Foxhunting author John Harris Anderson suggests:
For the next debate (if there is one), I suggest they choose a huntsman as the moderator and fit the candidates with shock collars. When one of them babbles, skirts, dwells, runs heel, or riots on the wrong scent…ZAP!
Thomas Neese (on the wrong side) replies:
You’ll need rat shot for Trump
————————
Actually, though the use of shock collars for training bird dogs is routine these days, I’ve never actually seen them used on fox hounds. However, it is perfectly true that obstreperous hounds who go off on deer and don’t listen do, from time to time, get peppered (at a long distance) with .22 rat shot (what we up North call: .22 bird shot).
ruralcounsel
May I make a modest suggestion?
Don’t use battery-powered shock collars, but something with a little more “bite?” So that it might take a minute or so to recover, letting the opponent have time to really delve into a question.
Oh, and one for the moderator as well. Let me control that one. And that one can be such that by the 5th shock, it starts doing permanent damage.
OneGuy
The problem with all the presidential debates in the last 40 years has been the moderators and the “rules”. This isn’t a debate it is a show put on by a biased media.
A proper debate should allow each of them two minutes to answer legitimate questions without interruption by the other debater OR the moderator. Then allow each one minute to refute the other’s statement. The moderator has no business questioning what a candidate says or questioning it’s truth. Let them speak, let the other debater point out their error if there is one and let the people hear their answer and judge it on it’s merits.
I would also suggest that the questions be compiled from each candidate and not a newsman/moderator. His job should simply be as a timekeeper and question reader. And each question should be known to each candidate at least 24 hours in advance. “Gotcha” questions don’t serve the public they only serve the moderators ego or publisher.
Mike-SMO
Most people miss the point of “performance art”. Slo-Joe had a script prepared by his handlers. The Presaident wernt in “cold” to show comprehension and mental agility, sort of “Stand Up” politics. There was no chance of a “debate”.
The President observes the forces in-play and makes the deal happen in a way that is most favorable for the U.S. The President handled Slo-Joe which was, I think, the point of the “show”. Putin, the Palestinians/Muslim Brotherhood and the IRGC probably understood that theme quite well.
I don’t think that there is a way to deconstruct the Democratic media mythology in 1 or 2 minute sessions, especially with a hostile “moderator”. The President showed “The Art of the Deal” and he was dealing.
Please Leave a Comment!