Among the differences in the debate, this goround, both Trump and Mrs. Clinton seemed to show a tone with sobriety consistently throughout compared.  Sobriety referenced is toward Holy Books nuance, very old word and root, meaning for summary sake, keeping oneself under control at deeper levels.

With respect to time, a portion of the debate went to discussing personal attitudes with regard to opposite gender roles, which was not either of the Nominees fault in terms of selection of the questions.  It might just be a trend of the times that television and media seem to focus more on topics such as that, which leaves the question, was too much a percentage of the debate revolving around the subject of what kinds of things were said off the record, perhaps put on the record, but intended to be off the record?

For those of us that read on a lateral level whereat inevitable gleanings of information about the character of people, such as about what could be perceived as private lives of moderators, present themselves, there might be some irony that one of the moderators has seemed to have made it a trademark since the Presidential debate almost a year ago, of interrupting the speakers in an irksome manner.  Does such a person exist, and did that occur?  There is a line between rudeness and being assertive to moderate a program.  Which side of the line?-, will not be spoken about here, instead, let the readers of this write-up decide.

Overall, there was a respectable amount of substantive educated content in the debate, which is a definite plus.

On the subject of the Middle East and Syria:

• The likelihood is very strong, that there are terrorists out there, that bounce around geographically their poles of central activities, moving from one Middle East town to the next.

• There could be terrorist groups lurking within other terrorist groups that we, the U.S. do not know the names of yet, with respect to popular read knowledge in news media.

• A messy situation exists currently, where the U.S. has found ISIS/ISIL/IS an enemy, whereat essentially, ISIS etc, is an en segue, in sequence, terror group to Al Qaeda; even if Al Qaeda gets completely destroyed, then ISIS gets completely destroyed, the most knowledgeable of Islam scholars will tell you, and the U.S. will agree that, there will probably be an an effort by some terrorist group or some terrorist mind to attempt to develop yet another terrorist group, and of course try to hide behind sincere peace loving Muslim populace.  Similar concept with individual terrorists, one terrorist is removed, then another even sneakier tries to take the previous place; one geographic region gets resolved, then a similar problem springs up elsewhere, it could be simply the nature of the world.
• Aleppo, Baghdad, Mosul, you name the place, the place will have a certain time in the history books in chapters about insurgents and fighting various wars, then new chapters will begin, in some circumstances on the superficiality.  The bigger picture, stepping back from the trees to see the forest is an idea here.
  

• With all the messiness of terror cells and groups exchanging rings around a circus, extreme caution as standard agreeable by any military scientist or strategist, has to be taken on simply arming anyone in the Middle East. 

The U.S. cannot be the victim of when one button pops-up and gets hammered down, another button pops-up and you have to race against time to hammer it down before you run out of time, the evil game, when the buttons that are popping up might be painted a different color, or have different names, but they are all coming from the same guy.


History:
Briefly without detail or illustration--

When Afghani Mujahideen got arm help for their mission of independence, were there or were there not some slimy characters that took the weapons and later evolved into terrorist cells such as Al Qaeda?

How many different Kurdish groups, referring to military fighting groups, have evolved over the past 50 years?  Can the average American citizen name all of them off the top of his or head in under 60 seconds?  If they can accomplish that, can they give a brief description of how each splinter group, or outgrowth ramified from the other groups and how they interrelate?  It is a tough task.

The concept of being dragged into wars by shadowy powers in the Eastern Hemisphere, the result of crafty gambits, has dogged and strained America's military for perhaps up to a century.

Crafty gambits on the part of enemies of America and terrorists could include sacrificing their own lives, their own people, their own soldiers, in the effort to lure American troops into fights, then the unethical doings of the traitors that turn and murder American soldiers, the head-hunters for money, the 'businessmen' that want to melt down military vehicles and sell the metal for money, and much more.


Trying to explain to millions of Americans all and every detail of every unethical gambit that every terrorist has done to try to hurt America is tough to do in just an hour.


The U.S. has to be rightly guided, as any nation, as much as possible.