Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Presidential election the ultimate jury trial”

Apropos “jury trial”, I’ve been thinking about the presidential debate and the current completely biased and pathetic selection of the moderators.

How about having 2 moderators in each debate, each picked by one of the candidates. This would be much fairer and more like a jury trial where we the people are the jury, and both candidates have a person to act as their advocate and prosecutor.

There could be a third person, a judge, a referee, to keep order according to the pre-agreed-to rules.


3 posted on 10/01/2016 6:48:21 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: aquila48
How about having 2 moderators in each debate, each picked by one of the candidates. This would be much fairer and more like a jury trial where we the people are the jury, and both candidates have a person to act as their advocate and prosecutor.

Sounds like a great idea. But do you really think the crooked debate coordinators would ever agree to this? ;)

But something clearly has to change. If there's no other recourse, then conservatives should just boycott debates.

In general, though, I would say that debates rarely favor the cause of truth. Why? Because we should, as Mark Twain said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Debating/arguing with liberals is definitely arguing with "stupid" people. It's like casting pearls before swine, and Christ warned against that.

6 posted on 10/01/2016 7:17:04 PM PDT by rissole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson