Virtual debate isn’t a new idea
In the Oct. 13 Californian, under Today in History, it states, “1960: John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon held the third televised debate of their presidential campaign (Nixon was in Los Angeles, Kennedy in New York).” By all accounts that was a virtual debate, with both candidates in separate cities. This was before computers, Zoom, FaceTime and smartphones. Both candidates and parties agreed that the voters would benefit from this kind of format. This was 60 years ago. The topics ranged from nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union, to health care.
Sounds familiar in today’s election debate. I remembered it well as a 15-yearold in Los Angeles. As for Donald Trump, he was 14 years old and in New York. Interesting coincidence.
This is the type of debate in which Trump refuses to participate. He is acting like the 14-year-old he was in 1960. I see no reason why the norms of 1960 should not apply to 2020. As with the 1960 election, this one is extremely important and consequential.
— Harry Love, Bakersfield
OUR REPUBLIC WILL SURVIVE
In listening to some of the recent proceedings around the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, I was struck by a sense of hope for our republic. It was plain that the opposing political parties had differing views of what qualifies someone for a lifetime appointment to that court. What gave me hope was the realization that we resolve these and other differing views in the framework set forth by the Constitution.
This country has an enviable past of hashing our differences out according to the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. By contrast, in other parts of the world today, we see political differences sometimes resolved by violent civil disturbance, imprisonment of dissidents or by calling out the army. In America, thankfully, the battles of ideas have historically been resolved with words and the ballot box.
Today there are divisions, sometimes bitter, between some factions in our society. We have heard from both sides of the political divide that the election of the opposing candidate will mean the end of American democracy or society. The reality is that the government institutions of our country are stronger than our political divisions, our disagreements and the human weaknesses of our political leaders. Our republic will survive, and perhaps even thrive if the candidate we oppose is elected. We thrive as a country not because a particular political figure is the answer to our problems. Rather, we thrive because we agree as a country on the principles of freedom and structure of government enshrined in our constitution.
— Steve Sanford, Bakersfield
A FEW WEEKS LEFT
There are only a few weeks remaining for Americans to decide whether to vote for the Constitution of the United States, a style of living which has provided a better lifestyle for Americans than any other country in the world, or to vote for a virtual Armageddon. Armageddon is the place where the last battle between good and evil will be fought.
Many things will be said, and you must decide what is true. Are two pies in the sky better than one pie in your hand? The constitutional followers will be labeled as selfish racists, and this will be the theme for the remaining weeks of the 2020 elections. The media will attach this identity to all patriotic Americans and these patriotic people will be renamed white nationalists who harbor strong racism. This play on words should convince you not to vote for the constitutionalist.
What Americans really harbor is a love for equality (which President Obama nearly destroyed), a love of freedom (to be left alone and not over-regulated), a desire to choose who to marry (no arranged marriages), a desire to climb the ladder of success as they are able and an American system that teaches their kids how to think and not what to think. — William Davis, Bakersfield