1) I think neither ABC nor Fix--and certainly not CNN or NBC should be the platforms for debate. Experience shows none of them up to the challenges: their anchors are way to Trump-oriented and and unfairly targeted just Biden s cognitive issues, did not ask Trump directly why he should get a pass for his own considerable cognitive and "sleeping" issues in public,* and did no live fact checking.
2)I'd go with either a non- partisan "League of women voters"-type group as sponsor or maybe even as non-political a state university --Indiana?--as possible with neutral Professors whose specialties are not politics or history, such as "contracts". Who says the questioners must be TV anchors whose bosses are overwhelmingly GOP.
3. Trump is already saying "No" to debating Kamala Harris. If I were her I'd start pouncing and taunting him for being scared to debate her.
4. I also would do the following if he truly doesn't want to debate: set up a virtual debate with questioners & Kamala on the stage with a Trump stand-in in the form of an actor ** not pretending to answer 'style-wise', but to answer with Trump's own substance from prior rallies, debates, interviews-- such as with Chris Mathews with Trump telling him that women have to be punished for having abortion s--position papers, Project 2025, etc. ** Can't use a hologram: Trump would sue for using his likeness without permission.
If Trump has a history of answering the questions in the past with flip-flopping answers, I'd point that out. I'd still fact check everything. I'd also publish a concurrent booklet documenting the source of his answers.declaimed by the actor.
I love all your suggestions, Phyllis Carlin, Miami! The only point I disagree on is that professors of law, political science and history absolutely should be tapped--as well as professors of contract law, economics and business ethics. I would absolutely love to be able to watch a program like this. Heck, I would watch it if it were a series! It would be the first darned time Trump will have his circumlocutions subjected to the scrutiny of people who know what he is trying to avoid talking about--in real time.
Here’s why I picked a contract professor only: to minimize the chances of a professor having biased a orientation one way or the other!
(I suppose the contracts lawyer could be prepared by a wide variety of specialists such as you’ve listed, but ideally they should be as objective as possible.)
In general “contracts” are not susceptible to political bias—other than when sometimes when one is charging a practitioner with drafting or interpreting a contract of adhesion or a “take it or leave it /one-sided contract” or where a contract is drafted to extract a pound of flesh or omit due process & guarantees of rights.
Whereas most other professors’ niches can be said to be oriented politically one way or the other as a general rule, every now and then there might be a wholly “straight shooter” or non-partisan & wholly objective professor. (Sorry I am so cynical: 45 years plus as a lawyer!)
For example, at one of the Trump impeachments it seemed to me that expert witness Law Professor Jonathan Turley was oriented more toward interpreting facts & law that favored Trump whereas Witness Professor Carlin was oriented more toward truth and facts & democracy and “rule of law”.
I absolutely respect your viewpoint, Phyllis Carlin! And I truly appreciate your taking care to respond to me.
I have nothing like 45 years' experience as an attorney. I majored in history and language in college and am a retired former certificated paralegal. But I really don't think the study of the law and the study of history are radically different in many respects. I try, in my non-professional manner as a former paralegal, to remember that while the law must be applied to the facts, the duties of an attorney include the zealous representation of their client within the bounds of the law, and that presenting novel legal arguments or ideas is an important part of a lawyer’s role, especially when it can benefit the client’s case.
The practice of zealous advocacy, particularly in today's instant news cycle, has exacerbated an unfortunate popular fiction that attorneys are inherently dishonest scoundrels. But as you well know, there are serious repercussions redounding to the attorney who provides false or misleading information with the intent to deceive. I personally feel that Professor Turley's advocacy for Trump would, if presented within court, exceed the bounds of zealous representation. My impression is that he pontificates in legal babble and counts on Trump's supporters to swallow it uncritically.
Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race, as well as the study of all history in the context of time. Naturally, new discovery of primary sources and archaeological evidence that may contrary earlier discovery or sources has a tremendous impact on the study of history. Unfortunately, as with lawyers, there is also a tendency to believe that professors of history may not be rigorous in the study of primary sources and may make up stories on the fly. Competent professional historians have a phenomenal store of historical knowledge to draw upon when positing new theories, but they inevitably cite to primary sources to buttress their arguments.
I think there may be more similarity between historians and attorneys than many would think. I think they may even be kindred souls.
Kai Trump is Donald Trump's 17-year-old granddaughter, the daughter of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. She spoke on Wednesday, July 17 at the RNC convocation to anoint the Imperator and candidate Donald J. Trump, saying, "He's just a normal grandpa."*
Shudder.
*This passes for "zealous advocacy" at the RNC. It also gives me night terrors.
"Just askin'" and "Thank you!" are the folkiest things I have ever heard or seen emanating from this bombastic fool. And *almost* the most transparently unconvincing. He must be getting advice from Kai on how to format his social media rants. *Edit: it is a really hard call to assign a superlative in this case; I added a qualifier.
1) I think neither ABC nor Fix--and certainly not CNN or NBC should be the platforms for debate. Experience shows none of them up to the challenges: their anchors are way to Trump-oriented and and unfairly targeted just Biden s cognitive issues, did not ask Trump directly why he should get a pass for his own considerable cognitive and "sleeping" issues in public,* and did no live fact checking.
2)I'd go with either a non- partisan "League of women voters"-type group as sponsor or maybe even as non-political a state university --Indiana?--as possible with neutral Professors whose specialties are not politics or history, such as "contracts". Who says the questioners must be TV anchors whose bosses are overwhelmingly GOP.
3. Trump is already saying "No" to debating Kamala Harris. If I were her I'd start pouncing and taunting him for being scared to debate her.
4. I also would do the following if he truly doesn't want to debate: set up a virtual debate with questioners & Kamala on the stage with a Trump stand-in in the form of an actor ** not pretending to answer 'style-wise', but to answer with Trump's own substance from prior rallies, debates, interviews-- such as with Chris Mathews with Trump telling him that women have to be punished for having abortion s--position papers, Project 2025, etc. ** Can't use a hologram: Trump would sue for using his likeness without permission.
If Trump has a history of answering the questions in the past with flip-flopping answers, I'd point that out. I'd still fact check everything. I'd also publish a concurrent booklet documenting the source of his answers.declaimed by the actor.
I love all your suggestions, Phyllis Carlin, Miami! The only point I disagree on is that professors of law, political science and history absolutely should be tapped--as well as professors of contract law, economics and business ethics. I would absolutely love to be able to watch a program like this. Heck, I would watch it if it were a series! It would be the first darned time Trump will have his circumlocutions subjected to the scrutiny of people who know what he is trying to avoid talking about--in real time.
Thank for your thoughts!
Here’s why I picked a contract professor only: to minimize the chances of a professor having biased a orientation one way or the other!
(I suppose the contracts lawyer could be prepared by a wide variety of specialists such as you’ve listed, but ideally they should be as objective as possible.)
In general “contracts” are not susceptible to political bias—other than when sometimes when one is charging a practitioner with drafting or interpreting a contract of adhesion or a “take it or leave it /one-sided contract” or where a contract is drafted to extract a pound of flesh or omit due process & guarantees of rights.
Whereas most other professors’ niches can be said to be oriented politically one way or the other as a general rule, every now and then there might be a wholly “straight shooter” or non-partisan & wholly objective professor. (Sorry I am so cynical: 45 years plus as a lawyer!)
For example, at one of the Trump impeachments it seemed to me that expert witness Law Professor Jonathan Turley was oriented more toward interpreting facts & law that favored Trump whereas Witness Professor Carlin was oriented more toward truth and facts & democracy and “rule of law”.
I absolutely respect your viewpoint, Phyllis Carlin! And I truly appreciate your taking care to respond to me.
I have nothing like 45 years' experience as an attorney. I majored in history and language in college and am a retired former certificated paralegal. But I really don't think the study of the law and the study of history are radically different in many respects. I try, in my non-professional manner as a former paralegal, to remember that while the law must be applied to the facts, the duties of an attorney include the zealous representation of their client within the bounds of the law, and that presenting novel legal arguments or ideas is an important part of a lawyer’s role, especially when it can benefit the client’s case.
The practice of zealous advocacy, particularly in today's instant news cycle, has exacerbated an unfortunate popular fiction that attorneys are inherently dishonest scoundrels. But as you well know, there are serious repercussions redounding to the attorney who provides false or misleading information with the intent to deceive. I personally feel that Professor Turley's advocacy for Trump would, if presented within court, exceed the bounds of zealous representation. My impression is that he pontificates in legal babble and counts on Trump's supporters to swallow it uncritically.
Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race, as well as the study of all history in the context of time. Naturally, new discovery of primary sources and archaeological evidence that may contrary earlier discovery or sources has a tremendous impact on the study of history. Unfortunately, as with lawyers, there is also a tendency to believe that professors of history may not be rigorous in the study of primary sources and may make up stories on the fly. Competent professional historians have a phenomenal store of historical knowledge to draw upon when positing new theories, but they inevitably cite to primary sources to buttress their arguments.
I think there may be more similarity between historians and attorneys than many would think. I think they may even be kindred souls.
Now I know who you mean. I think DJT, Jr. is her Dad, but I share the shudders.
Hey! Who is “Kai”? And I apologize for my typos! Hard to edit when I see no “edit button” right now’.
Kai Trump is Donald Trump's 17-year-old granddaughter, the daughter of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. She spoke on Wednesday, July 17 at the RNC convocation to anoint the Imperator and candidate Donald J. Trump, saying, "He's just a normal grandpa."*
Shudder.
*This passes for "zealous advocacy" at the RNC. It also gives me night terrors.
"Just askin'" and "Thank you!" are the folkiest things I have ever heard or seen emanating from this bombastic fool. And *almost* the most transparently unconvincing. He must be getting advice from Kai on how to format his social media rants. *Edit: it is a really hard call to assign a superlative in this case; I added a qualifier.
I’m shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!