There's no debate
Actually, in truth, there's no debate that these made-for-TV events that are CALLED debates are about anything but.
I was involved in speech and drama in high school, but we didn't have a debate team. I met people in college who came from high schools that had them, and I always envied them for their experience. What we're seeing on TV in these group shouting matches is less a debate and more of a free-for-all, where the less-known candidates are vying for air time and the better-known ones are trying to hold or expand their lead over others.
Once we get down to the actual candidates from each major party, then we can consider these events to be "debates," but I suppose the television networks who compete to televise them have to call them something.
My wife and I watched last night, and while we're pretty well informed on most issues, it's easy to see how the back-and-forth on many of these issues would be confusing to the point of putting people off of the idea of even participating in the electoral process.
For instance, when a moderator speaks of "Medicare for all," there are countless variations. Bernie Sanders mentioned that he envisions a non-profit healthcare system, which will be quite a surprise to the many corporations that own hospitals, medical practices and the like. Will everyone be forced into such a system, or will private insurance still exist? What about those who rely on Medicaid or other government-supported programs? Will they suddenly have to pay, or will their current coverage be converted into credits that they can spend on the premiums necessary for "Medicare for all?" Or will there even BE premiums?
See what I mean?
Everything cannot be paid for by taxing the wealthy or raising corporate taxes. Whomever occupies the White House next will be faced with a budget deficit that has exploded during our current President's term.
Creating jobs is a simple process in theory, but much harder in practice. Those candidates who speak of creating manufacturing jobs to replace those lost in hard-hit geographic areas are on the right track, as there are motivated workers and plant capacity both readily available.
Making college more affordable is a worthwhile goal, but proclaiming that college tuition will be free under the _____ Administration neglects the simple fact that it took many years for costs to reach the levels they're at now. That cannot be undone with the stroke of a pen, particularly when the federal government does not own or operate many universities. Restoring the existence and increasing the availability of Pell grants for those who need financial assistance to attend college would be a more realistic first step in this process.
Immigration is such a complex issue that I find it hard to believe that any candidate has a plan for how to "fix" it. So many variables, so many entities with a role to play, and so many "if this happens, then X happens next" scenarios to consider. But that doesn't stop most candidates for having prepared twenty word answers for that issue, either.
My wife made a very good point several times last night, pointing out that "they're not even answering the questions." That, in a nutshell, is the problem with these debates in their current form. The moderators could just as well hold up a card with a one word topic identified, like "immigration," and then give each candidate thirty seconds to speak on it.
At least then we'd know where they stand.
I was involved in speech and drama in high school, but we didn't have a debate team. I met people in college who came from high schools that had them, and I always envied them for their experience. What we're seeing on TV in these group shouting matches is less a debate and more of a free-for-all, where the less-known candidates are vying for air time and the better-known ones are trying to hold or expand their lead over others.
Once we get down to the actual candidates from each major party, then we can consider these events to be "debates," but I suppose the television networks who compete to televise them have to call them something.
My wife and I watched last night, and while we're pretty well informed on most issues, it's easy to see how the back-and-forth on many of these issues would be confusing to the point of putting people off of the idea of even participating in the electoral process.
For instance, when a moderator speaks of "Medicare for all," there are countless variations. Bernie Sanders mentioned that he envisions a non-profit healthcare system, which will be quite a surprise to the many corporations that own hospitals, medical practices and the like. Will everyone be forced into such a system, or will private insurance still exist? What about those who rely on Medicaid or other government-supported programs? Will they suddenly have to pay, or will their current coverage be converted into credits that they can spend on the premiums necessary for "Medicare for all?" Or will there even BE premiums?
See what I mean?
Everything cannot be paid for by taxing the wealthy or raising corporate taxes. Whomever occupies the White House next will be faced with a budget deficit that has exploded during our current President's term.
Creating jobs is a simple process in theory, but much harder in practice. Those candidates who speak of creating manufacturing jobs to replace those lost in hard-hit geographic areas are on the right track, as there are motivated workers and plant capacity both readily available.
Making college more affordable is a worthwhile goal, but proclaiming that college tuition will be free under the _____ Administration neglects the simple fact that it took many years for costs to reach the levels they're at now. That cannot be undone with the stroke of a pen, particularly when the federal government does not own or operate many universities. Restoring the existence and increasing the availability of Pell grants for those who need financial assistance to attend college would be a more realistic first step in this process.
Immigration is such a complex issue that I find it hard to believe that any candidate has a plan for how to "fix" it. So many variables, so many entities with a role to play, and so many "if this happens, then X happens next" scenarios to consider. But that doesn't stop most candidates for having prepared twenty word answers for that issue, either.
My wife made a very good point several times last night, pointing out that "they're not even answering the questions." That, in a nutshell, is the problem with these debates in their current form. The moderators could just as well hold up a card with a one word topic identified, like "immigration," and then give each candidate thirty seconds to speak on it.
At least then we'd know where they stand.
Comments
Post a Comment