The best parts of last week’s Presidential debate were the parts when the candidates simply talked back and forth with each other. In my opinion, this is far better way of revealing a person’s true beliefs and plans than allowing them fixed amounts of time to repeat their campaign slogans.
Whatever else you want to say about it, Trump’s penchant for constantly interrupting did allow for some lively back-and-forth. I thought both Trump and Clinton were at their best when they were actually talking to each other. When Clinton would speak uninterrupted, she tended to fall back on generic stump speech phrases and slogans. When Trump would speak uninterrupted–or, more accurately, uninterrupting–he tended to become incoherent or lose focus and start talking about irrelevant issues.
The best line of the night was when Trump, ostensibly responding to a question about his tax returns, gave a laundry list of problems with the country’s infrastructure, concluding by saying the government didn’t have money because it was squandered by politicians like Clinton. She retorted, “Or maybe it’s because you haven’t paid Federal taxes for many years.”
Clinton’s line was short, to-the-point, and it hit home. Trump should take lessons from Clinton on the value of brevity. A simple response like that is much better than Trump’s lengthy, rambling and often repetitious monologues that seem like mini-speeches.
That’s an interesting idea. I felt like Lester Holt lost control of the debate, but I’m not sure if it’s possible to control Trump.
Yeah, Trump pretty much resists all efforts to control him–including from his own side.
Let Jerry Springer moderate, toss out a question and let them scream and yell. A few bouncers to keep them from getting physical.
Yes, I like that idea, too.