What debate?

                                       What debate?

Oh, you mean the alley fight on TV last night?

        I will not address any of Mrs. Clinton's comments, largely because they're categorically true in context. I do, however, as a teacher of History and Government  feel obligated to point out the fact that the Republican candidate has , apparently , little or no real comprehension of how our government under the Constitution actually works, and even less knowledge of history.   This, discourse of mine, assumes literacy and the ability to evaluate factual information on the part of those who, upon reading it, might learn something, and if they support the Republican candidate, I question their critical thinking skills anyway, but.....! 

       Let's start with Mrs. Clinton's reference to  Lincoln, in the context that some of her recent remarks, of which you know who was critical,  were a reflection of some of his (Lincoln's).  As stated, it was coherent and logical and the perfect expression  of "realpolitik", as Dr Kissinger might have said.  The Republican candidate, however, seemed to miss both the meaning and the contextual validity  of the statement and immediately launched into a rant about the fact that "Honest Abe" never lied, as prelude to implying that Mrs. Clinton just had  (she hadn't). This mini-tirade exhibited, yet again, this person's sixth grade mentality and absolute ignorance of the real world.

        Of course Lincoln lied. The whole quote was about his statement that there are times when a president  will have private opinions which contrast with the exigencies of public policy. Lincoln's position on slavery was a prime example. Lincoln's decision to abrogate the Constitution and suspend habeas corpus on his own authority  was another. For many more examples, I recommend the Republican candidate get a staffer  to read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Pulitzer Prize winning "Team Of Rivals" and have them explain it to him.       

       On the subject of taxes and the Republican candidate's lack of having paid them:

        First off, let's divest ourselves of any lingering sense that His tax status has anything to do with his knowledge of the tax code . His accountants have already blown the whistle on that canard, acknowledging that all he cared about was the bottom line. He isn't a "tax genius", as if that weren't already manifestly apparent.  Where this rant truly went off the rails was when he blamed Mrs. Clinton for not "fixing" the tax code while she was in the US Senate. Unfortunately, to the average sycophant who was on their feet cheering this barrage of  blather, this sounds like it might be a good argument. Not so, Timmy.

        To start with, let's get the easy one out of the way first. Per the Constitution, all bills for "raising revenue" (dealing with money) which I'm fairly sure includes bills re: tax codes, must originate in the US House of Representatives. I'm also pretty certain that the Republican candidate doesn't even know this.  While Mrs. Clinton was serving her 8 years in the US Senate, the House was firmly in the control of the Republican party. In the absence of a tax reform bill from the House reaching the  Senate, there was f***-all any Senator, Democrat or Republican, could have done to effect change to the tax code.  Of course that didn't stop you know who from calling Mrs. Clinton "ineffective" because she didn't "pass a bill" which she never even got to vote on. Like I said - the man is ignorant. Now ask yourself who would have screamed loudest if any such effort would have been made? Yeah, thought so.

        Finally, what Mrs. Clinton understands and the other guy obviously doesn't even suspect is that the President actually has very limited powers to "do" any of the things the other guy  keeps promising that " He will do." In the same way that the Republican candidate refers to someone as "doing away with the second amendment" , he shows his absolute lack of knowledge over and over. The only way any amendment can be "done away with" is by consent of 3/4 of the states' legislatures or special ratification conventions called for that specific purpose. Period! Anyone who believes otherwise has no business even thinking about the White House. Even if, as former USSC associate justice John Paul Stevens has suggested in his book  "Six amendments: How and Why we should Change the Constitution", it was desired to change the language (he proposes adding the words "when serving in the Militia" to the Second Amendment) it would require that same 3/4 of the states to ratify.

        It pains me to see and hear the level of ignorance exhibited by this man displayed in the public spotlight by a would be candidate for the highest office in the US who has lost the respect and support of many of his own party. Jeff Foxworthy famously asks: "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" In the case of the Republican candidate, the response should be "Not most  of them."