Looks like there are going to be some debates between the Republican and Democrat candidates for President. In the New York Times this morning there was a note that struck me as foolish in light of the current state of our National affairs.
Hillary Clinton’s advisers are getting advice from psychologists and undertaking a forensic-style analysis of the Republican primary debates.
In other words, how can she best upset, distract, confuse, and befuddle the Republican candidate. Of course, Mr. Trump is hard at work figuring out how to use her ethical issues to damage her in front of the audience (probably small) that will be watching.
Sounds like "debates" as usual. I have a suggestion. . .stop laughing. I too know it is foolish to propose such, but. . .well, here goes.
Why doesn't the debate moderator (whoever that may be - probably someone who hates them both) propose a question about a real issue and allow the candidates to address it for three to five minutes or so. No back and forth between the candidates. No comments or slurs, slanderous or not, allowed (if that starts, just go to a commercial, or cut the mic, no second chances).
Here are examples: Mr. Trump, can you tell us briefly and concisely what you will do to inhibit ISIS from taking over the World?
Mrs. Clinton: Can you tell us specifically how you will raise the money to give the children of all middle class families in the United States free college tuition?
Some of the questions won't apply to the candidates stated goals, so they don't have to answer that question. If we can't find any media personnel who know how to develop questions like this, rather than the normal debate topics (for example, Mr. Trump, do you still consider Rosie a pig?, or, Mrs. Clinton, isn't it true that your $225, 000 speeches to Wall Street Companies had the specifics necessary to resolve financial difficulties experienced by those companies?), let those of us who are interested in how the United States of America can be saved from the abyss, on which edge we teeter, ask the questions.
Perhaps, if done well, the American public (or the small percentage of those who care enough, or have the stomach to watch the debates) could learn which candidate will allow America, as to know it, to survive longest.
I understand that they don't have answers to many of the questions that could be developed. . .like the two I proposed here. . .and the public should know that. What we don't need to see and hear is more mud-slinging, insulting, or truth-telling about the nature of the two candidates.
Let's just have a real debate, on topic, designed to convince an audience of the validity of one's position, not two people slandering one another, making up stuff, and endlessly boasting about their personal value to the Country.
Now lest you think I have lost my mind. . .I hope you are chuckling. I know you want to cry. So do I. But that is probably not the answer, not yet anyway. Maybe God is not through with us (read U. S.) yet.