Posts

Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen

Last night’s presidential debate put me in an uncharacteristically Bible-quoting mood. After watching it, this inspired verse haunted my mind: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

I realized that this is the choice that faces us on Election Day: The seedy, fallen, life that all of us slog through after the Fall, with sudden irruptions of Grace that can save us, if we will let it. Or a shiny, polished, smoothly crafted death, a beautiful death (euthanasia).

Donald Trump is the lumpy, rough-shod reminder of how man really is — comprehensively fallen, with occasional glimpses of decency, with natural virtues that God made crusted over by sinful habits and clouded by self-deception. The kind of man whom preachers have to yell at, but whom they bother to since they have ears. They aren’t cyborgs.

Trump knows that men can be dogs because he has for decades been one. He knows that businessmen will take whatever advantage the law allows them because he has done so. He’s aware that foreign relations rest on strength and self-assertion, not happy talk and children’s scrawls of rainbow-pooping unicorns. He’s the sin-hammered face we see in the mirror each day, when we peer through our own deceptions and make an examination of conscience. And it isn’t pretty. We’d rather look at some shiny, man-made idol.

Hillary Clinton is the flawless mechanical goddess of a newborn pagan religion. She’s the Witch-Queen of Narnia, dispensing endless boxes of delicious Turkish Delight that makes us so very sleepy. In her dream world, if we can believe it, politicians can take tens of millions of dollars from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that torture rape victims for the “crime” of adultery, but not be tainted by it. They can be trusted to delete tens of thousands of emails from illegal private servers holding national security secrets, because why would the leaders of our democracy lie to us? Isn’t that a cynical, ugly thing to think? It’s in our interest to think happy thoughts instead.

Every refugee, whatever his age or commitment to jihad, is one of the innocent “women and children” whom we may safely welcome into our country. An apocalypse-hungry despotism like the government of Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons, because they really mean us no harm. No woman would ever abort her nine-month-old child except for the very best of reasons. It is cruel to suggest otherwise. (What kind of monster are you? Trump’s simple, visceral horror at such abortions just proves what we always said about that man.) The “rebels” in Syria who are backed by al Qaeda only want to establish a Swedish-style democracy, and if you don’t agree then you are clearly someone who is sick with Islamophobia.

Your sickness is deplorable. But it is not incurable. Just turn over the power to rule by decree to the nice judges whom Hillary will appoint from Harvard Law School, and they will make laws for you — you won’t even have to vote on them. If you tried to, it wouldn’t matter, anyway. So rest your little head on her icy lap and let her tell you a story. Don’t talk back—that isn’t polite.

Donald Trump is the seedy boss you’re pretty sure will sexually harass your daughter. Hillary is the cool, unflappable doctor whom you learn, too late, intends to euthanize your parents. Trump has no good excuses for his behavior — it’s just what guys do, ya know? But Hillary’s story is letter perfect. She has charts ready, and figures. She has calculated to the minute and even the second the number of “happy moments” your aging parents (an army vet, a mother of five, it doesn’t matter) can expect out of earthly life. She has totaled them up in an algorithm against the “happy moments” she can offer some stranger in Syria with the money not wasted on their “useless” medical care. She can quote the U.N. Charter, and maybe Kahlil Gibran, on why you ought to be happy with her decision. But the bottom line is: she decides. If you got involved, started invoking some of those obsolete religious tenets she already told you need changing … well that would just make things messy.

And we like things neat and clean. We like to think well of ourselves. We like to imagine that we are pretty much free of sin, while those other people — those troglodytes in tacky hats who listen to trashy music — embody what’s wrong with the world. They subscribe to “middle ages dictatorships” and bitterly cling to their guns and their religion. We don’t want to be grouped with them. The taint might rub off on us.

And that’s why the best and brightest, the folks who know how to look out for their long-term rational self-interest, are backing Hillary Clinton. They know that it suits their good cheer and bottom line to believe in the icy goddess, and repeat her happy tales. They know none of it is true, but it doesn’t really matter. By the time of the day of reckoning they will be dead. And as every parent in a no-fault divorce has told himself as a mantra, “Kids are so… resilient.” (For more from the author of “Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Joe Miller Wins Statewide Televised Senate Debate; Murkowski MIA

Joe Miller dominated the field at the first statewide televised U.S. Senate debate in Alaska of the general election season; while Sen. Lisa Murkowski remained in hiding.

The Anchorage NBC affiliate KTUU (which garners 80 percent of the state’s local news audience) sponsored the prime time event, which Murkowski chose to duck in favor of forums sponsored largely by organizations that have already endorsed her candidacy, or did so in 2010.

Besides Miller, Democrat Ray Metcalfe and left-leaning Independent Margaret Stock also participated in the debate.

Each of the three candidates was asked who they are supporting for president. Stock and Metcalfe said they would be backing Hillary Clinton. Stock noted that both of Alaska’s Republican senators recently announced they will not be supporting Trump.

Miller said that he is supporting Donald Trump: “I think Hillary Clinton will be devastating to the state of Alaska. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that she’s going to get elected.”

“I find it very troubling that those who say they’re fighting for Alaska [like Murkowski] are aiding and abetting her campaign. She would be catastrophic for Alaska on resource development.”

Miller noted that she wants to continue to block development in ANWR.

The candidate concluded with a reference to Clinton’s support for greater gun control, stating, “By the way, I haven’t heard Trump say anything that would make me want to give up my guns.”

Other topics covered during the debate included Obamacare, which Miller stated must be repealed, while calling out Murkowski for saying it must be “fixed” in an op-ed earlier this year.

Miller also highlighted Murkowski’s sponsorship of, and vote for, a bill to raid the Permanent Fund Dividend to finance state government programs. She also made comments earlier this year suggesting those funds be available to address the state’s budget shortfall.

“Joe turned in a superior performance tonight,” said campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto. “Lisa Murkowski’s absence from what will be the most widely viewed debate shows she has a lack of respect for Alaskan voters.”

“They deserve to hear all the candidates make their case,” he added.

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Charges, Hillary Fades in Second Debate

Good news, America: Contrary to the tension and expectation at the start, the earth didn’t open up under the last night’s debate stage, and send the candidates and the country into the fiery flames.

In fact, what started with high dread and more mud than a monster truck competition ended with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton complimenting each other. And in between they actually talked a little bit about policy.

However, most importantly, Donald Trump showed why he was able to write a book called The Art of the Comeback. In fact, his Secret Service code name might well have to be changed to Lazarus. What was supposed to be Trump’s political funeral instead may have brought his campaign back to life. “Donald Trump Lives,” blares the headline from Forbes.

“The Question”

Going into the debate, nothing less than the future of the election was at stake in the wake of a firestorm over a 2005 video of crude-talking Donald Trump.

There would be no talk of ISIS or taxes, and certainly not private servers and open borders, until the matter was addressed. How would Donald Trump handle the controversy? With contrition or with combativeness? Could he take a rotten lemon of a story and turn it into Trump lemonade?

Well … a nervous Donald Trump picked up the lemon, apologized for it, said he was embarrassed about it, and then proceeded to lob it at Hillary like a grenade. He brought up the woman who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, and one raped by one of Hillary’s clients.

Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.

The four had taken part in a stunning press conference with Trump before the debate.

Anderson Cooper would bring the video up again, accusing Trump of having committed sexual assault. Trump again insisted it was “locker room talk,” again said he was embarrassed, denied assaulting anyone, and the issue at least for the night was as good as dead.

Trump Beyond The Video

Trump survived “the question,” and then got busy. He spent the rest of the debate prowling the stage, controlling the conversation, not letting Hillary or the moderators make a move against him without a comeback.

Trump pounded on Clinton for the “33,000 emails that you had deleted and that you acid-washed” after they had been subpoenaed. He made several appeals to Sanders voters, reminding them of what Hillary and the DNC had done to their guy and how Sanders repeatedly attacked her “bad judgement.”

Trump promised to launch an investigation of her if elected. Hillary replied, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the laws in our country.” “Because you’d be in jail,” Trump said.

When Clinton said “I take classified material very seriously,” Trump replied “Yet she didn’t know that ‘C’ meant classified.”

And Trump had the best line of any of the debates this year.

A questioner challenged Hillary on the WikiLeaks transcript where she talks about how it’s fine to say one thing in private and tell voters something else. “Is it OK for politicians to be two-faced?” “As I recall,” Hillary said, “that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln.”

At his first opportunity, Trump pounced: “She lied, now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln.” He went on. “Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you.”

While Trump did get into policy at times, as in his discussion of his tax policy, and fact-checkers are sleeping in this morning after a long, busy night, that was hardly the point of the evening. Donald Trump had one goal last night: to emerge still standing. He did more than that. Partisans can bicker over the particulars, but Trump owned the room and he delivered under enormous pressure.

Hillary Clinton

Did Hillary Clinton have a bad night? Only to the extent she didn’t kill the wounded beast.

She gave her typically deep, involved policy answers on matters such as Syria, energy and taxes. She admitted there were problems with Obamacare, offered her suggestions and when it was noted her husband called Obamacare the “craziest thing,” she brushed it off like lint on her pantsuit.

Clinton eloquently defended her years of public service, talking about her decades of work assisting families and children. (She left out the rapists.)

Hillary also defended her private server use by saying there’s no proof anyone actually hacked into it. Neither the moderators nor Trump pointed out that while “no harm, no foul” is okay for pick-up basketball, that’s not the case with national secrets.

She repeated her tactic of showing bemusement at Trump’s answers, denying his words have any truth to them. She even said at one time, “There he goes again.”

Which gets to this fun fact: During the course of the debate, Clinton evoked Lincoln, quoted Reagan and praised Bush. Meaning, Hillary Clinton had more nice things to say about Republicans last night than Donald Trump.

Yet there was a problem: Sunday night she was the Hillary Clinton often seen on the campaign trail: Wonkish and somewhat weary.

Clinton was clearly not as sharp or energetic or effective as she was in the first debate, and seemed to tire as the debate went on. While Trump bounced around the stage the whole time like a gangsta rapper Hillary tended to sit when she wasn’t speaking. She seemed content to let Trump talk rather than engage him. And her attacks weakly drifted through the auditorium like campaign balloons.

In fact, as Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz interjected themselves more and more into the debate against Trump, Clinton seemed to become an afterthought. (Were Cooper and Raddatz simply biased or was it something more interesting? I’ll answer that later today.)

Finally, to the amusement of the Twittersphere, Hillary had the misfortune of having a fly land on her forehead while delivering an answer.

The Good News

The debate opened in an atmosphere so tense it made bomb-disposal work feel a yoga class. Fortunately it didn’t stay that way. The spirit broke. Sure, Clinton and Trump said some tough things about each other, but the tone grew less belligerent and almost relaxed. It’s not like they broke out into song, though it looked like it at one point.

Then came the final question from an audience member: “My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?”

“Look, I respect his children,” replied Hillary, whose daughter is indeed BFF’s with Ivanka Trump. “His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald.”

Trump also gave an earnest answer.

I will say this about Hillary. She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She’s a fighter. I disagree with much of what she’s fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard, and she doesn’t quit, and she doesn’t give up. And I consider that to be a very good trait.

At the end of the debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton shook hands, which they pointedly did not do at the start of the debate.

Who won? The Frank Lunz focus group of undecideds gave it to Donald Trump by more than a two-to-one margin. It was enough of a win for Lunz to declare Trump back in the race.

The third and final Presidential debate takes place Wednesday, October 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The moderator is Chris Wallace of Fox News. What happens in Vegas definitely will not stay in Vegas; we can only pray it stays out of the gutter. (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Charges, Hillary Fades in Second Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ex-Kaine Staff Member Shocked at Former Boss’s Debate Performance

On the question of who won the vice presidential debate Tuesday night, the answer you get is largely determined by whom you ask.

One person who feels Republican Mike Pence clearly emerged the winner over Democrat Tim Kaine is former Kaine staff member Christian Rickers.

Following the debate, Rickers spoke with Breitbart News and commented on the performance of Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

“Kaine should have been himself. I don’t know what the Clintons have done to him. I thought Pence won the debate,” Rickers said.

He continued, “It made me very sad. I’ve never seen him like that. It’s not the Tim Kaine I know. I can’t believe it. Is that what we have been reduced to? Win at all cost and bring out the hatchet?”

Rickers, a lifelong Democrat, is now the executive director of the Trumpocrats PAC.

Prior to the debate, he said, “Tim Kaine is one of the finest public servants I have ever known and he’s a great guy. But he’s not running for president … she is.”

Rickers accused the Clintons of placing blame on the American work force for the increasing rise in unemployment, while they are the ones responsible.

“The fact is the Clintons caused all of this with aggressively pursuing globalist policies that shipped our jobs overseas and on top of that they got rich,” Rickers remarked. “From zero to a quarter of a billion dollars by selling influence all over the world. Shame on them!”

Rickers appeared on Fox News in August and was asked what pushed him to leave his lifelong party and support GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“I came from a very small town, where we had 25 manufacturing plants 20 years ago and now there’s only one, and he is speaking to that. He’s got a plan. He’s talked about that. He’s the only one talking about rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing,” Rickers said.

He also said that while the media are focused on the 50 or so Washington insider Republicans who support Clinton, there are hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the nation who support Trump.

The Trumpocrat PAC gives those people a base of operation.

Rickers was a delegate for President Obama in 2012, and supported Sen. Bernie Sanders until he dropped out of the 2016 Democratic primary race. (For more from the author of “Ex-Kaine Staff Member Shocked at Former Boss’s Debate Performance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Abortion Separates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, as Does the Way They Understand Their Faith

Last night’s vice-presidential debate may not matter much to Americans when they vote in November for the next resident of the White House, but the two candidates starkly separated themselves from each other on the issue of abortion — and on the understanding of life their views express. GOP nominee Mike Pence’s defense of the unborn mattered to pro-lifers and to many Christians.

Abortion entered the debate in its waning moments, as moderator Elaine Quijano asked Democrat Senator Tim Kaine and Republican governor Mike Pence “about a time when you struggled to balance your personal faith and a public policy position?” (A full transcript can be found here.)

Personal Faith and Abortion

According to Kaine, who is Roman Catholic, “I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life. But I don’t believe in this nation, a First Amendment nation, where we don’t raise any religion over the other, and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be mandated for everyone.”

He said that “the hardest struggle in my faith life was the Catholic Church is against the death penalty and so am I. But I was governor of a state, and the state law said that there was a death penalty for crimes if the jury determined them to be heinous.”

Kaine, who misrepresented the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty, said, “It was very, very difficult to allow executions to go forward, but in circumstances where I didn’t feel like there was a case for clemency, I told Virginia voters I would uphold the law, and I did.”

According to Pence, who was raised Catholic but is now Evangelical, “the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that — that ancient principle that — where God says before you were formed in the womb, I knew you, and so for my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life.”

Indiana, he continued, “has also sought to make sure that we expand alternatives in health care counseling for women, non-abortion alternatives. I’m also very pleased at the fact we’re well on our way in Indiana to becoming the most pro-adoption state in America. I think if you’re going to be pro-life, you should — you should be pro-adoption.”

Pence v. Kaine

It was then that Pence attacked Clinton and Kaine on their abortion positions. Clinton has said she will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and supports partial-birth and late-term abortions. Kaine, who also supports late-term abortions, formally supports Hyde, which limits federal funding for abortions, but has said he will subordinate his beliefs to Clinton’s if they win in November.

“But what I can’t understand,” Pence said, “is with Hillary Clinton and now Senator Kaine at her side is to support a practice like partial-birth abortion. I mean, to hold to the view — and I know Senator Kaine, you hold pro-life views personally — but the very idea that a child that is almost born into the world could still have their life taken from them is just anathema to me.”

“I know you’ve historically opposed taxpayer funding of abortion,” Pence then told Kaine. “But Hillary Clinton wants to — wants to repeal the longstanding provision in the law where we said we wouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. So for me, my faith informs my life. I try and spend a little time on my knees every day. But it all for me begins with cherishing the dignity, the worth, the value of every human life.”

Kaine v. Pence (and Trump)

Kaine responded that while he and Clinton “really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm the commands of your faith,” they also believe “it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else.”

“So let’s talk about abortion and choice,” he continued. “We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that. And we don’t think that women should be punished, as Donald Trump said they should, for making the decision to have an abortion.”

Trump said in March that women who get abortions should be punished. He walked that statement back the next day after pro-life leaders hammered the comments. He supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, and has changed positions on several key abortion issues since launching his presidential bid last year. Last month he promised to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law, sign a ban on most late-term abortions and defund Planned Parenthood.

Kaine noted that Pence, who has long been praised by pro-life advocates for his desire to protect the unborn “wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. He said he wants to put it on the ash heap of history. And we have some young people in the audience who weren’t even born when Roe was decided. This is pretty important. Before Roe v. Wade, states could pass criminal laws to do just that, to punish women if they made the choice to terminate a pregnancy.”

“I think you should live your moral values,” concluded Kaine. “But the last thing, the very last thing that government should do is have laws that would punish women who make reproductive choices. And that is the fundamental difference between a Clinton-Kaine ticket and a Trump-Pence ticket that wants to punish women who make that choice.”

Pence responded that “Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that punished women who made the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy.” Pressed by Kaine on Trump’s comment, Pence said, “he’s not a polished politician like you and Hillary Clinton,” and declared, “I’m telling you what the policy of our administration would be.”

“[T]here is a choice,” he continued, “and it is a choice on life. I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with Donald Trump, who’s standing for the right to life.” He appreciated Kaine’s previous support for the Hyde Amendment, but pointed out that Clinton opposed it.

People need to understand, we can come together as a nation. We can create a culture of life. More and more young people today are embracing life because we know we are — we’re better for it. We can — like Mother Teresa said at that famous national prayer breakfast, bring the — let’s welcome the children into our world. There are so many families around the country who can’t have children. We could improve adoption so that families that can’t have children can adopt more readily those children from crisis pregnancies.

“Trust Women” Versus “Most Vulnerable” of Society

Kaine responded by turning the issue into women’s rights. “Governor, why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves? We can encourage people to support life. Of course we can. But why don’t you trust women? Why doesn’t Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves?”

That’s what we ought to be doing in public life. Living our lives of faith or motivation with enthusiasm and excitement, convincing other, dialoguing with each other about important moral issues of the day, but on fundamental issues of morality, we should let women make their own decisions.

Pence replied: “Because a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn. I believe it with all my heart. And I couldn’t be more proud to be standing with a pro-life candidate in Donald Trump.” (For more from the author of “Abortion Separates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, as Does the Way They Understand Their Faith” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If the Two VP Candidates Ignore the $19 Trillion National Debt, Will It Cease to Exist?

During Tuesday’s debate, Elaine Quijano asked vice presidential nominees Tim Kaine and Mike Pence:

“According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, neither of your economic plans will reduce the growing $19 trillion gross national debt. In fact, your plans would add even more to it. Both of you were governors who balanced state budgets. Are you concerned that adding more to the debt could be disastrous for the country?”

Pence had to evade. He couldn’t address the question, because it is true: According to CRFB projections, Donald Trump’s economic plan would increase the category of publicly held debt from $14 trillion to $35.2 trillion by 2026 — well over doubling it.

So Pence merely said the fact that Hillary Clinton was part of an administration which doubled the national debt was “atrocious,” and said he was “very proud” that he is from a “state that works,” praising his efforts in Indiana for cutting taxes, leaving a surplus, and devoting resources to education and infrastructure.

Basically, he didn’t answer the question. Because the Republican vice presidential candidate can’t.

Kaine’s answer was equally inane. Like his running mate, he tried to make a canned line work: “Do you want a ‘you’re hired’ president in Hillary Clinton, or do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president in Donald Trump?” He then proceeded to argue that by making college tuition free and raising the minimum wage, Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the economy.

Much like their cohorts, Pence and Kaine avoided talking about entitlement spending, which should have been part of a candid answer to Quijano’s debt question. Our entitlement programs are the primary debt-driver and our unfunded liabilities are in the trillions.

Let’s put this into perspective: As The Daily Signal reported, mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs, in addition to interest on already-existing federal debt, will “consume all federal tax revenues by 2033.”

So unless mandatory spending is cut and serious reforms are made to our entitlement crisis, all of our federal tax payments will be swallowed up by Big Government programs in 17 years. There will be nothing left for defense. Nothing left for national security. Nothing left for anything other than New Deal and Great Society welfare programs. Oh, and Obamacare, which will have morphed into a full-fledged single-payer system by then.

Instead of trading insults, it would be great to see our presidential tickets acknowledge the debt crisis and debate how to tackle it. Republicans should easily win on this issue; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are all Democrat dealings. Traditional Republican plans aim to privatize Social Security and rein in Medicaid and Medicare. But instead of making a credible case on how all of this federal spending should be addressed, Donald Trump and Mike Pence avoid talking about entitlements and have nothing but vague platitudes about the debt.

The fact of the matter is, whether our presidential tickets want to acknowledge our out-of-control entitlement spending or not, eventually the programs will be insolvent. Then what? (For more from the author of “If the Two VP Candidates Ignore the $19 Trillion National Debt, Will It Cease to Exist?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Ask a Question at the Next Presidential Debate

In an effort to foster widespread participation for the upcoming presidential debate Sunday, one organization has created a website where any interested individual can submit questions.

PresidentialOpenQuestions.com, created by the Open Debate Coalition, is a site where anyone can submit a question for the presidential town hall debate hosted by CNN and ABC.

Created during the 2008 presidential election season, the Open Debate Coalition’s sole purpose, according to its website, is “to make debates more representative of the will of the people.”

PresidentialOpenQuestions.com is open to all who wish to submit a question to the candidates. The only requirement is that the candidates must not be named in the question and both candidates must be able to address the question.

“The whole genesis of the open debate format came from a group of bloggers and the realization that the media has a monopoly over the debate process,” Lilia Tamm Dixon, program director for the Open Debate Coalition, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

Further inspiration for this initiative came when Facebook and YouTube began collecting questions online from viewers leading up to the debates as well as during the debate.

Dixon said that it was the group’s goal to build off what Facebook and YouTube had already started.

What sets the Open Debate Coalition apart from other sites or organizations that collect questions for presidential debates is the format in which the questions are presented.

“Instead of questions being submitted online via social media and then given to the moderator’s team to sort through, we collect all the questions and then give the raw data to the moderators,” Dixon said.

Dixon believes this format to be the most effective way for questions to actually make it to the moderator’s desk come debate night, as the Open Debate Coalition presents entirely nonpartisan, pure data to the news networks hosting the debate.

To submit a question, one must first choose from one of 10 categories—ranging from civil rights to foreign policy and military, to health and infrastructure and technology—and then write the question.

After the question is written, users are given an option to include any supporting text or a link to additional material. Questions can be up to 80 characters and supporting text up to 200.

Dixon told The Daily Signal that her organization purposely collects little demographic information in order to encourage as much involvement as possible.

“We try to keep demographic information low because the more feilds people have to fill out the less likely they are to participate in asking a question,” Dixon said. “The only thing we are tracking is geographic location.”

Users of the website can also vote for other questions so that common themes and policy issues can be easily identified and given a rank of importance, allowing the site’s viewers as well as the hosting networks to see the popularity of various themes and questions.

The state of health care is one popular topic, with some questions currently receiving over 16,000 votes.

“As many as 11 of the top 50 questions had to do with something health related, such as single-payer insurance and Obamacare,” Dixon said.

While the Open Debate Coalition won’t be hosting the debate on Sunday, ABC and CNN have agreed to receive the most popular 30 questions from the organization for consideration in the town hall segment of the debate. (For more from the author of “How to Ask a Question at the Next Presidential Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Ways to Use the Vice Presidential Debate to Talk About Religious Liberty

Since both candidates in Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate have a record when it comes to religious liberty, you can bet the topic will come up—giving you the opportunity to talk with the people in your life about a deeply important issue.

Unsurprisingly, religious liberty is a tricky topic to navigate because it’s personal. People feel strongly about the ability to live life as they want, but some betray the concept of tolerance by crying “intolerant!” if others want to live life through the lens of their faith.

So, how do you talk about religious liberty with someone who thinks the government can force people to violate their beliefs? Here are some guidelines that allow you to tread lightly and expertly discuss the issue without fear and trembling.

Common Ground

We’ve talked in the past about how common ground is disarming, and we’re going to make that case again.

Liberals frequently cry “intolerant!” when conservatives start to talk about religious liberty. Don’t let them.

Though it’s become a dirty word, tolerance is important—we should be able to disagree with each other and then live side-by-side in peace. Tolerance doesn’t mean defeat, but it does require kindness and respect from both parties.

Acknowledging the common ground of tolerance creates a safe space to examine, discuss, and disagree. And addressing the elephant in the room—“we disagree on this issue, but it’s ok. I’ll maybe kinda sorta still like you when this is over. Now let’s talk about it”—frees you up to make your case and rightly frames your motivation.

The liberal on the other side of the conversation can’t claim you’re intolerant if you just said you believe we should be able to disagree, discuss, and then live in peace side-by-side.

Goodbye, argument of intolerance. Hello, civil discussion.

Examples

Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of folks trying to run businesses, practice medicine, or simply move up the corporate ladder but have been punished for not wanting to violate their beliefs.

Here is the latest from The Daily Signal on the Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony in January 2013. Nearly four years later, the bakery is closed and the case is still moving through the court system (think of those hefty legal bills).

This article explains why a 70-year-old florist is facing seven figures in legal fees for refusing to make flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

Illinois signed into law a bill that forces doctors to tell their patients about the benefits of abortion and refer them to abortion providers, even if the doctor is pro-life.

These are powerful examples to use when arguing for religious liberty. Not only do you have plenty to choose from, but the person you’re talking to will more quickly recognize the person you’re defending.

Words

Be inclusive. Don’t point fingers. Go on offense, not defense.

When you talk about religious liberty, you’re not only making a case for your beliefs, but also for the beliefs of those you disagree with. If you’re going to argue for tolerance, that means both sides are able to live and let live. So come at this conversation with an attitude of “I care deeply about my beliefs, but also about yours.”

Words and phrases like “tolerance,” “live and let live,” and “no one should be forced by government” go a long way in illustrating what we have in common despite party affiliation—that this country was founded so that people could live free from burdensome government interference.

Here’s hoping you’re able to make a case for religious liberty that emphasizes its importance for both sides. Religious liberty doesn’t just protect those who identify as “religious,” it also benefits those that don’t. It’s an argument for all, and that’s an easy argument to make. (For more from the author of “3 Ways to Use the Vice Presidential Debate to Talk About Religious Liberty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Gives Overwhelming Verdict About Who Won Monday’s Debate

If Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump needed any convincing that a new approach to debate preparation might be in order, a Fox News poll has revealed that respondents overwhelmingly believe Democratic rival Hillary Clinton won Monday night’s debate.

The poll found Clinton’s lead over Trump moving from one percentage point to three, 43 percent to 40 percent.

However, the slight bump came amid major positive impacts shown elsewhere.

The poll found 61 percent of respondents said she won Monday’s debate, against 21 percent who said Trump won.

It also showed that Trump went down since the debate in areas such as honesty, temperament and whether respondents would be comfortable with him in the White House. Clinton rose in all areas.

Although Trump has said he won Monday’s debate and pointed to online polls seconding that conclusion, many observers have sided with the Fox News respondents.

“It clearly looked like he ran out of gas after 30 minutes, and that came through loud and clear,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“Trump needs to show a higher level [of] seriousness, so that he’s better positioned as an agent of change,” Reed said. “If he can accomplish that, he’ll win undecided voters and late-breaking voters who clearly don’t want to support Hillary Clinton.”

CNN was reporting that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie might be tasked with overseeing Trump’s preparations for his Oct. 9 rematch with Clinton. The Trump campaign and Christie have denied that.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Tuesday he is willing to help Trump prepare.

“I am happy to help,” Cruz said. “I have conveyed that to them.”

The senator also differed with those who thought Clinton won.

“I think he really went after Hillary, which was a good thing,” Cruz said. “Anyone who is swooning at Hillary’s performance last night, that’s a pretty good indication that you’re a card-carrying member of the liberal media, especially in the first half-hour. I think Donald very much had the upper hand over Hillary. Hillary was tentative and had no real answers. She was on the defensive the entire time.” (For more from the author of “New Poll Gives Overwhelming Verdict About Who Won Monday’s Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate

Immediately after the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ended Monday night, liberal media pundits began gloating abuot how poorly Trump performed. Many Republicans piled on. I felt like we had watched two different debates.

Were they right? No.

Trump’s Higher Hurdle

Trump had to jump higher hurdles than Clinton to get a favorable report from the mainstream media, who favor Clinton and see the world the way she does. He faced other disadvantages.

The moderator, Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, is being called “the third debater” by HeatStreet for his biased role. He asked six follow-up questions of Trump but none of Clinton. Holt asked Clinton nothing about her emails, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. Instead, he “grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.”

Holt’s fact-checking follow-ups were directed at Trump, not Clinton. Todd Starnes, a contributor to The Stream, tweeted, “Lester Holt should’ve moderated — instead of auditioning to be Hillary’s press secretary.” (For other examples of the media’s unfair use of fact-checking against Trump, see The Washington Times‘ article “Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism.”)

Journalists evaluating the debate kept up the claim that Trump made many mistakes and false claims. Compared to Clinton, he is vulnerable to this criticism. Clinton is a lawyer, with years of experience nitpicking details, which showed when she got bogged down on details several times during the debate. In contrast, Trump is a creative innovator, who has focused on the big picture throughout his entire career.

Now, it is true that Trump made a few mistakes, but his misstatements were generally not material. One “error” some jumped on was his saying Clinton has “been fighting ISIS [her] entire adult life.”

Yes, ISIS began in 1999, when Clinton was 52. She hasn’t been fighting ISIS her entire adult life. But as a public figure, she has always been a strong supporter of aggressive military action against such groups. Trump exaggerated to make a point about her consistent support for military intervention. It’s called “hyperbole” and it’s a legitimate way of making a point. Nevertheless, some “fact-checkers” declared that Trump was wrong again.

Clinton Performed Even Worse

What the media is leaving out is that Clinton performed even worse than Trump. Equally missing is any praise for the clever things Trump said.

Stylistically, Clinton was a disaster. It may not be fair to judge candidates on this, but style does influence voters — remember the Nixon-Kennedy debate. She marched out in a glaringly bright red pantsuit, the type of outfit she is ridiculed for, since the harsh colors are unforgiving to her body shape. She reverted to her nasally, harsh “schoolmarm” voice throughout the length of the debate, perhaps to keep from coughing.

She came across as arrogant and condescending, unlikable, particularly when she gloated while boasting about her accomplishments. Since few voters know anything about her tenure as secretary of state other than the Benghazi terror attack and her email scandal, the bragging felt fake.

Trump cleverly interjected short comments while Clinton was speaking, refuting her. Even if a critic disagrees with him, the critic should credit him with an effective debating strategy. Of course, his critics complain that he only did that because she’s a woman — though if Clinton had done the same to him they would have been silent.

Professional political observers can argue about who did better in the debate. I think Trump did better than Clinton, but liberal journalists usually think Clinton did better than Trump. The real test is what effect the debates have on undecided voters, and that is something we won’t know for a long time. (For more from the author of “No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.