Okay, so first things first. Hillary Clinton won the debate last night. And that's not just my biased lefty opinion. Most post-debate polls and focus groups showed she walked away with the thing. Even Breitbart's poll said she won, and its former executive chairman is running the Trump campaign. And if that's not enough for you to grant her the victory, how about this? Ashley Feinberg at Deadspin did the research that nobody else would enjoy doing and found that even the white supremacists (and Trump lovers!) of Stormfront felt that Hillary won the debate.

But can this level of certainty stop the hot takes? Of course not. And USA Today is here to bring us one. Are you ready? It is a doozy.

The headline: "Trump pulled off presidential: James Robbins." A good rule of thumb that indicates a hot take is coming is that the publication will put the writer's name in the headline, lest people think that the editors of the publication agree with what's coming. So today's hot-taker-in-chief is Mr. James Robbins, who will be arguing the preposterous opinion that what Donald Trump did last night was "presidential." Oof. Good luck, James. He begins:

"You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader."

Whoa. I have to be honest, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get through this whole take. YOU CAN'T FACT-CHECK LEADERSHIP?! That's such a terrible, terrible line that it is actually making my brain short-circuit. It's basically saying: "All these whiny libtards want the 'facts,' but who cares about 'facts' when you got leaderballs?!" Beyond it being dumb, it's also wrong. You can fact-check leadership. Like using the fact that Donald Trump, as the head of many companies, has used his leadership to run them into the ground or refuse to pay his workers. It's hard to start a piece with so much dumb and wrong in one sentence, but here we are. It's almost impressive. Moving on.

This is where the piece gets weird. Rather than trying to prove the leadership point, which is, you know, the more controversial half of that topic sentence, the author instead goes down a five-paragraph rabbit hole of trying to argue that moderators shouldn't be fact-checkers. Okay. Maybe that would be a fair argument to have before the debate, though I would argue back that a candidate who so willfully lies and seems to count on the media not calling him on those lies calls for an exception to the "moderators shouldn't fact-check" rules, if those rules should even exist. But after the debate? In an op-ed claiming Trump was presidential? Seems like a bad idea.