We have been bombarded by presidential debates ad nauseam. Why does anyone think that the sheer number of them is even necessary?
It's a misnomer to even call these gatherings a debate. Most of the time, instead of answering the moderators' questions, the candidates simply launch into their standard stump speeches, where they disperse their same old, tired talking points.
So, we really aren't learning anything new, except on the Republican side, where we learn that their candidates' idea of how to act presidential is to behave like 10-year-olds and what a three-ring circus looks like. Since when do name-calling, personal attacks amount to a debate? At least give Hillary and Bernie credit for conducting a civil discourse during their debates.
I think that two, or possibly three, debates should be quite enough for the public to decide on a candidate to support. Any more beyond that seems to be designed solely for television ratings and keeping the talking-head political pundits employed.
Brian Marsh
ADVERTISEMENT
Brainerd
