So the President Trump-Border Czar Kamala debate happened, moderated by ABC (Disney)’s David Muir and the other one, the timid woman whose name I didn’t bother to learn because patriarchy capitalism misogyny imperialism whatever. The moderators were collusive shill hacks on Team Kamala who spent the whole night saying the quiet part out loud. I mean, Muir had a great debate. I wonder how he’d do as a debate moderator.

It’s now well and widely established just how unprofessional and partisan the moderation was. YouTube is saturated in disgust of the spectacle . Never in my decades of election cycles have I witnessed something like that. Again, saying the quiet part out loud for 90 minutes.

And I knew early on how rigged the debate would go. It really didn’t take mad Nostradamus skillz. Want to know exactly when I knew the moderators weren’t interested in being professional, ethical, and objective?

When the first words passed over David Muir’s lips.

Before the debate started, when defining the rules for the debate, Muir included “there are no notes” and “the candidates will stand and not sit.” What’s odd about this? These are two rule requests from Kamala that were rejected before the election was scheduled. Rejected rules have no bearing on the debate. Only the accepted rules.

So why bring up rejected rules? It’s like Biden requesting allowing for two diaper changes and the agreed rule was only one dia . . . sorry, I’m thinking of the last debate. It’s like Kamala requesting her emotional comfort animal, Tim Walz, be standing alongside her at the podium, perhaps humping her leg or perhaps drinking a thick, rich horse shake. Trump disagrees, this is accepted by both candidates, and that rule is rejected.

Had this been an actual rule requested and rejected, David Muir would’ve included in the debate rules “Candidates will not be allowed their emotional comfort animal.” Doesn’t that sound weird out of context? No lap dogs lapping up after the horses. What does that have to do with anything? So, again, why bring up the rejected rules “No notes, standing not sitting” when announcing the debate rules?

The answer is easy. It’s for the optics that Trump is an unreasonable bully.

The exact moment I knew the ABC (Disney) moderators had no interest in being professional, ethical, and objective is before either candidate said even one word. The exact moment was David Muir including two rejected rules in the final debate rules. And this opening salvo partisan shilling was repeated, verified, and validated for 90 minutes. The logic is sound and correct. This can’t be argued aside.

Naturally, there’s nuclear fallout and comeuppance for Kamala now. Let me explain. On the forums I frequent to chat with my fellow independents, this same observation was repeated frequently last night after the debate. For many of us, the media collusion reinforces why we won’t vote for Biden . . . dang it, I still have adult diapers on the mind . . . The media collusion reinforces why we won’t vote for Kamala. It’s constant and continued cheating that lets us know we can’t trust Kamala. It’s knowing a Kamala regime would include her collusive media cronies lying at her behest. We independents see this plainly and clearly, and we are resoundingly saying “no way, no thanks.”

One member of the forum stated last night “The moderators helping Kamala is a total backfire. Fail.” Her fellow independents agree, and that includes me.

The more Kamala cheats the more independents she’ll alienate and the more independents solidify for Trump. And you can be certain this will be verified in the October cross tabs. Fail, ABC (Disney). Massive fail.