By guest author Rosa Dines.
Hillary challenged you on your support for the Iraq war. You should use the limited time you have in debate to turn the tables on her, that as a congresswoman who voted for the Iraq war, she should be called on the carpet, not you for your opinion when you were a private citizen for or against the war. She voted for the Iraq war, and then, opportunistically, when things went “wrong”, she said, “I don’t support it anymore.” And she’s also responsible for the war in Libya, where chaos was created, and as you pointed out, which you should emphasize again, it helped the creation and growth of ISIS.
You referred to NAFTA and TTIP and rightly challenged Hillary on her support of them. To make the critique resonate, it may help to also point out that these trade treaties are harmful to the American workers, especially those in small towns in for example West Virginia or middle America where there would be one factory in town, which would then close down, and leave those workers in small-town America with no alternative employment. I believe that you wasted too much of your time on attacking China. In this discussion, the important thing is that Hillary Clinton, while she was supposed to be representing Americans in public office, instead supported a policy that is harmful to American workers. It is important to mention the harmful effects of these policies on the American worker, not how it may benefit someone in China. You used your limited time attacking China, but instead you should spend all your time attacking Hillary. You are trying to get people who may be thinking of voting for Hillary to change their minds. You are not trying to get people who may vote for China to vote for you instead. So use all your force on your opponent in this particular boxing ring.
In the first debate, Mrs. Clinton never responded substantively to your challenges. Instead, she used her time to stay on her message, which consisted of attacking you and portraying you as evil. She never described her own policies, instead referring listeners to her web site and book. You should follow Mrs. Clinton’s example. Do not become defensive. The more you repeat her accusation, the more it stays with the listeners.
For example, when she attacks you for having incurred bankruptcies, you should say, “I am an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is the American way. And entrepreneurs fail many times before they are successful. And the use of bankruptcy laws is legal. Those who run, sometimes fall.” Mrs. Clinton has never been an entrepreneur, so there is no bankruptcy in her background. In fact, she has used the status of her husband as ex-President and her powerful political position to draw hundreds of millions of dollars from various dubious entities and foreign governments, some of which have long records of human-rights violations. And as expert lawyers, herself and her husband, they have set up those sources of revenue to be “legal” in the system. She never explained, what it was that she and her husband did that was worth so much money.
If you check Dr. Jill Stein’s critiques of Hillary in various speeches that are online, you may find some points you can use as well.
I write these suggestions because of my absolute 100% opposition to a Hillary Clinton presidency and the dangers that she represents. This does not mean I agree with all your positions or policies.
To cite with short link: How To Debate Hillary http://wp.me/p23U97-dK