her health. And if you saw her up there for 90 minutes, if they were giving her something, I want some of it. But, sorry, she looked just fine.
Ron Paul: I’d agree with that, because as a physician, I’ve been thinking about her health. I read all the health reports and all the discussion and innuendo’s about it. Everybody saw the film where she literally collapsed, she fainted. And I got to thinking, “You know, this is risky business. If she has anything half as serious as is being implied in the media, she could pass out in this, and the whole campaign would be over”. I think if nobody knew anything about either one of them, and they really wanted to go, and there were a few people out of the millions that watched who came to look. If they were just trying to […] they might say, “She looks like she’s in good health” and “she was pretty good”. I think you mentioned that maybe Donald Trump missed some opportunities, but I think the statistics show that Donald Trump did a lot more talking than she did.
She sort of set him up, and he grabbed it, and it seemed like she was content to sit back. And this comes from the media, the media really has declared, “It was a total victory for Hillary Clinton, and a total defeat for Donald Trump”, and I just don’t think that is the case. I think it plays a role, I don’t think it’s a defining moment, and maybe it’s a defining moment on what they do with the next one. So if Hillary Clinton thought she did well, she might do the same thing, and Donald Trump may decide that he should be more aggressive. Because if they say he didn’t do well, I don’t think they ever mentioned immigration, and he’s done that from the very start. If anything, he could have talked about it in a more dignified tone, and shown that this is a serious business and explain that. But he never mentioned the immigration, and that was the big issue he missed.
But also people point out that he didn’t talk much about the justice system and how the Clintons have been treated versus some poor people in the inner cities. I think I would have wanted to grab hold of that, because whether it’s the foundation, or whether it’s the emails or all of this, the Clintons have gotten a pass. But they weren’t pressed on this. I think the whole issue of winning is not simple, but image wise, I think Hillary Clinton had a little bit of an advantage, but there’s still little bit of time left in the campaign. The markets are saying that Donald Trump lost, I’d like to watch and see what the markets do. And the Mexican Peso kept going down with Donald Trump’s talking, yet, because he was perceived, they say that he lost, the Peso went up. So I don’t know whether you can put any stock in that or not.
Daniel McAdams: You’re right, the thing that I think was unfortunate that he didn’t hit on, she started with innuendos, and then got stronger and stronger, that basically Donald Trump is controlled by Putin, and the Russians are eyeing this election; all this absurd McCarthyite stuff that the democrats have being doing. It would have really been teed up for him to say, “Well, what about how the Saudis gave you 20 million dollars for your foundation, and what about the revolving door between big donors and State Department high level meetings?” All of these things fell into his lap, and, you know …
Ron Paul: Yes, and I’ve said in our conversation, I have often mentioned that The Foundation is a big issue, and it’s been brushed over. If anybody would have done 1/100th of what they’ve done with that foundation, collecting funds and selling influence and being involved in the State Department and the presidency. There was hardly a whimper of that. The odds of the FBI really investigating that, … “Yes, maybe they’ll investigate it”. But I just think that is the biggest issue, I was disappointed that we didn’t hear more about that, but he could have put her more on the defensive on The Foundation operation.
Daniel McAdams: Yes, well, I know you’re pretty strong in your views of Donald Trump. I try to be hopeful, I try to put in some humor. I may have found something that might glimmer a little for you, just a little bit of glimmer. Here’s one part when Donald Trump did mention the Fed, and in our show last night and we thought he wouldn’t. He did say, “Yellen is ‘Doing political things by keeping interest rates low’”. He said that the economy is one big fat ugly bubble, and he worried about a stock market crash.
Ron Paul: I wouldn’t disagree with any of that that he says. But, I would like to see more, because there’s the problem, he has already said at times low interest rates really can be good. It’s going to be rough to raise the interest rates because they’re very, very valuable”, implying that maybe we shouldn’t raise interest rates. But, my conclusion on what we should be talking about is, what about the FOMC fixing interest rates, regulating the money supply? What about the Federal Reserve’s existence, why don’t we talk about really auditing them and really getting rid of this? That is really what counts. They didn’t get into the economics, and this is not a criticism of either one of them, as much as the host and just the perceptions. They ought to be talking, “Why has the recession/depression lasted so long?” The key reason is, and Donald Trump made the right point, because the Fed has messed this up by keeping interest rates too low for too long.
But what does it do, it creates a bubble and debt, it causes mal-investment, and you need a correction. You need to liquidate, you need to get rid of this, you need to cleanse the system. But there was no mention of that, because politically, that’s dynamite to say, “Oh, you mean you let them have a depression for a year?” Yes, a depression for a year is a lot better than a steady disintegration of our economy. But the fact that it came up, I just hope people use that as an incentive to study monetary policy a little bit more in depth, because, as you will recall, I always wanted to bring up the Fed because I consider this so important. So he did a service by at least mentioning the Fed is a culprit in the mess we have, and hopefully they’ll start talking about the solution.
Daniel McAdams: I know you won’t say it, so I will. Probably the only reason he used those words was because of at least your two campaigns where it came up constantly, so it certainly paves the way there for us to come out.
Ron Paul: He’s good at that, because I think he’s said something favorable about an audit of the Fed. It doesn’t tell you where his heart and mind is, but no, I think he’s very good at that, very smart. He knows how to appeal to this, this, this group to build up a majority. He did that, obviously, very well in the primary, but the immigration issue was a hot button issue, among other things. But he also knows the other hot button issues are now more into spending. Well, he’d spend more money on the infrastructure than Hillary Clinton would. He still wants to rebuild our nuclear capacity and rebuild the military. What about his position on NATO, is it a consistent position?
Daniel McAdams: Unfortunately, it’s not, and that’s one of the areas where I was hoping for some consistency. But the quote from him last night was, “I’m all for NATO”. And this was just a few weeks after saying, “NATO is out of date, it’s out dated”. He certainly at least implied that we need to shut it down. But he reiterated his foolish point that NATO is fine as long as the other countries pay for their protection from us. First of all, it’s very demeaning to the U.S., it makes us some sort of a mercenary country, and certainly doesn’t sound very respectful for the troops. And it doesn’t put America first, which is what his slogan is; to have us just being rented out to protect all these little Baltic countries.
Ron Paul: Okay, now that you’re a … I won’t say sympathizer, but at least you want Donald Trump to get a fair shake, right? Our job is to be as objective as possible. But on the news this morning there was a hint, probably just a silly rumor passed out, that Donald Trump might drop out of the debates. That sounds a little bit strange and over the top, but what would he think of that proposal, is there a chance that he would drop out of the debates?
Daniel McAdams: I think something that Giuliani said last night that he was treated badly by Lester Holt, the moderator, and I think there’s something to it, because they were talking about all this stuff that was … I think maybe they’re trying to use that as a bargaining chip to get a little bit better moderator next time. But I just can’t see him doing something like that, because if anything, it’s free advertising. And because he’s using a lot of his own money, he’s probably a little more careful with it. Hillary Clinton does not have to worry about that, she’s got other people’s money.
Ron Paul: Somebody else on the TV this morning who was a Republican was asking, “Why are the Republicans so stupid, why do they agree to this, why do they always pander to the enemy and let them get in charge?” Obviously, the debate was very biased and the reporting was all biased, and it was all biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. But I don’t know why they do it, you think that would be part of the deal. You know, what kind of a deal did they negotiate.
Daniel McAdams: Yes, some of the other things on foreign policy really were very disappointing on Donald Trump’s side. He said, “I think China should go into North Korea”. I don’t know what that means, if it means invade them or something. That might be okay if he means “Instead of us bothering with them, let the Chinese sort it out”. That would be okay, but it sounded more bellicose. Of course, when Hillary Clinton was being attacked for being part of this Iran deal, countered by saying, “I voted for every sanction against Iran”, as if that’s a good thing.
Ron Paul: Since you were a little bit better observer on this debate, do you recall anything much said about the weapons going through Libya to Syria, did Donald Trump ever bring that up, or did they ever ask her that question?
Daniel McAdams: No, but I did see a very good tweet from a senator that we both know from Kentucky, and I laughed out loud when I saw it, because Hillary Clinton was saying, “When I was Secretary of State, we increased exports”. And Rand Paul tweeted that and said, “Yes, but it was exports of arms to Jihadists”, I think that was a good zinger on his part.
Ron Paul: Well, that won’t give him a challenge in his Senate bid dealing with all those neo-cons. But I don’t think we’re likely to see Donald Trump drop out, I think that would be negative. Somebody suggested, all Hillary Clinton would have to do is invite Gary Johnson, and that would be it. But what if they never agreed to have a better moderator? They said the reason is, Donald Trump made the accusation, “Why don’t you have a Republican?” So they claim they got a Republican, sometimes it’s like the name doesn’t mean anything. You have Hillary Clinton whose a democrat, but she’s a neo-con; and then you have Republicans that are very liberal. And then, once in a while in the Libertarian Party, you have libertarians in the party who aren’t very libertarian”.
Daniel McAdams: Well, I’ve got a good idea who could be the next moderator.
Ron Paul: No way, not me, I wouldn’t want that job for anything.
Daniel McAdams: You could write some good questions.
Ron Paul: I could write down some questions for them and ask them, yes, that might be fun. We’ll have to try to do that. Anyway, I want thank everybody for tuning in today to The Liberty Report. This interesting subject is going to continue for another month until the election, and we’re going to try to figure this out. We’re going to try to figure out whether the American people really have lost last night, and I think they have. It’s not so much last night, they didn’t lose an enormous campaign, the people have been losing for a long time. That is if they love their liberty, but if they don’t care and they want to be taken care of and they want to be safe and secure and the government always gives them a welfare check and the big guys get welfare checks by belonging to the military-industrial complex. If that’s their goal, they’re doing pretty well, and that’s not being changed.
Our country reversed itself in the early part of the last century, and it’s been getting worse ever since. It’s getting worse in Washington, the conditions are deteriorating, the economy is getting worse, and the foreign policy is a disaster. At the same time, the rumbling up there is very positive, the rumbling of the people who want true liberty. And there are a lot of young people that know about it and understand it, and I’m glad that the Federal Reserve comes up, because we have made that a point. And people realize that the Federal Reserve is an important issue, and we work very hard, and Daniel works very hard on the Institute for Peace and Prosperity to make foreign policy an important issue. When it’s looked at by the general public, believe me, we can win those votes, because how can anybody vote against Peace and Prosperity. That is our goal, and we’ll continue to fight for it.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to The Liberty Report, and please come back soon.
The article, "The ‘Great Debate’ – Who Won?", was syndicated from and first appeared at: http://www.ronpaul.com/2016-09-27/the-great-debate-who-won/.
You may find more great articles by on http://www.ronpaul.com/.