Aside from their core constituencies, the one thing most Americans can agree upon is our intense distaste for the leading president candidates.
One isnāt trusted and has the likability factor of a pit bull thatās just ripped off your calf muscle.
The other is a misogynist demagogue who has offended virtually every minority thinkable, joked about assassinating Hillary and is allegedly covering up murky, financial ties with Russia.
Unlike Hill, Trump blames all of his perceived transgressions on the āā¦criminal, liberal media.ā Indeed, just yesterday, he threatened to take away The New York Times reportersā press credentials. That reminds me of a certain mustachioed Austrian paper hanger who also began his rise to power by stripping away freedom of the press.
Regardless, weāre dealing with the two most disliked candidates ever.
And, yet, weāre collectively salivating at the mere prospect of these two stepping into the ring and squaring off in their three upcoming debates.
Iām betting theses bloodbaths will rival the three Ali-Frazier classics for histrionics, trash-talking and, as Ali liked to say, āsome real whompingsā.
So, why not redirect all of this anger towards good?
Iād make each debate a Pay-Per-View special. Charge Americans $100 per person to watch. Despite our economic woes, Iāll bet the first debate attracts at least half the country. Thatās $160 trillion!
Have both candidates agree on how best that newfound money can be spent to improve America: Iād suggest improving our rotting infrastructure, but that would require Congressional approval, and we all know what happens when the Beltway gets involved. Absolutely nothing.
So, instead, why not apply the PPV proceeds directly to lessening our national debt?
As many of you know, we had NO national debt when George W. Bush entered office. His catastrophic invasion of Iraq, which historians are already calling the worst U.S. foreign blunder in American history, jump-started two endless wars, created the vacuum that Al Qaeda and ISIS have filled and destroyed our global image and reputation. Aside from that, it worked out pretty well.
āThe Oneā did little better, merely sinking trillions and trillions of more money into the Middle East while stewarding a national debt that ballooned faster than Chris Christie did after his gastric bypass surgery.
Letās leverage the three-debate nightmare thatās about to happen. Letās make the debates PPV events and, allocate the proceeds to pay down our debt and put us on the road to financial solvency.
Thatās how I think these two lemons can make lemonade. Thoughts? Reactions? Bueller?