For what it’s worth, I did watch the debate, but chose not to live tweet or FB about it. It seemed to matter more to hear what was said than be distracted. My take matches much of what I’ve read since then: It featured a poised, informed presidential candidate that you might or might not agree with on policy against a blustering, interrupting blowhard spewing provably false word salad. Do I need to tell you who was who? Time and again, Clinton was able to goad Trump into responses that bordered on being unhinged. Like others have said before, there would be many problems with a Trump presidency, but the greatest danger is his temperament. He is simply too thin-skinned, too easily provoked. Certainly this would be a danger in the international arena. Who can guess what he’ll order our military to do? But I believe it would also be a danger at home. I find it too easy to envision him using federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and punish perceived enemies. And I don’t care what party you are from. You would not be safe if you questioned him – or worse yet, personally insulted him. Again, I am not a fan of Clinton. I’m certain I would have strong disagreements with her on policy should she become president. And there is always that remarkable ability of the Clintons to create drama when it could have easily been avoided. But she’s not nuts. And this time around, that’s good enough for me.
Bill Poorman 