It’s time to make a decision, you must choose. You need to hurry, you only have 450 days to do so and each day there may be more names in the number of choices.
Yes, I’m talking about the next presidential election. It appears we may have more candidates running for the top spot than there are members in the Senate (100). As the number of candidates continues to swell, we can only hope we won’t elect someone that spends hours reading nursery rhymes. It seems once elected there is no limit on what an elected official can do. I wonder if there is an I.Q. test for those running for office.
It’s amusing to watch the TV news people scramble trying to be the first to make the announcement of each newcomer. Maybe with so many to choose from we could elect a first and second choice, keeping the second choice person in the wings and available. Doing so would give us a chance to throw out the No. 1 choice if they act un-presidential and are not to our liking. We could then go to our second choice.
To determine the need to replace No. 1 with No. 2, we could simply take a poll. It appears the polls can be taken overnight because they change each morning. If you don’t believe how fast they change, look up Trump’s poll numbers three days in a row.
Speaking of Trump — and who isn’t? You may wonder how a man, who has filed numerous bankruptcies yet claims to be one of the richest men in the country, is going to handle our debts. I’ve asked a few people what they think of Trump and got mixed reviews. One said, “He’s great, he tells it like it is.” Another said, “An election with Trump involved will be like a circus, especially with the herd of elephants running.” Then a more serious response was, “If he runs on a third party ticket, he could throw the entire election off.” I think he knows that, thus his threats to the party. Remember when Perot ran in 1992 and received 19 percent of the vote? It really scrambled the entire election.
How can a group of candidates, seeking the highest office in the country, be split up to participate in a debate? Did that not show partiality? And discredit those who did not make the cut to prime time? If there was no way to include them all – there should not have been a debate.
Perhaps each candidate could be on stage, given a time limit, and asked a set of questions? If they cannot answer in the time frame allowed, move on to the next candidate. This would remove all the petty jabbing and squabbling between the candidates and focus on the issues, not the personalities. I suppose were it handled it in this manner, it would take too much time. If they eliminated the dialog after the event, telling us what we just witnessed, they might have the time.
It would be refreshing to see a debate where the candidates tell us what they believe our country’s biggest problems are, why they can solve them, and how. If they believe there are multiple problems, they could relate them in order of importance.
Personality conflicts, and outright challenges between moderators and participants in the debate, need to be removed allowing the issues to become the focus. Give those of us viewing the event something to consider besides petty comments repeated on every news station the next day that have no bearing on whom should be our next president.
As I see it, if the Republican Party is truly concerned about Mr. Trump’s ideas, shouldn’t they stop making him the only one being talked about?
Now that the first debates are over, I’m confused — aren’t you? I’m sorry to say I missed the first debate aired in the middle of the day. I was able to view the analyst reports and agree that Carly Fiorina was the winner. She seemed very qualified on all issues and gave all the right responses.
As I tuned in what I’m calling, “The main event,” it began with a singling out of Mr. Trump. He was ready and handled his questions well even pointing out that Mr. Paul was not paying attention. The aftermath of one of his remarks may have a lasting effect but the media keeps saying that and being proven wrong.
I thought Ben Carson was impressive and was spot on with his answers. His closing statement was humorous regarding the “half a brain” comment, digging those in Washington politics. When he said, “Freedom is not free, we must fight for it every day,” he drew thunderous applause.
I’m still non-partisan and will vote for the person I believe is best qualified to do the job. I have to admit I see no serious challenger in the Donkey party.