Abstract
The first Presidential debate did not seem to have created much effect on the undecided voters, but the mainstream media would have you thought otherwise. There are two more debates to come but if the debates would still stay at substanceless level then voters would be vulnerable to money controlled media and could not make a good decision. Moreover, a candidate especially a career politician could not be pinned down on any policy with these meatless debates. In this article, we suggest to voters to use a “Ten Dollar Challenges A Million Dollar Ad” strategy to pin down candidates on their positions and future actions.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The first Presidential debate did not seem to have created much effect on the undecided voters, but the mainstream media would have you thought otherwise. There are two more debates to come but if the debates would still stay at substanceless level then voters would be vulnerable to money controlled media and could not make a good decision. Moreover, a candidate especially a career politician could not be pinned down on any policy with these meatless debates. In this article, we suggest to voters to use a “Ten Dollar Challenges A Million Dollar Ad” strategy to pin down candidates on their positions and future actions.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The first 2016 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took place on September 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Since the two candidates are both from the New York State, it is logical that the first debate took place in New York State even though the Republican Party and Donald Trump know very well that New York State is a democratic state and all its universities are liberal leaning towards Democratic Party. Hofstra University is no exception. Be that it might, the first debate took place smoothly with Lester Holt of the Washington Post as the moderator. The format was a free exchange debate following each candidate given a two minute statement on a number of issues allotted to six 15 minute time slots.
I watched the entire debate. My impression was that neither candidate made any statement that we had not heard before. There was no new substance, actually hardly any substance at all, a very disappointing presidential debate. The moderator's questions had no depth and the candidates did not volunteer offering any in-deep discussion. Trump maintained his usual style and Clinton were very prepared in make-up, notes, and mannerism, carrying big smiles all the time whether she was quizzed or attacked, for example, with her outstanding issues such as the erasure of thirty thousand plus of her emails from her private email server which she was not supposed to use for doing her job as the Secretary of State. Donald did remark that Hillary did not have the temperament to be the President but Hillary tactically handled his accusation with her big smile.
Post debate, the mainstream almost unanimously wanted you (the audience) to believe that Hillary won the debate hands down. I was wondering, Hillary won by what, a calmer poise than her usual stance or her emotionless big smile? Winning a presidential debate must win by content, message and intellectual political substance, but we heard none. Did we hear the difference between reducing taxes (Donald) and raising taxes (Hillary) in how exactly it will be implemented through what tax system, how exactly the government budget will be affected, what exactly the impact it will have on what people and be exhibited where? We heard none of that other than Hillary saying: read my website. Shouldn't a president be able to articulate any issue and solution to the public in speeches?
As time moved on, more sensible analytical comments about the presidential debate should emerge, at least for the sake of or the benefit of the next debate to be held on October 9th at the University of St Louis, St Louis, MO. In this column, I have commented before about how citizens especially Chinese Americans should vote on issues and not by party line. In American politics, party doctrines have become so politically correct and far from the politicians actual deeds (reality of their actions not their words). The voters must watch, examine and predict the politicians' deeds not from their words; of course, that is very hard for voters especially when the mainstream media dwell mostly on the 'political correctness' rather than evaluating on past behaviors and performances of a politician. It seems that the mainstream media are more eager to preach than to investigate to give the public the materials to watch, examine and predict who may be a better candidate.
So what can voters do? Yes, there are some organic media which are trying to do an honest job by refusing to accept ‘political’ donations or to be bought by 'Ad money'. But we all know it is hard to find organic media totally free from money hand. So what shall voters do? Unfortunately, my answer is also to use money, but I am talking about small amount of money to counter the big money like millions of dollars spent on TV, newspapers, radio, etc. I may have mentioned this before, but I will get into more specific here for this Presidential election so we may make a wise decision in selecting our next President.
Let's face it, we know politics are influenced by money so we have no choice but to join the game, but we must use our money wisely, based on an old idiom, "Four Ounce Tips Over Two Thousand Pounds" or translated in today's language, "Ten Dollar Contribution Challenges A Million Dollar Ad". Is this possible? I think so, if more people understand how to do it. The method isn't difficult and can be illustrated by a few examples below.
If you were a Sanders supporter before, you are now facing the choice between Hillary and Trump, all you need to do is sending Hillary a ten dollar (or twenty five) contribution attaching a number of questions on the check demanding receiving answers before they cash the check. For example, you support Bernie’s free tuition idea, ask how exactly Hillary can realize that now she is in favor of it. Another example, Hillary wants to increase taxes on the 1%, ask her which tax avenue will be used and how much are to be gained and which loop holes must be plucked in order to realize the effect she claimed? If Hillary cashes the check without addressing the questions then you should demand a refund through public media if necessary. If Hillary returns the check, at least you know she is honest and won't be able to keep her promises.
Likewise, if you (say, a Ted Cruz supporter) want to ascertain whether Trump is truly conservative, you can send him a small check with a few questions. Now that Ted Cruz announced his support for Trump with six reasons and Trump has welcomed Cruz’s support, then you can challenge Trump on any of the six reasons, asking him which one he will support, pinning him down so to speak. Another example, now Paul Ryan is openly supporting Trump, you may send a small check to Donald with a question: how is he going to work with Ryan, ask him to name some potential cabinet appointees. The above questions are just suggested examples, surely you should ask your own questions. If you are really concerned with America's future, our democracy, we, the majority, must counter the big money which has control over the major media to rig the election. We, the majority or any voting bloc must use the "ten dollar against million" strategy to steer the politic correctness to the truth. I believe that a half million voters sending their questions with ten dollars will have a bigger impact on the candidate than a five million dollar individual donor or money group.
Send the ten dollars by certified mail and demand a reply for cashing your check has a tremendous power, you will find out more about the candidate than reading news from the mainstream media. If a candidate would refuse to take your money, it represents an answer as well. Send these answers out through public or organic media to amplify the message. In a true democracy, the candidates must be accountable to the majority of voters.
I watched the entire debate. My impression was that neither candidate made any statement that we had not heard before. There was no new substance, actually hardly any substance at all, a very disappointing presidential debate. The moderator's questions had no depth and the candidates did not volunteer offering any in-deep discussion. Trump maintained his usual style and Clinton were very prepared in make-up, notes, and mannerism, carrying big smiles all the time whether she was quizzed or attacked, for example, with her outstanding issues such as the erasure of thirty thousand plus of her emails from her private email server which she was not supposed to use for doing her job as the Secretary of State. Donald did remark that Hillary did not have the temperament to be the President but Hillary tactically handled his accusation with her big smile.
Post debate, the mainstream almost unanimously wanted you (the audience) to believe that Hillary won the debate hands down. I was wondering, Hillary won by what, a calmer poise than her usual stance or her emotionless big smile? Winning a presidential debate must win by content, message and intellectual political substance, but we heard none. Did we hear the difference between reducing taxes (Donald) and raising taxes (Hillary) in how exactly it will be implemented through what tax system, how exactly the government budget will be affected, what exactly the impact it will have on what people and be exhibited where? We heard none of that other than Hillary saying: read my website. Shouldn't a president be able to articulate any issue and solution to the public in speeches?
As time moved on, more sensible analytical comments about the presidential debate should emerge, at least for the sake of or the benefit of the next debate to be held on October 9th at the University of St Louis, St Louis, MO. In this column, I have commented before about how citizens especially Chinese Americans should vote on issues and not by party line. In American politics, party doctrines have become so politically correct and far from the politicians actual deeds (reality of their actions not their words). The voters must watch, examine and predict the politicians' deeds not from their words; of course, that is very hard for voters especially when the mainstream media dwell mostly on the 'political correctness' rather than evaluating on past behaviors and performances of a politician. It seems that the mainstream media are more eager to preach than to investigate to give the public the materials to watch, examine and predict who may be a better candidate.
So what can voters do? Yes, there are some organic media which are trying to do an honest job by refusing to accept ‘political’ donations or to be bought by 'Ad money'. But we all know it is hard to find organic media totally free from money hand. So what shall voters do? Unfortunately, my answer is also to use money, but I am talking about small amount of money to counter the big money like millions of dollars spent on TV, newspapers, radio, etc. I may have mentioned this before, but I will get into more specific here for this Presidential election so we may make a wise decision in selecting our next President.
Let's face it, we know politics are influenced by money so we have no choice but to join the game, but we must use our money wisely, based on an old idiom, "Four Ounce Tips Over Two Thousand Pounds" or translated in today's language, "Ten Dollar Contribution Challenges A Million Dollar Ad". Is this possible? I think so, if more people understand how to do it. The method isn't difficult and can be illustrated by a few examples below.
If you were a Sanders supporter before, you are now facing the choice between Hillary and Trump, all you need to do is sending Hillary a ten dollar (or twenty five) contribution attaching a number of questions on the check demanding receiving answers before they cash the check. For example, you support Bernie’s free tuition idea, ask how exactly Hillary can realize that now she is in favor of it. Another example, Hillary wants to increase taxes on the 1%, ask her which tax avenue will be used and how much are to be gained and which loop holes must be plucked in order to realize the effect she claimed? If Hillary cashes the check without addressing the questions then you should demand a refund through public media if necessary. If Hillary returns the check, at least you know she is honest and won't be able to keep her promises.
Likewise, if you (say, a Ted Cruz supporter) want to ascertain whether Trump is truly conservative, you can send him a small check with a few questions. Now that Ted Cruz announced his support for Trump with six reasons and Trump has welcomed Cruz’s support, then you can challenge Trump on any of the six reasons, asking him which one he will support, pinning him down so to speak. Another example, now Paul Ryan is openly supporting Trump, you may send a small check to Donald with a question: how is he going to work with Ryan, ask him to name some potential cabinet appointees. The above questions are just suggested examples, surely you should ask your own questions. If you are really concerned with America's future, our democracy, we, the majority, must counter the big money which has control over the major media to rig the election. We, the majority or any voting bloc must use the "ten dollar against million" strategy to steer the politic correctness to the truth. I believe that a half million voters sending their questions with ten dollars will have a bigger impact on the candidate than a five million dollar individual donor or money group.
Send the ten dollars by certified mail and demand a reply for cashing your check has a tremendous power, you will find out more about the candidate than reading news from the mainstream media. If a candidate would refuse to take your money, it represents an answer as well. Send these answers out through public or organic media to amplify the message. In a true democracy, the candidates must be accountable to the majority of voters.
RSS Feed