ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Overhauling presidential debates

| Friday, April 1, 2016, 8:57 p.m.

The process by which we elect our president borders on insanity. Republicans bring to light issues ranging from our national debt to the eroding of our freedoms and liberty and offer commonsense solutions to our problems. But who listens or cares? I'm guess less than 1 percent of voters has a clue as to how much a trillion dollars is or what effect zero-percent interest rates have on the economy.

Democrats, on the other hand, simply claim they are the party of the little guy. They claim that Republicans are all racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes who want to destroy Social Security, pollute the air and throw your granny in a wheelchair over a cliff as their solution to health care. Who listens or cares? Everyone. It's a no-brainer to make silly accusations and excite a dumbed-down population, presenting voters with an offer they can't refuse: Utopia.

Let us as a nation demand better. For the 10 Sundays preceding the presidential election, the two candidates should engage in a two-hour debate with no moderators. They ask each other questions to be answered thoroughly and completely according to their ability. Each week would feature a different highly relevant topic. Since PBS is taxpayer-funded, they would televise the debates at no charge. All TV outlets, network and cable, would televise the debates in prime time as a public service.

Let's educate the electorate and get the money out of elections by stopping the insanity.

Rudolph Puchan Sr.

Latrobe

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me