Tonight is supposed to be the third debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. A debate between 2 people who want to take on the job of most powerful and influential human being on the face of the Earth for the next 4 years.
I am still waiting for the first debate.
So far, all we have heard about is sex , lies and emails. Insults. Smirking. Sniffling. Name calling. Promises of prison. Just a bad reality TV show. Not a debate. A spectacle encouraged by an unprepared press. Seeking ratings, not truth.
When is the first debate? Where is the moderator who will ignore sex. Ignore emails. Ignore polls. And just ask substantive questions. And then DEMAND substantive answers.
There was some of that in the first two shows, but hardly enough to learn anything about what the candidates actually would do. This is especially true for Donald Trump. A man who specializes in used-car-salesman assurances and generalities rather than hard facts.
So, let’s have a moderator who asks , then demands straight answers. And one who factchecks and calls out the candidates when they are simply wrong about the facts.
Try these on for size:
What would you do to try to bring jobs back to the US? What kinds of jobs would you try to help create? What is the proper role of the federal government is helping create those jobs?
What is your overall tax policy. What should the rates be for various income levels? Do those rates generate the needed revenues to pay for the increases in spending you are calling for?
What are some areas in which you would hope to increase spending and decrease spending? By how much? Why are you focusing on those areas?
In terms of foreign affairs, what should the US role be in the Middle East? In regards to Russia? In regards to nuclear proliferation? In regards to the Palestinian – Israeli problem? In regards to the refugee situation in Syria?
What is your approach to illegal immigration? What, specifically do you see as the problem and what, specifically do you see as a solution?
As you know the President can do nothing without a Congress that is willing to compromise. What makes you think you can get Congress to work with you? To what extent are you willing to compromise to reach agreements?
What is the proper role of the Supreme Court? What kind of justices would you appoint? To what extent would you depend on the American Bar Association and other legal groups for vetting? Is there a litmus test for your judges? What is it?
So, will the moderator ask questions and hold the candidates to answers? Will he push them for specifics on policy?
Chris Wallace of Fox News. Fair and Balanced? Will he direct the candidates to policy and substance or focus on trivialities?
I am still waiting for the first debate.
Oops I left out “UT Austin Debate Team” in my previous comment.
LikeLike
Totally agree. I was on the 1970 University of Texas at Austin during my junior year “abroad.” These 2 would have been dismissed for ignoring the rules of logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person