Reflections on the Presidential Debates
By: Sherlyn Ong
Wanna hear a joke? The debates.
Tragic. That’s what the debates were. The debate was basically an argument between the screaming bully and the teacher’s pet. The amount of actual content that was discussed was essentially equivalent to an atom. The third debate should just be broadcasted as a roast battle; that’s all the previous two have been.
The first debate was a hot mess. The fact that SNL could write a skit that mostly used direct quotes proves how much of a joke the debate was. While I was watching the debate, I had somegood laughs from the absurdity. Trump’s constant interruptions, contradictory words and failure to respond to questions was a whole mess. It was especially ironic when he proudly declared that he had excellent temperament. It was so astronomically stupid that the entire audience burst into laughter. On the flip side, Hilary’s smugness, contradictory values and scripted performance was also a bother. These factors are what left Lester Holt in quite a predicament. At some points, the debate basically became a vocal competition as the audience tries to see which individual can speak the loudest and speak over the other two. Holt definitely did a good job at moderating the debate as he tried to rein in the chaos. He asked the hard-hitting questions only to have themdiverted to unrelated roast battles and more screaming. He also tried really hard to pace the discussions but to no avail as the terror unfolded before his eyes. Bottom-line, Lester Holt was she MVP. If you thought the first debate was bad, welcome to what we call: the second debate. The seconddebate was basically an amplified version of the first debate, just with a lot more pussy in it. (Cats, of course.) The highlight topic of discussion for this debate was the Trump recordingscandal and Trump did a good job denying any misogyny and shame that he had. He also did an excellent job of feigning innocence as he brings up Bill Clinton’s scandal from the White House and Hilary’s emails. Hilary fired back with her thesis that “none of that is true” and cited her website about three times as her source. Her multiple attempts at denial definitely made her point more convincing. After all, her website is on the internet, and everything on the internet is true.
The moderators and the candidates had another vocal competition this time around. Trump also brought up important points like “Why does Hilary get to respond?” and “Why are you stopping me when you didn’t stop Hilary when her time is over?”. He was suddenly incredibly concerned about equality. The most ground-breaking moment of the debate was when one undecided voter asked each candidate to name one nice thing they could say about the other. The audience burst in laughter and I’m sure everyone else did as well. In conclusion, I can only say that the most decent human being in the second debate was Ken Bone, the kind, genuine man in a red sweater with a beard. He truly represented the ideal honest, warm-hearted American that is concerned for the well-being of others. He’s the kind of man whose grandmother follows him twice on Twitter, just because he’s that great. If we could take anything from the second debate, it would be to aspire to be as wonderful as Ken.