The three debates reflected a microcosm of American media - frame a narrow spectrum to them all their lives, and people will rarely think outside of it. Ask yourself this, especially if you will vote on November 8th - does America need a new brand of alt right nationalism? A rise in anger towards the immigrants who only work to benefit the countries that house them? Or does it need more of the same? More flawed foreign policy, more bowing to the corporate and banking worlds?
If ever a fight did not live up to it's hype, it was this one. The build-up was extraordinary. The Donald sought to take charge of the accusations of misogyny that had been levelled at him all week by holding an extraordinary and unexpected press conference with four women who presumably had a tale to tell of their treatment at the hands of Bill Clinton.
Most viewers would agree Clinton won the first Presidential debate. She was calm, relaxed and presidential compared to an abusive and abrasive Trump. CNN suggests 62% of viewers believe she won the debate compared to 27% for Trump. However, as polling day looms it will be his debate that people talk about, not Clinton's. Trumps tactics are sound.
At the EU referendum, around 75% of 18-24 year-olds voted to remain in the EU, and possibly even a higher number of 16-17 year olds would have too. Why are we not getting our voices heard? More young people should become involved, which would force the politicians to consider our views when making decisions.
The fact is, I need the EU to keep my government in check, I need the EU to control the financial sector that is tearing Britain into unequal chunks of extreme wealth and poverty, but most of all, I need the EU so the British government does not continue to benefit for my generations political apathy, implementing laws that take advantage of our alienation.
Just what were you thinking? Did anybody warn you about the dangers of attending university in Britain? Did you, even for a moment, stop to consider whether life at home or a job at your local Subway would protect you from the whirlwind of intellectual adventure, hellhole of differing opinion and carousel of aggressive debate that make university so worthwhile?
Another 'feminism'-inspired social media debate is brewing at my university and, once again, you'll find me with my head in my hands. I didn't participate in the previous debate and I don't plan to change my ways in the new one. It's quite likely that this week's new debate will resemble last term's debate, in both nature and in quality.
There is an important yet depressingly polarised debate raging across university campuses on both sides of the Atlantic at the moment. It concerns a plethora of policies ranging from no-platforming certain groups and speakers, banning certain university societies, demanding trigger warnings for a range of issues in lectures and in general extending the philosophy of safe spaces and the reverence of personal feelings into general university life.
Even if she manages to check all her luggage Hillary Clinton has the additional burden of proving she is an Actual Human Being. Fairly or not she comes across as an overprotective, secretive, control freak. And in a constant media bubble perception matters. In polls people do see her as experienced, intelligent and super hot (I think she is) but not truthful or relatable.
I'm writing this article on May 25th, one year to the day from the announcement of the election result, when I was elected as UKIP's first ever North East Member of the European Parliament. Given the criticism from many people about UKIP's work in the European Parliament, I thought I'd write about what I actually do.