Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ
Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ
By Jon Rappoport
We are approaching the 2016 Presidential debates. Hillary and Trump.
So I want to remind you of another time, another debate format, another capacity of the public mind. Way back when.
Consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.
But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format—get this: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.
The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.
Those were debates. No moderator. The men talked. And talked.
They weren’t asked questions.
They didn’t interrupt each other with insults and wise cracks.
They didn’t shift from issue to issue.
And when they were done in each town, denizens of the media weren’t around to weigh in on how “Presidential” they sounded and looked.
Current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:
“During my remarks in the next ninety minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”
There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.
And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.
After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.
How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debated, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas had, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”
If either candidate had been unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely have become obvious.
How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.
People wonder whether Hillary can get from her van to the podium without a golf cart and three assistants. Forget about it. This would be seven debates in three weeks, during which she would speak for a total of 630 minutes.
That would be real.
She and Trump would have to lay out their positions in full.
The public would have to pay attention. And if they couldn’t or wouldn’t, so be it. Maybe next time they would.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a grotesque side-show that has taken center stage.
The point is to aim high and force things.
Bring back meaningful debate.
Get used to the long form again.
Push this nation up, not down.
I would certainly like to see Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly compelled to analyze each of seven full debates. That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Even more thrilling, let Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, do the full seven debates against, well, anyone. The Libertarians are supposed to be true intellectuals. Well, let’s see IQ on parade, as their leading nitwit engages on an issue of vital interest. Then cut up his presentation and make a sit-com out of it.
Let’s have a few dozen intrepid college professors tell their classes: “We’re going to take apart all seven, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas-type debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Piece by piece, step by step. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about ‘being triggered’ or ‘needing safe spaces’. If you can’t handle it, you get an F for the course. If you know nothing about traditional logical fallacies, you’d better bone up quickly, because I have a feeling we’re going to be exploring those fallacies. And don’t bother feeding me vapid generalities and slogans when you write your papers. You’re on the hook. I expect you to be alert and smart. If that’s beyond your capacity, you shouldn’t be here. Go back to high school or middle school or wherever it was you checked out of your education. Play time is over. Whining is over. This is college…”
Filed under: Uncategorized 
Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years. http://nomorefakenews.com/
Source: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/hillary-trump-debates-resurrection-of-iq/
