Tags Posts tagged with "presidential debate"

presidential debate

METRO photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but I just received a copy of the draft of the debate rules that were sent to the two older gentlemen who would like to be president from 2024 to 2028.

Now, no one was supposed to see these, but my friend’s nephew’s babysitter’s neighbor happened to be taking out his recycling and he noticed a piece of paper with official presidential letter head on it. I’m going to share a few ideas that almost made it into the debate.

First, the two candidates considered the possibility of a brief nap. Each of them would have had a pillow and a small bed, just off stage, where they could recover and restore their vim and vigor.

Second, they were considering whether to allow a translator for each of them. That way, when one of them misspeaks and uses the wrong name or mispronounces a word, a country, a language or a religion, the translator could auto correct for the moment.

Third, they each considered bringing a Pinocchio onstage. When the other person spoke, the nonspeaking candidate could demonstrate the perceived inaccuracy of the other person’s comments by extending the nose of their puppet. 

Fourth, they each considered at least 30 seconds when they could appeal directly and exclusively to their donors, explaining why they needed more money and how they would best use it.

Fifth, they were each given the opportunity to ignore one question openly and ask themselves a better one that they themselves could then answer.

Sixth, they wanted the chance to stump the other with their spectacular knowledge of the world. Each person could ask the other to spell the name of a particular country and then demonstrate their world prowess by pointing to that country on an unlabeled map.

Seventh, they could each choose a way to demonstrate their intellectual prowess by choosing from the following list: name as many digits of pi as possible, name the former presidents in order, share the names of some important Supreme Court decisions, or name as many national parks as they could.

Eighth, each candidate would have the opportunity, in a minute or less, to share a lesson they learned in the classroom that they believe has come in particularly handy in their lives.

Ninth, each candidate would have to name at least five people who aren’t relatives and who are alive who they think might be great presidents one day.

Tenth, before they offered their own positions, each president would have a chance to do their best impersonation of the other man. For 90 seconds, each of them could pretend to be the candidate for the rival party.

Eleventh, in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation, each one had to say something genuinely supportive and nice about the other person, and it couldn’t be about the person’s family.

Twelfth, each participant would need to spend at least 30 seconds sharing his thoughts on RFK Jr.’s candidacy.

Thirteenth, each candidate would have to indicate how he would be president for the entire United States and not just his constituency. Each candidate would be required to speak directly to the supporters of the other candidate, suggesting why people who have made up their minds should change their vote.

Fourteenth, both candidates would need to discuss something other than his rival as the greatest threat to the future of the United States.

Fifteenth, each candidate should discuss why, despite their frustration with the press that they think favors the other side, they still support the First Amendment. They would also need to share their views on the value of a free press, emphasizing in particular its ability to hold politicians accountable.

Sixteenth, the winner of the debate, as determined by an independent panel of disinterested observers, would circle the stage while sharing some dance moves of his choice.

Seventeenth, regardless of the outcome of the debate, the candidates agree to shake each other’s hands, to smile and to wish their competitor, their competitor’s family, and the country well.

Voters wait outside the first Presidential debate at Hofstra University. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

By Fr. Francis Pizzarelli

It amazes me how socially indifferent so many young people are today. Every semester I take an informal survey on how many of my students are registered to vote; how many know who is running for elected office and what his or her social platform is about. The number of students who are not registered is most disturbing. Probably a little more than half are registered to vote and less than 20 percent of those students are planning to vote. Most of them have no idea what the candidates stand for.

However, the most shocking issue was their indifference. Many expressed that voting was a waste of their time because their vote does not count. A number of students expressed that our political system is so corrupt and inept, they wanted nothing to do with it. They expressed frustration that from their perspective government only paid attention to special interest groups and not to the real needs of their constituents.

As we continued this conversation, it became apparent to me that too many of our students are academically bankrupt when it comes to government, social policy and human affairs. Many of these students believe that special interest and community opinion on issues is shaped by what CNN or Fox News reports. Their lack of understanding of our political system is a poor reflection on our educational system. We definitely need to do more to educate and engage our students in our political process. They are our future leaders.

The debates this presidential election year were a disgrace. They were not true debates. Neither candidate really answered the questions posed within the time frame that was established. The moderators were too timid and did not keep the candidates on task. Thankfully “fact finders” clarified and corrected all the misleading and blatantly false statements that were made. Neither candidate made a strong case for his/her political agenda or what they really were going to do to change and transform America if elected president. Instead of watching two well-educated candidates debate the serious issues facing our nation, we heard countless ad hominem attacks directed to each other. At times, it was very entertaining but lacked any real substance or helpful information.

One of my graduate students asked if those who run for public office are the best that we have to offer! It’s an interesting question. Another question was why don’t the best of the best choose public service as a possible career? Look at what we do to those who choose to serve our nation. Our focus is never on their ability to lead and serve and the political agenda they advocate for; but rather we focus on exploiting their family and every misstep or imperfection they possess. Why would anyone in their right mind want to subject their family to that kind of public scrutiny that is genuinely unconscionable? If we want the best of the best to lead us, then we must treat them with dignity and respect. We must work harder at attacking the issues and not the person. As a nation we deserve the best to lead us.

Fr. Pizzarelli, SMM, LCSW-R, ACSW, DCSW, is the director of Hope House Ministries in Port Jefferson.

Supporters for both candidates are out early on debate day at Hofstra. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

By Victoria Espinoza

A historic political event, which carried what felt like an unprecedented level of uncertainty, took place close to home Sept. 26.

Hofstra University was the place to be, as thousands of reporters, protestors, students and politicians flocked to the Hempstead campus to witness a debate featuring the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in United States history and one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) were the main attraction, but there was so much more to be seen and heard on campus in the hours leading up to show time.

Major news outlets from all over the world covered the event.

The scene was already buzzing around 10 a.m. Businesses set up booths to hand out free debate gear, and MSNBC, Fox News and CNN were already warming up their outdoor stages for a full day of coverage.

Some students carried signs with Clinton and Trump’s name, while others raised humorous, homemade signs with messages like “Mom, please come pick me up, I’m scared.” Freshmen to seniors visited the photo booths and interview stands set up, and seemed enthused and excited to be a part of the historic day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4EhseIuAE&feature=youtu.be

One of the more popular activities of the day was an inflatable, replica White House for students to jump around in. In the early morning it lit up the parking lot and seemed like a spot students would enjoy a carefree few minutes after the stations focused on national issues were seen.

But soon enough, the inflatable White House became a backdrop for a serious scene.

Dozens of #BlackLivesMatter supporters stood silently arm in arm, in front of the White House. Observers around the area were silent as well.

It was a reminder early on that this debate was not just an exciting event, but also would spur a serious conversation about the state of America, and how it we will be led into the future.

Bernard Coles, a senior at Hofstra, said he wasn’t confident the issues important to #BlackLivesMatter supporters would come up at the debate.

“We’ve been talking nonstop about Brangelina for the past week so I’m not very optimistic about it coming up but I hope so,” he said in an interview. He also said he feels Clinton best represents the #BlackLivesMatter cause.

Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

“I feel a thousand times more confident in the direction Hillary Clinton would take the country. She’s been trying to listen to us and support us and represent us for decades and I don’t understand why people are forgetting that.”

Although #BlackLivesMatter was not directly referenced Monday night, moderator Lester Holt asked a question entirely focused on race relations. Both candidates talked about solutions they have proposed to help improve the criminal justice system, while also touching on their personal relationships with ethnic communities.

About a half-mile from the center point of campus was the free speech tent, an area heavily guarded by police where supporters of lesser-known presidential candidates Jill Stein (G) and Gary Jonhson (L) protested their exclusion from the event.

Entrance to the free speech tent required passage through a metal detector and a search of belongings. Officers on horseback lined the street, and at the tent, a man dressed in a polar bear costume spoke out on global warming, and an “election frog” croaked “Rig it, rig it.”

Chris Roy, a Stein supporter, said it was a disgrace that she was not allowed into the debate arena.

“I’m thoroughly disgusted and disturbed and furious,” Roy said in an interview. He questioned why two parties are allowed to make the rules for other minor parties, and said Trump and Clinton should be speaking up to allow the other candidates in.

“She [Stein] is the only one that is in the trenches fighting with the people,” he said. “They’re [Clinton and Trump] both just totally corrupt. They don’t speak out for open debates, which is awful. When you turn on the television all you see is Hillary and Trump.”

Stein has been the presidential nominee for the Green Party for the last two debates, and was escorted off the premises Monday after reportedly failing to present the necessary credentials.

Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

Like Stein, Johnson is not new to the presidential campaign circuit. He has been the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate for the last two elections.

Both candidates have been vocal about being denied the opportunity to debate.

Neither reached the 15-percent polling threshold on national surveys needed by the Commission on Presidential Debates to qualify.

Hofstra students throughout campus donned “Make America Great Again” hats and “I’m With Her” pins, and at the end of the night everyone argued over which candidate had the most success.

After leaving the scene of the debate, and walking out of what felt like a bunker, it seemed like all issues discussed during the day had been forgotten and all that mattered was Clinton and Trump’s performances.

Hofstra’s campus gave a voice to more than just the typical election season rhetoric, and helped remind a reporter like me that this election season is about so much more than just the two candidates who stood on the stage for 90 minutes.