Trump Vs. Clinton - The Debate Transcript

Moderator: Let's jump right into it shall we.  Sec. Clinton, Mr Trump wants to ban muslims from entering America as part of his strategy to fight Terror

Clinton: This would be a disaster.  There are 42 muslim countries and branding all muslims with the same brush of terror suspects would create a backlash which would hurt our standing in the Muslim world and hurt our effort to get the much needed cooperation from these countries to track down terror cells

Trump:  How is that working out for you Madam Secretary?  China has imposed the most draconian anti-Muslim rules on its citizens in Xin Jiang.  Yet both Saudi Arabia and particularly Pakistan are China's biggest allies.  Ever wonder why?  I'll tell you why.

These barbarians recognize strength and not political correctness.  You put a boot to their throats and they will comply.

I as President will do that, you on the other hand will kiss every Arab ass to win their 'cooperation' while Americans continue to be killed by these bastards.

Clinton:  That kind of language is inappropriate for anyone running for President

Trump:  Oh so the language offends you but death of Americans doesnt

Clinton:  I did not say that.....you're clueless

Moderator:  Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump's plan is very clear and simple 'Ban Muslims from entering the United States'.  What is yours?

Clinton:  First of all not all Muslims are terrorists.  Most Muslims are seeking the same thing as the rest of us - The American Dream.  We must begin by building our intelligence gathering capability.  Build a global coalition against radical Islam and use it to destroy this monster.  If we ban Muslims from entering America, the consequent anger against us will destroy any chance of building such a coalition.

Moderator:  Mr. Trump would you like to respond

Trump:  Secretary Clinton had 4 years and her party 8 years to build just such a coalition.  How did that work out for her?  She clearly failed, because ISIS became a global threat right under her nose.  So we can draw three conclusions - either she's incompetent or her strategy is flawed or both.

This is our last chance to defeat this evil.  If we keep sitting on our hands, too worried to be politically incorrect history will hold us responsible for our cowardice.  I have nothing against Muslims per se.  But there's no way to tell friend from foe.  

Both the Chattanooga and San Bernardino terror acts were executed by Muslim Americans living the American dream.  Both had great jobs, a great American education that almost assured their families and them a bright future.

Most importantly, there's no way intelligence gathering could have detected their intentions.  They left no foot prints.

Clinton (interrupting):  Better survelliance and more investments in our counter intelligence capabilities can help address that problem.  Banning is not the solution

Trump:  Secretary Clinton, if you would please let me finish.  I know even you realize your arguments are weak.  Interrupting me wont change that fact.  

In order to do what Mrs. Clinton is suggesting we will need to aggressively intrude into the daily lives of average, law abiding American citizens.  So Mrs. Clinton would much rather violate the rights of law abiding Americans than ban some non-Americans from entering the country.  

Clinton:  That is just plain racist.  America is better than that.  

Trump:  Wait, wait...how is that racist?  I'm not saying Africans, Indians, Chinese, Latinos, Arabs should be banned from entering the country.  Islam is a religion not a race.  Islam can be given up, it is a choice

Moderator (interrupting):  Wait, are you saying that those Muslims who give up Islam can be allowed into the country?  

Trump (grinning):  You're putting words in my mouth.  I did not say that.  I said that Islam is a religion, it is a choice and you can choose it.  Race is not a choice.

Coming back to my point that you did not allow me to finish.  Look at silicon valley.  Some 40% of companies are started by immigrants of every religion, nationality, race.  I dont object to it.  I dont think any American would object to it.  In fact most Americans would welcome them with open arms.

Look at all the foreign born CEOs of major tech companies.  CEOs of both Google and Microsoft, two American success stories are immigrants from India.  How is it that a Hindu India sends us CEOs and Muslim Pakistan gives us Osama Bin Laden

(Audience responds with laughter and applause)

All I'm saying is that something is going with Islam and Muslims and we're are clueless.  We have tried everything and the attacks against westernerns and Americans continue to grow and spread.  If you dont want America to become another Europe, keep Muslims out till we figure this thing out.  It's a temporary ban.  

Thats all.

Clinton:  But that is ridiculous.  How can we even implement such a ban.  Who do you let in, how do you identify Muslims.  The 9/11 terrorists looked like any other person from the Middle east or from South Asia.

If we ban muslims, these terrorists will just get new identities with Christian or Hindu names.  Will you then stop Hindus and Christians too?  

And what happens to European Muslims who are white.  Should we ban Europeans too.  Where does it begin where does it end.

(Audience applauds)

Moderator:  Mr. Trump, that is a valid argument.  Your plan has been rather thin on specifics.  You have told us what you want to do but the 'how' as Sec. Clinton pointed out is almost impossible.

Trump:  Mrs. Clinton's argument is akin to saying that since the neighbor's house was broken into, no one can protect our house and hence we should leave our doors unlocked.

There's no silver bullet, one size fits all solution to this problem.  Many things will need to be done if we're to protect ourselves.  For starters we could ask the highest authorities in Muslim countries to certify that a person claiming to be citizen of their country is a person in good standing.  We should also verify their online presence and examine any patterns of behavior that seems alarming - supporting or participating in online forums for instance.

Any one wanting to travel to America must be willing to surrender their background information.  They can choose not to divulge this information but then the American govt. can refuse them entry.

A blanket ban on Muslims will prevent formation of ghettos and no-go zones that have become a bane of European nations.  Brussels was a direct result of a severely understaffed police force lacking the required man power to track down every lead and every suspect.

America has a chance to prevent this cancer from taking root.  We should act now or prepare for a Europe like situation where our laws are used to infiltrate our country and destroy us from within.

Clinton: You still havent answered how you will implement your pie-in-the-sky ideas

Obama, Trump and the lessons for PM Modi

For admirers of the might US of A (and I consider myself one) understanding the rise of Trump has been an exercise in futility.  But few have even come close.

Perhaps Bill Maher said it best "This is the backlash against decades of political correctness".  

In my opinion it is surely about political correctness but there's more to it.  It is the unabashed double standard displayed by liberals which has opened up space for a Trump to rise from seemingly no where to take the political market place by storm.

Western liberals never miss a chance to stick to Christianity.  Surely Christianity has done some evil stuff in the past and in parts of the world lacking a strong social alternative, it still imposes a regressive version more suitable for the dark ages.

But the liberal anti-Christian celebration is in stark contrast to their aversion to openly discuss anything related to Islam.  A combination of fear and genuine love for all enemies of America lies at the heart of this convoluted political correctness masquerading as 'tolerance'.

The same liberal women, for instance, who miss no opportunity to attack and confront Christian gender bigotry seem to curl up in a fetal position at the mere mention of 'hijab' or 'burqua' or 'FGM'.

This blatant, in your face hypocrisy is one key reason for the rise of Trump and what has now become a 'Screw it' election.

Trump supporters seem to have decided that no matter what the world says about him "Screw it" they will support Trump.

Trump's support base seems to be like an iceberg.  A much larger percentage is hidden below the surface.  Few want to be seen as openly supporting Trump.

Trump is playing a classic marketing game to perfection.  Something similar to what Raj Thackeray did in Mumbai - Attack migrants to gain media coverage and then consolidate that position.

The problem with RajT was that he did not have massive public anger behind him and lacked a credible 'Act 2'.

Trump's support seems to have surged when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims after the San Berdandino attacks.

That was his act two.  Also, unlike RajT, Trump hasnt resorted to calling for violence against migrants or muslims, instead he has channelized public anger into a viable political movement.

Some Indian political pundits have taken to comparing the rise of Trump with the triumph of PM Modi.

Not only is this argument a sham but PM Modi's rise to India's highest office, has more in common with that of President Obama.

None expected a black man to occupy the Presidency.  Despite all his stellar qualifications - Harvard being one of them - Sen Obama had a fight on his hands.  First against the Clinton machine and then against war hero McCain.

It was President Bush's complete failure on every front from wars to the economy that helped propel Obama to the Presidency.

PM Modi was similarly, able to ride a wave of discontent to defeat the empire and win a stunning victory in 2014.

To his credit, President Obama has delivered on his liberal agenda.  From Obamacare to Gay rights, the past 8 years have instituted permanent and irreversible changes within America's socio-economic landscape.

Liberals have mistaken this success for a deeper social change and have worked ceaselessly to further their agenda.

In doing so their hypocrisy vis-a-vis political correctness has yielded a political vacuum which has been swiftly filled by a bombastic, over the top Trump.

Trump's past liberal positions have shielded him against accusations of being the 4th Reich, and allowed moderate/independent voters to join his bandwagon without feeling of guilt.

PM Modi has done a remarkable job with ensuring that his post-2014 actions do not engender a similar backlash.  But his party and Sonia's evil empire have conspired to ensure that moderate/independent Indian voters view him with jaundiced eyes.

Come 2019 he may find himself caught between a rock and a hard place.  His Hindu supporters unhappy with his failure to openly espouse Hindu causes (murder of BJP workers in Kerala being the latest) and non-Hindu voters upset for his unflinching march toward dismantling the Chrislamist ecosystem that has ruled India through sickular proxies.

The twin challenges of handling a desperate opposition uniting against BJP, and a possible backlash against BJP's Hindu agenda must be addressed deftly.  He still has time.  The last thing he should do is end up falling between two stools.

This is perhaps his greatest political challenge.  Bring it on.

Award Wapsi, Intolerance: Revolt of the Indian House Negros

The darkest period of America's brush with slavery gave rise to an interesting character - The House Negro.

Definition:
"House Negro" is a pejorative term for a black person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from the historic period of legal slavery in the United States.

The house negro was given certain privileges which included a lighter work load, better food, better housing than their fellow slaves who toiled under inhuman conditions in cotton fields and slaughter houses.

In return, the house negro served an important purpose.  He kept a close eye on his fellow slaves.  Any signs of rebellion were quickly identified and nipped in the bud by many a house negro.

Though the House Negro served his master loyally and was rewarded for his services, he could never hope to be elevated to the level of an equal.  

And the House Negro did everything to please his master, never forgetting his place in the racial hierarchy. 

For centuries, India witnessed a similar dynamic.  Scores of Indians and their families across the length and breath of the country served as 'House Negroes' to their foreign Masters.  What Mughals instituted by marrying into the families of Hindu Kings they had defeated, the British perfected by creating a host of institutions.  The Indian Administrative Service being perhaps their most successful project.

Like their American counterparts, Indian House Negroes (IHN) always knew their place.  They never attempted to defeat or betray their British masters.  

The stellar success of this British experiment can be gauged from the fact that they engineered into existence the 
 Indian House Negro 'gene'.  A gene which has been passed down from father to son to daughter to grand children and continues to persist within Indian political and cultural power structures to this day.

This community of Indian House Negroes was conspicuously absent from India's freedom struggle and their progeny has been similarly under represented in the Indian armed forces.

When the British left India, they handed power over to these well trained community of House Negroes.  

The rise and continuing prosperity of Indian House Negroes is perhaps Britain's greatest success story.  It has however, had a devastating effect on India.

When House Negro #1 i.e. Pandit Jawarhlal Nehru insisted on taking the Kashmir dispute to a fledgling United Nations, he was behaving on expected lines.  He was trying to please his British masters at a heavy price to his fellow Indians.

A price India continues to pay.

This Indian House Negrodom hasnt ceased.  Under an Italian Sonia Gandhi it has only accelerated.  Sonia represents a second coming of Indian house Negrodom after a few setbacks it faced, first under PVNR and then under ABV.

I'm not suggesting that Indians should hate Westerners or western cultural influence.  Despite Hiroshima the sagacious Japanese adopted several western influences.  Even their much celebrated success with manufacturing quality products came from the ideas espoused by an American Professor - William Edwards Deming.

There's much that India can learn and emulate from Westerners but it can only be beneficial to Indians if it is done from a position of self confidence.

If Indians wish to be counted as equals, if they wish for India to be counted as an equal they must rid themselves of Indian House Negroes and their Negrodom.

Since the 1980s a generation of Indians born after independence has emerged which seems less infected by the IHN gene.  Cricket is an area which has helped illustrate the rise of this truly Indian generation. 

Whenever India has been led by a native son, devoid of Western influence, the Indian team has thrived and prospered.  It is hardly surprising that both of India's WC victories came under captains one would never mistake for an IHN.

Neverheless, IHNs continue to hold influence over India's power structure, a control greatly disproportionate to their numbers.

Some prominent examples of House Negros:

Mani Shankar Aiyar, Shobha De, Derek O'brien, the Gandhis, Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai.......
are at the forefront of India media and political levers of power and they continue to view all things Indian/Hindu with the same sense of disdain and hatred as their forefathers did before them.

This is the progeny that prefers 'Bombay' over 'Mumbai' and this is the same group that hates Narendra Damodardas Modi.

May 16th, 2014 symbolizes India's true Independence day. For it was on this day that India finally broke free from the shackles of Indian house Negroes.

A native son, unburdened by the guilt engenered by benefiting from a British education finally defeated the collective might of Indian House 'Negrodom'.

This victory may prove to be ephemeral.  But it symbolizes the possibility that after centuries of enslavement Indians are ready and prepared to be counted as equals. 

PM Modi has birthed a new era into existence.  An era with endless possibilities where India guides the world toward a phase of tolerance, spirituality, peace and prosperity.  

Indian House Negroes have no place in such a meritocratic dispensation where subterfuge, treachery and genuflection before a foreign deity is no longer the criteria to gain access to corridors of power.

It is this tectonic shift which has terrified Indian House Negroes.  And they have reacted on predictable lines.  

If PM Modi wins in 2019, this process will become irreversible.  This is their last chance and they will attack him with all means, fair and foul.  But mostly foul.


p.s. If you ever make these arguments with an IHN you will elicit a familiar response "If you hate British India so much why dont you return all those facilities built by the British - railways, educational institutions, etc."

Your response:

When the British took over, India accounted for 25% of global GDP.  When they left in 1947 Indian share of global GDP had dropped to 3%.

If the British return all the wealth they looted from India, it would bring prosperity to India, but most importantly it would bankrupt the British.