Posted on 10/04/2016 10:11:21 AM PDT by DanMiller
The first presidential "debate" was a farce. The next presidential "debates" will likely be as well. Rather than submit to biased mainstream media moderators (but I repeat myself), Trump should propose real debates, in addition to or as substitutes for those currently scheduled. The article is also a bit of a rant about Ms. Clinton.
In a real debate, one resolution is proposed. The candidate in favor of the proposition speaks first and gets a specified amount of time to say why it’s a good idea. Then the candidate against the proposition gets a specified amount of time for rebuttal and the other candidate a specified amount of time to respond. A timekeeper would alert the candidates when time is almost up and then up. There would be no moderator to help one debater and to trash the other; the debaters would be on their own. Both would know the issue in advance and could prepare to address it however they please and with or without prepared notes. Were our presidential debates so conducted, viewers might well learn about the candidates’ positions on the issues by how the candidates address them, rather than via the moderator.
Here are a few possible debate propositions, for illustrative purposes only:
Latin American Immigration
In a recent article, in Spanish, Hillary wrote
that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.Ms. Clinton has disagreed with Trump’s assertion that “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.”“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.
“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.
A real debate grounded on the following resolution would deal with the matter raised by Ms. Clinton. Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative:
Resolved: no other region in the world is more important for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage. The interdependence of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.
We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it. The wall along our southern border would keep our the good immigrants we need and there is a right to immigrate to America.
Trump would probably point out that his wall would prevent not even one legal immigrant from coming to the United States. He might also suggest that were our immigration laws and procedures more rational (like those of Mexico?) and reflected American interests as well as those of the immigrants, it would be much easier for the immigrants we want to come, legally: those who haven’t committed significant law violations, can soon become self-supporting instead of relying on welfare, do not have serious contagious diseases and appear likely to accept American values rather than, for example, joining gangs and/or importing drugs. Trump could easily provide legal support for the proposition that there is, in fact, no legal right to immigrate to America.
Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and women’s rights
There has been substantial discussion in the few media outlets providing an “honest discussion” of Islam about the extent to which Hillary and her colleague Huma Abedin have similar views on Sharia law. Under a Clinton presidency, Huma would likely have a high place at the White House, if not as Secretary of State.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6itOQ2Qf4E
Even if Huma were to state that she disagrees with her father, mother and other close relatives about Islam and Sharia law, would she tell the truth or engage in Al-taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims to advance Islamist doctrine)?
worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.As noted in an article titled PIGGY-Headed,. . . .
In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.
Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.
While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.
. . . .
Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:
As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”
In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”
Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”
The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“
In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.
The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”
In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”
Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women. Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women. Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death. Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women. Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”- quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5axywNGHlVo
What do Muslims worldwide believe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
How about,
Resolved: America is not merely a Judeo-Christian nation and Islam is no less peaceful and tolerant than Christiany and Judaism. To become more diverse, we need more Muslim refugees and should strive to accommodate them by making our laws less offensive.
Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative.
Conclusions
Trump should offer Ms. Clinton an opportunity to provide additional resolutions for debate which he might support.
Were Trump to propose supplemental or replacement debates along these lines, Hillary would very likely reject his offer because she needs support from the moderators and would understand the dangers a real debate would present. If Ms. Clinton declines Trump's offer, he should feel free to decide whether to participate in the partisan "debate" farce as currently established.
How about a debate in which the moderator is not allowed to say anything but “your time is up” or “you have ___ minutes to answer/rebut?”
A debate should be structured like the Kennedy-Nixon debate, just the moderators, and no audience.
both of you have proposed excellent ideas!
Trump made several large mistakes in the first debate, the biggest of which was... playing by the liberal moderators rules.
He should have just more or less ignored the moderator or dressed him down for the partisan hack that he was/is. Trump just needs to attack Hillary non-stop regardless of the question asked.
And the questions should be about what you are going to do as President, not about what you did 20 years ago.
Neither candidate is capable of speaking for an extended period on a single subject. Besides with five weeks to go till the election, the number of debate topics probably exceeds the days left.
Trump should propose delaying Sunday night debate due to Hurricane Matthew. Stand shoulder to shoulder with those affected.
The candidate in favor of the proposition speaks first and gets a specified amount of time to say why it’s a good idea. Then the candidate against the proposition gets a specified amount of time for rebuttal and the other candidate a specified amount of time to respond. A timekeeper would alert the candidates when time is almost up and then up. There would be no moderator to help one debater and to trash the other; the debaters would be on their own.
I agree, then issue snarky answers to the gotcha questions in a press release following the debate.
If I recall my history correctly, one of the most influential series of political debates had NO moderator. The two candidates (in this case for A Senate seat representing Illinois) basically just went to various towns and cities in Illinois, spoke to the audience, and freely questioned and responded to each other, all without the need for any so-called journalist to intervene. Of couse those debates occurred over 150 years ago when Lincoln and Douglas squared off, but wouldn’t that be a really interesting thing to watch now? Just Cankles and Trump going at each other one on one with nobody to interfere.
Joe Walsh Talk Radio Chicago is talking now about how none of the Republican leaders have been at any rallys with Donald Trump, and That Trump in on his own against Hillary and top Democrat leaders who have been on the road with her.
Joe Walsh just said that we need to remember that if he loses to Hillary that when Donald Trump needing the backing of the GOP, they never showed up for him.
Listen to the Joe Walsh Show, heard each weekday evening in Chicago from 5-7pmCT / 6-8pm ET by clicking here. You can download the AM 560 mobile app for iPhon
e here or for Android here or for Blackberry here.
We’re at a crucial point in this country, and I’m excited to take the debate right to listeners throughout Chicagoland and the greater New York metropolitan area via the airwaves. The radio program is a great platform to help grow a freedom movement which is already gaining momentum across the country. I do with this program what I did as a U.S. Congressman — speak plainly, speak directly, not worry about political correctness, and engage in respectful, engaging debate with all viewpoints. This is just too important of a time for all of us to do anything less. I look forward to speaking with you each evening and hearing from you.
http://walshfreedom.com/radio/
LISTEN LIVE:
http://www.560theanswer.com/page.php?page_id=251
I’d rather Trump pick his nose raw than have Newt be involved in a POTUS debate. #catastrophicmanmadeglobalwarming
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.