At the time of typing, it’s a few hours until the first presidential debate, between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Drumpf/Miller/Barron/von Clownstick/The Notorious W.L.B. Oh, for them to both be fitted up to a lie detector for the whole show, or maybe a few polygraphs, after some explode due to overload.
With Hillary, there was the non-existent Bosnian sniper fire and assorted Clinton Foundation and email shadiness but with Drumpf, he’s the world heavyweight champion of lying. He recalls Hunter S. Thompson, saying of Richard Nixon in ‘The Rum Diary’: “He lies like he breathes…”. Drumpf treats everything as satire so that allows him to say whatever he sees fit at that particular moment; talking out of both sides of his tiny, little mouth all the time, on the basis that everyone will hear what they want to hear; and, all in all, ‘weathervaning’ like crazy, as if such a contraption has been hit with a stray bullet in a cowboy western. It’s scary and quite amazing to observe how shamelessly brazen he is. My family members tell me that, when I was very little, I was caught eating a chocolate cake and when accused, I turned around – with chocolate all over my mouth – and denied it. That, in essence, is how the short-fingered vulgarian has run his presidential campaign: total denial and total, scorched-earth lying in the face of obvious, glaring facts to the contrary.
In 2012, CNN’s Candy Crowley moderated an Obama/Romney debate and she made the “mistake” of taking her job seriously and corrected/fact-checked Mitt Romney for one of his fictitious assertions in real time but it seems that we can’t have that anymore; we can’t have people being told that politicians lie, and so the danger is, is that these two tap-dancers will be able to get away with all types of fairy-tales in pursuit of the White House. Understandably, the Clinton campaign’s much more concerned, due to Drumpf’s epic volume of lying. It might be akin to trying to shovel smoke to correct the short-fingered vulgarian’s tsunami of lies as they swallow everyone up.
Prior to being a stitch-up between the Republican and Democratic parties, the presidential debates were under the auspices of the League of Women Voters. So, it’ll never happen nowadays, but if the debates were still out and away from tight corporate control, the two candidates should, before it begins, be asked to place their hand on the bible (a smaller, ‘fun-sized’ bible for Drumpf, obviously, due to his short fingers) and asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Religion, or the lack thereof, in running for U.S. president is still a bit of a ‘third rail’. Hence the Democratic party’s secret gaming against Bernie Sanders for a perceived lack of religious faith; or Hillary trying to run to Obama’s right in 2008 on God ‘n’ Guns; or the short-fingered vulgarian’s hilariously disingenuous: “Nobody reads the Bible more than me”. Okay, so if people aren’t going to be either brave enough or foolhardy enough to try to deal with the tidal wave of untruths coming from Drumpf’s tiny, little mouth over the course of a debate, do it retrospectively and let him, and Hillary, risk looking like criminals in front of the country and the whole world.
A debate won’t be a courtroom but it is the court of public opinion; and that public opinion might have some great bearing on U.S. courts and law in the future, what with the next president appointing one, maybe two, maybe three supreme court justices. Also, Drumpf is looking to make it easier for man-child clowns like himself to stamp down on freedom of speech and ‘open up’ libel laws so courts could get over run with more bullies using their money as a stick to beat journalists.
Presidential candidates talking about the bible and how important religion is to them? Prove it. Swear on the bible before a debate. You won’t go to jail for up to five years as a result of lying but people can make their own deductions after the press fact-checks, after the candidates themselves swore an oath to be truthful. See if they can avoid the trap of committing the de facto crime of perjury….before one of them gets on with the usual crimes next January: of invading and wars of aggression; of mass surveillance; of destabilisation of other countries; of drone-bombing: the usual, egregious shtick. Alternatively, of course, they (and future presidential candidate debaters) can always try to tell the truth instead.