As the Nation enters the 2024 Presidential Primary campaign season, many Americans with a sense of our heritage will thoughtfully listen to the famous “Lincoln Douglas” debates of the late 1850s as a reason to continue the ritual this year. An open discussion forum seems to be the “correct” one. However, an intellectually honest assessment of the debates of recent decades clearly demonstrates the opposite.
Understanding this requires a deeper examination of the two original 1858 debates between US Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, compared to all the ways in which the so-called “debates” have degenerated and perverted since of seeds Finally, it becomes obvious that the sincere and dignified intentions of Lincoln and Douglas will hardly be served by the modern venue. The saddest thing of all is that this is entirely by design.
With the United States on the brink of Civil War, Lincoln and Douglas believed that the public's interests would be best served by an honest and open exchange of ideas. By highlighting their contrasting viewpoints, an informed citizenry could make the best choice as to who to put in office. Of course, both candidates had to have sufficient integrity to present an honest case to the voting “jury.” With little or no other means of informing the public, this site proved invaluable and was eventually adopted as standard fare for presidential campaigns.
Much has changed since then. With the advent of the widespread dissemination of news, first through the press and then through radio and finally television, a much larger portion of the American electorate had access to information of aspiring candidates. The inevitable proliferation of campaign ads in the mass media ensured that candidates could get their messages across to the public. However, the “debates” continued. Meanwhile, something else happened in society that completely changed the perceived benefits.
From the immediate aftermath of World War II, the American media began to drift leftward, embracing one precept of Marxist/globalist ideology after another. This became increasingly evident in all aspects of network broadcasting, from the simple “one liners” of prime-time sitcoms to the heavily slanted presentations of current events in the “news” nocturnal By 1960, the television industry had learned enough to use visual cues to swing the favor of its desired candidates and away from those opposed.
Self employed or employer? Find out how to claim a MAJOR tax credit
It is no coincidence that while radio audiences, polled after Nixon and Kennedy debated, insisted that Nixon had won, those watching the event on television concluded the exact opposite. The lighting and camera angles that portrayed Nixon as “gloomy,” in contrast to Kennedy, clearly had an impact. Also, Nixon was prone to sweating when under pressure. Thus, this was subtly but consistently highlighted to the television audience, who responded accordingly, even if they were not aware of it.
Since then, the entire format of the so-called “debate” has degenerated to where the current installments are a shameful caricature of the original of old. Every absurdity that leftists, who dominate the mainstream media, can inject into events becomes predictable and completely tedious. Again, this is absolutely intentional. Given the ugly reality of the leftist agenda, the last thing their minions want is a properly informed public. So everything is done to change minds by presenting empty leftist promises of collectivist utopia, while suppressing any truth from conservatives.
To begin with, there is no real debate. A “moderator” picks and chooses which questions to ask which candidates, and is quick to interfere and stop as he sees fit. Often during the Republican Primary season, candidates are presented with a group “Yes/No” question and asked to answer with a show of hands. Again, this has nothing to do with ensuring an informed audience, but rather a means of belittling candidates who, as potential leaders of the Free World, are forced to defer to the moderator as a student might for to a school teacher.
Likewise, too much nonsense is made about which candidate verbally “tells off” another, or who has the best “one liners,” as if these qualities somehow reflect the demands of running a country or make policy with world leaders on issues. of international consequence. This inanity raises the question of whether the networks might try to add a “presidential swimsuit competition” to the upcoming “debates.”
The occasions on which the “moderator” brazenly takes sides (always against the most conservative candidate and in favor of the left) have increased dramatically in recent years. During the 2012 Obama/Romney debate (and without suggesting that Romney, the “Republican” candidate, was in any way a “conservative”), Romney was surprised that a point he made was directly challenged by “moderate” Candy Crowley, who had a mysteriously printed publication in his hand, for which she refuted him. Neither Obama nor any totally fake Democrat has ever faced similar treatment.
Of course, this all escalated in the 2016 candidacy of President Trump, who often found himself trying to counter some left-wing platitude from Hillary while being interrupted incessantly by the “moderator.” Clearly, any idea of informing the public was totally superseded by the intention of the Deep State and its fake news lackeys to promote the leftist/Democrat narrative, while thoroughly suppressing anything right-wing.
Things got much worse in 2020. By then the “debates” had turned into a truly pathetic circus, due to Joe Biden's obvious inability to understand a direct question or give anything resembling an answer consistent On each occasion it was clear that the entire effort of the leftists at the top was first to continually cover for Biden and then to prevent President Trump from actually making his case. And all of this raises a fundamental difference between the left and the right, which will ultimately make any real debate between them impossible.
The ideology of the left was completely founded on the lies of Marx. Therefore, the leftist agenda can only be advanced through lies. So the biggest threat to that is any truthful analysis and discussion of who the leftists are and what they really want for America. Meanwhile, those on the right can only benefit from honest discourse. It follows that all leftists with any ability to influence the situation will always seek to mock and suppress the truth, in order to clear the ground for the most efficient propagation of approved lies.
Another pillar of “Politics as usual” bites the dust! America owes President Trump a huge debt of gratitude for finally proving that a candidate can make his case without having to genuflect at the left-wing altar of Fake News or the bogus debate circus. This despite all the feigned indignation and outrage from left-wing Democrats and establishment Republicans, as if abandoning some sacred constitutional obligation. He can reach out to the American people and trust their ability to see through the lies and manipulations, choosing for their own good and the good of the country.
It is not a democracy, 'a republic, if you can keep it' | Understanding the United States Government
Prepare for anything: Introducing the emergency medical kit for any crisis
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Red Voice Media. contact with us for guidelines for submitting your own comment.
English 
Español de Venezuela 