So I watched the first Presidential debate with my eldest son. In the first 15 minutes, he asked if the moderator was voting for Hillary. Although it was rather boring, I'm glad I watched. The debate confirmed what I already knew. I don't like either candidate. Neither candidate is qualified to lead our great country. All in all, there was little if any value to me as a voter, and I certainly didn't see anything that made me feel that real freedom is going to be defended by either leading candidate.
For the VP debate this evening, Mr. Kaine was a great politician. He deflected well and failed to provide any direct answer to the initial question. Pence was a calculated politician as well but was definitely more calm in his demeanor. Both VP candidates appeared to be grounded in data and facts, but Mr. Kaine seemed much more fired up and irritated by the discussion that Pence led on several occasions. However, when Mr. Kaine spoke and tried to defend their "jobs" plan, there he offered typical generic government double talk. Anyone with any sense about business knows that the government cannot create jobs, even if it could, there is nothing in the constitution that permits the government to act. All government can do is provide an environment to encourage entrepreneurship. With tax cuts, the people will have funds to spend on staff and other jobs. I am a business owner. If I didn't pay as much in taxes, I could hire more staff. I would rather give the funds that are taken from my business as taxes and use them to provide more income to staff. But I digress.
Back to the debates. What is the purpose of these debates? When there are three people talking, no one can even hear what is going on. At least after the first half hour the moderator realized this and suggested that they let the other person talk. Obviously there is bias by the moderators. Regardless of which opinion you have of each moderator, I think a better idea might be to acknowledge the bias and let the talking heads that clearly are in the tank for either candidate moderate. For example, why not let Sean Hannity of Fox News (who is clearly in favor of Trump) and Rachael Maddow, (an open Hillary supporter) lead a debate. (this was not my original idea) Cut microphones and have clear times where only one person can speak. (this part is my original idea).
Can I just say that I think the debates have little to do with anything that matters and only has become a series of low impact train wrecks. The best use of the debates is to give fodder to the late night comedy shows and SNL. Shouldn't our political system be educational and useful? Is anyone actually swayed by the debates? I am sure they are, and I think we need debates. In this cycle, the people clearly know that neither candidate is a good choice for the country. Unfortunately, the debates in 2016 are an opportunity for candidates and their VP picks to try to show that the other candidate has more dirty laundry than themselves. No one I know is picking Trump or Clinton for the merits of their candidacy. Only because the fear of what will happen if the other candidate is elected.
I live in Ohio, where anyone who follows politics knows that Ohio is the political capital of the US during election cycles. I have never seen so few yard signs. The few that do exist are for local candidates. In a way, I am happy about that. In another, I am disappointed with the fact that in political Ohio, no one wants to vote "For" someone. It is almost unfortunate that I cannot simply put an "X" beside the candidates I don't want. I will be voting, and I have to vote for someone. But I don't want to vote "for" anyone who has a chance of winning this election. I know this happens for people in every election, but if you believe the polls, you know what I am saying is correct. This time around, no one wants either choice. No debate will change this.
No comments:
Post a Comment