PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES-NO MODERATORS-USE A TIME KEEPER ONLY.

THE  KUHNS REPORT

Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

This last Republican debate was a complete disaster . I was glad to see many of the Republican candidates turn the tables on those lousy NBC moderators. Who were they anyway? I would venture to say that most of the viewing audience didn't even know who they were, or ever heard of them before the debate. It looks like they wanted to be wanna-be moderators but their questions were so skewed, insulting and inappropriate these so-called moderators came off as big, big. losers. Shame on NBC.

Following the debate the candidates and the Republican big wigs got together and decided to   boycott any further debate sessions with NBC.

Here's my opinion on what a debate should be like:

First and foremost - - NO "gotcha" questions. The American people want to hear a debate on specific issues, not "What is your greatest weakness? as the first question out of the starting gate at the debate.

What I and probably most voters would like to see is relevant questions put to the candidates. This last Republican debate was to be on the subject matter of "Economics." But due to the  sleazy way the  question format was put together there was "NO" discussion or debate on economics.

If it were up to me to construct a debate format I would probably start with: NO moderators AT ALL. I would have one person acting as a timing referee/judge. That persons task would be to see that each candidate adhered to their allotted time.  If any candidates failed to keep within their time limit the referee/judge would have the ability to shut off  the candidates microphone.

Each candidate would have the SAME amount of speaking time, (i.e.)-  fifteen minutes, eighteen minutes, twenty minutes. No one would be short changed. Each debate date would set particular focus on one specific issue and/or subject matter. For example:

Debate #1: Economics; Debate #2: Foreign Policy; Debate #3: Domestic Policy; Debate #4: Immigration, etc. etc. until all debate dates are completed.

Each candidate would be allowed their specific amount of time to speak during each debate to present that particular subject/issue. However, the candidate could use his or her allotted time for anything they wanted to  talk about. If they wanted to bash another candidate, that's okay. If they wanted to use their time slot to conduct their opening or closing statements, that's okay too, It's their time. But when their time is up - -it's on to the next candidate. So I would think it would be most beneficial for each candidate to cover the topic of the night and express their views, policy and how they are going to tackle a particular situation. If in fact one of the candidates attacked a challenger in his/her allotted time frame the candidate that was bashed or attacked could use some of their time responding if they felt the need. But I would think most candidates would want to stay on the topic up for debate.  If the candidate wishes to squander their time foolishly, that's their choice. When their time is up, IT's up. Next speaker, please.

Personally, I think it would be nice if the candidates would tell the  audience and viewers what they're going to do for us voters. Stay away from phrases like: "We in America need ---"  Or, "I would like to see ---" ; "I hope we can---"; Or, such things like: "We should've -"-; "We could've --"; "We would've--". Also, stop: "I hope we  --"

Hell, every voter knows the government could've done something; should've done something; would've done something. But they never do. As far as the "hope and "change" catch phrase - -Come On! Every voter and citizen in America "hopes" for something  and wishes something will and/or can "change."So, I suggest the candidates lay off these babbling worn out phrase lines and  start to use straight talk.

Example: Immigration: Candidate:  If I am elected president "I will" build a wall along our Southern Border,  Or, I'm going to abolish the anchor baby policy. If that's what the candidate is going to do, then say it. Let the other candidates tell us what they will do on immigration. What's their plan? Is it different or the same?

Example: Smaller Government: Candidate; If I am elected president" I will" dissolve and eliminate these federal agencies (i.e., Dept. of Education, etc., (tell us each agency).

Example: Foreign Policy: Candidate: I "will" pull, all military troops out Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.--

The point being: Candidates should tell us voters what they're going to "DO", not what they "hope" to see. All of us "hope" for things. We voters want to hear "SPECIFICS" as to what the candidates  WILL DO if elected  president.

So, in summary: NO  moderators running the debates; only a timing judge/referee to move on to the next candidate; each candidate has the same amount of allotted time to speak and present his/her case; if any candidate refuses to stop speaking when their time has expired, the timing judge/referee  has the ability to shut off their microphone; each candidate can use their allotted time as they see fit -- they can use the time to present their case, rebut other challengers criticism or bash another challenger. Their choice. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com