Trump would easily win, because British people love Winston Churchill, and Trump is so similar.
I don’t think so. Churchill knew how to turn a phrase, Trump has no idea what a phrase is. Churchill was skilled at providing sound bites, many of which are collected in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, while all Trump can do is provide word salad which will only be collected in Bartlett’s in a derisory way (“Cofveve,” “Hamberders”). Churchill was definitive: “We will do [whatever] by [whenever],” and did it. Trump says, “I’ll do X In two weeks,” and never does it.
Besides, British people have no vote or say in an American election. They’re the perfect audience; they can look at the issues neutrally.
Let the BBC host any debate.
Or, in an early appeal to Gen Alpha, a toilet with a cutout of Convict 1 in its bowl.
With hookers! And blackjack!
They’ve not been particularly neutral under the Tories, but now there’s a new regime in place they may be more carefully neutral while the Government considers its option.
In fact, forget the audience, the chair and the blackjack!
James Carville has suggested that Kamala Harris should agree to debate Trump in his safe space (FoxNews)----but that she should agree to do it ONLY if he agrees to September 18.
Which is his sentencing date.
So he goes in to the sentencing during the day, and comes out with an ankle monitor to wear to the debate (also, presumably, in New York City).
It’s not a bad idea—she would already have demolished him at the ABC debate on September 10, or had a prime-time forum that night at which she could present herself.
But she should agree to the 9/18 thing only if there’s no audience and also if there’s a split-screen for some reputable news organization to fact-check whatever the FoxNews moderators might be spewing.
I know this is a pipe dream, but wouldn’t it be nice if the candidates themselves were fact-checked in real time? So when Trump spews something about how we were energy independent during his administration and now we’re not, one of the moderators would respond with the fact that now we are exporting more oil than ever before in our history. IOW, tell him (and Harris as well) when they are, in fact, lying.
Oh, yes. I think we’d all love to see that.
As to why the networks hosting the debates don’t provide this–I think the usual excuse is ‘fact-checking is the responsibility of the debaters, not of the moderators.’ And practically speaking, to deal with Trump’s firehose of lies, the debate would have to be structured like ‘Trump speaks for 30 seconds then we show fact-checking for 10 minutes then Trump gets to speak for another 30 seconds then another 10 minutes of fact checking,’ etc.
It would be even cooler if they played the Jeopardy wrong answer sound before correcting them.
“BZZZZT. Wrong!”
I’m in favor of a shock collar regarding fact checks.
Even better, an audio clip of John McLaughlin (or Dana Carvey)
Dead bear found in Central Park with a bike on top of it (not recently).
Guesses as to what happened?
RFK thought it would be funny.
Apparently, it was from a hunting trip, but he was about to leave town and didn’t want it in his car while he was gone. Dumping it in central park was obviously the logical thing to do here.
Isn’t that the main reason his casinos failed, because he wouldn’t allow even a game with black in the name?
Here’s another pipe dream for you. Imagine Trump as a president who must face Question Time like the UK’s prime minister must.
I don’t think there is a Jeopardy wrong answer sound, just Ken (or once, Alex) telling the contestant they’re incorrect.
Please, no. I already lived through four years of it.
For no reason in particular, I was assuming (because it’s what I heard in my head) that Alessan was thinking of The Price Is Right sound.
Although I did run across a “wrong answer” buzzer attributed to Jeopardy, but it’s been so long since I watched it, I don’t know if it’s actually from the show.
There is none, at least in the modern incarnation. The host just says “no.” Which makes sense; with all the questions they have to get through, every saved second matters.
I laughed, but the biggest contribution to his casinos going under was he didn’t want to give free shit to a whale who was having a good day. Word got around, and the whales stopped going to his casinos. Little old ladies playing the slots may pay the bills, but the whales bring the profits.
That’s what I was going for.
Interesting. I was wondering why it failed myself. My guess was that he was extravagant in all the places that didn’t count, like making sure that everything was shining with fake gold but neglecting basic maintenance, or having a similarly-extravagant dining room with mediocre food. The flaw in my hypothesis, of course, is that he doesn’t pay his contractors’ bills.