Now that it looks sure that Nikki Haley has been dispensed with, much to the chagrin of the ruling class, in the GOP primary, the general election looks to be shaping up as a 2020 rematch.
One question that presents itself, among many others, pertains to the debate, an institution in presidential elections in America. One might go so far as to say that they are a pillar of Democracy™.
Convention aside, let’s not count on the Democrat Party to participate — at least not until if and when it swaps the Brandon entity out for a more functional puppet. But that’s a story for another day.
Breaking out my crystal ball, I’m willing to go on the record to predict that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the Brandon entity’s handlers will permit a single presidential debate in the fall, if indeed he is the nominee (again, a big if). Their charge can barely talk as it is, as of February, so we can only imagine what August, September, or October will bring.
Looking at recent events, the most plausible angle they’ll run with, in my estimation, is the “no platforming for disinformation” angle.
Cable news kingpin and top lesbian Rachel Maddow ran with this angle recently when MSNBC refused to broadcast Trump’s victory speech following his (historic, landmark, landslide) Iowa caucus win.
Via Daily Mail (emphasis added):
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow was criticized for her announcement that the liberal network would refuse to cover Donald Trump's Iowa victory speech because she believed it would contain falsehoods.
This caused some to point out that Maddow, the MSNBC anchor and host of The Rachel Maddow Show, was one of the most vocal proponents of the claim Trump colluded with Russia.
Maddow, anchoring the network's coverage from New York, said the network was continuing its policy of not showing Trump's speeches live after his resounding victory in the Iowa caucus.
'It is not an easy decision, but there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. And that is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are,' she said.
She tried to clarify that the call 'is not out of spite. It is not a decision that we relish. It is a decision that we regularly revisit and honestly, earnestly.'
It absolutely is a decision, obviously, that she relishes. Nothing titillates these people like censoring information in the name of fighting “disinformation” or preserving Democracy™ or whatever sacred object.
On another front, there’s always the possibility of a serendipitous new pandemic to roll out conveniently in time for the election — the big guns, which would have the dual benefit of potentially suspending inconvenient debates and reviving the mail-in voting debacle that many credibly believe swung the 2020 vote through fraud in favor of Biden.
Alas, if they had their druthers, Trump would simply be removed from the process entirely through the various lawfare schemes they’ve cooked up against him over the past several years.
Then again, it appears that, as Trump’s poll numbers only go up the more he’s persecuted, he could plausibly win the election from a jail cell, pardon himself immediately, and go to work on the administrative state as promised.
(Fingers crossed.)
