I just watched the first presidential debate of the 2020 election. I estimate that I heard about sixty percent of what was said. That was probably enough to get the idea of where the candidates stand on the real and fabricated issues. The other forty percent was a non-harmonious mix of voices from the two debaters and the moderator. I forgot to turn on closed captioning. Wonder how they handled that? Notice that I’m not mentioning who was debating or moderating. You know who they are. The names are at the end of this for clarity.

Back in college, and I was there before computers, cell phones, and delivered meal kits, I took a debating class. We were given a contentious topic and asked to defend one side of it. My big project was the then-being-developed Super Sonic Transport (SST). Since I was the only short-haired, Air Force ROTC person hoping to be a jet pilot someday, I was assigned the proponent view. Another student, obviously a liberal communist named Dave, was the clueless con man.

Dave’s argument was that the SST flew in the stratosphere and any exhaust fumes and particles would remain there forever, blocking sunlight reaching the earth and turning the planet into a big ball of ice. Looking back, I wish he was right since it might be counteracting global warming, but that’s another topic. I’m thinking that Pluto probably had SSTs flying around which caused its icing problem. Distance from the sun may have been a factor too, but hey, I’m not a space guy.

Anyway, another con argument was that the SST breaking the sound barrier would cause damage to people’s hearing and could damage buildings. Since the planes were only meant to fly supersonic over the ocean, that was easy to counter. The commie, Dave, said that he was thinking of the area around the airport where the plane would land. I gently suggested, with minimal profanity, that planes have to slow down to land. He said, “Oh.”

The debate was short, and I had full confidence that I had won, but when the other students voted, I lost. Turns out my fellow students were anti-military, anti-Vietnam War, and anti-logic. I had no chance, but, like me, presidential debaters always think they won, and that their election has been cemented. This time they both lost. As always, the debates are usually a small factor in elections because over ninety percent of voters know who they’re voting for already, but debates can be entertaining so they watch.

About halfway through the presidential debate I remembered a few things. The first is that politicians never really grow up. Words, as opposed to sticks and stones, are still weapons that evoke visceral response. It doesn’t matter if you’re the leader of the free world assigning juvenile nicknames to people you don’t like, or a retired senator dumb enough to stick your tongue on a freezing metal post.

Second, the audience is very stupid. At least that’s what a presidential debater thinks. Only words learned by kindergarten should be spoken otherwise the audience will not know what you’re saying. Not knowing is not the problem, but the fact that a word was used that the audience doesn’t understand makes them dislike the debater because they are an effete intellectual snob.

The third thing is that it really doesn’t matter what they say. They’re supposed to be liked and look good. That’s it. For both debaters last night, one out of two isn’t bad. Some voters don’t understand the issues, let alone the remedies, and, even more likely, they don’t care. People that are unemployed or barely make enough money to eat can’t relate to 401k’s or corporate allocation of free cash due to lower taxes. At any rate, looking good and dressing right is much more important than what comes out of their mouth. Both debaters last night obviously have good tailors.

“So why debate?” you ask. I’m not sure, but I think it’s a combination of tradition and TV ratings. People love to watch them. They are participating in the democratic process, and, like a NASCAR event, waiting for the opposing candidate (the one you hate) to smash into the guardrail and explode in flames. Neither candidate did that this time, although something was smoldering on stage right from the start. Maybe it was the moderator?

You can read old debate transcripts from years past and see that the people today are not much better or worse than the past. Name-calling and lies are prevalent, but only half are detected or offensive. Lies and name-calling coming from the other candidate, not yours, are offensive, but remember words don’t matter.

I talked to my sister who lives in Pennsylvania. My being in Georgia provides us a diverse perspective. She said she turned off the debate because it was so irritating. This proves two things: some people don’t tolerate nonsense (my sister,) and others are addicted and don’t recognize nonsense (me.) I asked her if it helped her decide who she would vote for. She said yes. She had previously told me that she was leaning toward Biden because she really didn’t like Trump. The debate deepened her dislike. Trump might lose Pennsylvania anyway since Biden claims to be from there, but he only lived there for a few years after birth. I know that’s true because I read it on the Internet. I responded that I was going with Trump because I thought he had a much nicer tie.