This non-debate just reconfirms what we already know: Leftists, progressives and Democrats control the agenda. That’s why they control the government, even when they lose the occasional election.
This presidential election is rigged, but not in the way the term normally implies. It’s kind of like controlling the outcome of a test, not by knowing the answers ahead of time, but by writing the questions. Consider the questions asked by the so-called moderator in this absurd parody: Why would anyone want to lower taxes on the rich? Why did Trump raise the birther issue before Barack Obama refused to produce his birth certificate? Why can’t we see Donald Trump’s tax return? How will either future president create jobs? What will either president do about racial relations?
All of these questions rely on the premise that government can and should control everything. Earth to media establishment (for the 100,000th time): Government does not do any of these things.
Fact-checking? How about these facts, Hillary?
Race relations only improve in spite of government, and have arguably worsened over the last few years thanks to Obama’s egging-on Black Lives Matter and other racist, anarchist thugs.
Politicians do not create jobs. Hillary Clinton and her ilk undercut and ultimately destroy the potential for economic growth because, as Donald Trump correctly pointed out a few times, the endless red tape of regulation and confiscation of taxation makes it a hell of a lot harder for the private sector to create jobs.
Throughout the whole spectacle, Hillary Clinton smirked, sneered, called Donald Trump a racist and implied he was crazy. This is what progressives do. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. They have no answers to fundamental questions about economics, defense and individual rights. So they do best when the test is rigged with questions they like.
After the debate, I talked with a few Trump supporters about their disappointment in his performance. The questions played to the advantage of a socialist advocate of expanding government, and worked to the disadvantage of anyone who was something other than that. Trump, to his credit, at least fights back. Republicans never do that, but Trump did. I don’t happen to agree with Trump on every position he holds, but — unlike Clinton — he does appear to want this campaign to be about something. Hillary will have none of it.
The debate should have been an actual debate. It won’t happen by changing the format. It will only happen by changing the questions.
The questions should go like this: “What, in your view, is the proper function of the federal government? In other words, what should the federal government be doing, and what should it not be doing? And what steps would you advocate for reducing or expanding the things government does now?”
“What is the purpose of taxation? Why is progressive taxation justified more than, say, a flat tax? Or if you don’t agree it is, then why?”
“Should the government be spending more or less on defense than it currently is? Why or why not?”
“Has the government response to ISIS and Islamic attacks against Americans at home been effective? Why or why not? What else can be done?”
“What limits should be placed on government when it comes to spying on citizens for the sake of national security?”
“Does the First Amendment apply, even when you offend someone personally, including their religion?”
“Is the right to own a gun what the Second Amendment states, or does it say something different?”
I heard no questions like this. Instead, I heard questions that invited the vapid responses we heard from Hillary Clinton. I didn’t agree or disagree with a single thing Hillary Clinton said the whole time. I normally disagree with her on just about everything, so this tells you something about the debate. The closest I came to disagreeing was when she commented that people critical of Islam want to “push Muslims away.” But wait a minute… isn’t that what Muslims are currently doing by attacking people who disagree with them?
The entire debate played to the “strengths” of a candidacy … about nothing, which is exactly the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton is running. It fits with her apparent strategy of just quietly coasting her way to the presidency. Did anyone notice the hard look on her face when asked the ridiculous question at the end, as to whether the candidates would support the outcome of the election, regardless of who wins? Watch that one again. Look at the ugliness in her expression. I found it truly chilling. Do you really think she meant it when she said that she would accept the outcome of the election, even if she loses, and that this election “really isn’t about us”?
If you do believe it, then I suppose you’re voting for Hillary Clinton. Regardless, I doubt this debate charade changed a thing.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!