Or, along these lines, if it's a "town forum" event, find a short quiz from an elementary or middle school unit on the basics of the constitution and American history and ask each candidate to answer the questions, live.

That would be hilarious.

At least I hope they can't, unless they're ad agencies throwing out bumper sticker slogans in a brainstorming session. Candidates usually issue white papers that lay out their various policy proposals. They represent a lot of thought. I don't think Trump has put out any white papers. A moderator could ask him about that. Why not? I wish they would. But candidates writing things down in a speedwriting contest would trivialize all those areas of public policy you mention.

At any rate, I don't understand why you think this exercise would be a gotcha. Trump would just turn it into another form of mockery, another kind of performance art. He's very good at that.

Imagine that the topic is foreign-policy.

The commercial ends. The host cuts back to the candidates. And what Trump has written on his whiteboard has little to nothing to do with foreign-policy.

He cannot do a performance-thing. The whiteboard fixes him. And it fixes the topic. The host and the audience spent 5 minutes waiting for Trump to write something about foreign-policy. His opponent wrote something about foreign-policy.

What will happen if Trump doesn't write about foreign-policy?
He cannot switch topics on the fly.
The topic is fixed.
The expectations of host and audience are fixed.
His opponent's answers are fixed.
The intellectual level of discourse is determined by who has the more sophisticated answers.
Trump cannot manipulate the conversation because there too many fixpoints pinning him down.





Remember this?

?w=604

Imagine having proof in writing that Trump can't write down what his foreign-policy would be.

Imagine a pic of his whiteboard making the rounds on the internet. People expect to see the brillance of Trump on the field of foreign-policy and all they get is gibberish and attempts to switch topics.

The human is a visual being. Words can be ignored, but images can make or destroy people.

You don't seem to understand what performance art artists do.

But enjoy this imaginary Trump, who can't talk his way out of anything or through any situation. You've put a lot of thought into the character.

Here's your topic. Here's your question.

The audience has been waiting for your answer on that question for 5 minutes.
Your opponent has spent 5 minutes crafting a serious and competent answer on that question.

YOU were supposed to spend 5 minutes on crafting an answer to that question.

What did you do instead?




"Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't get the question. My ear-piece is broken. That's why I spent 5 minutes writing about something that is somehow related to the topic but answers nothing."

"Well, that's an interesting question and I know you guys have been waiting for me to talk about it. You want me to show my brillance and destroy my opponent with my cleverness on this topic. So I'll take the time to switch topics and talk about something entirely different."



EDIT: Think of it like a skit or TV-show: Those 5 minutes of expectation are the setup. You cannot switch out the solution at the last minute when the audience has specific expectations on what an appropriate solution will look like.

A huge ego to boot! He has never actually answer a question with a meaningful point.

The notion that he's a charismatic guy. This is what has had me baffled from the very beginning.

He annoyed me before he ran for office and consistently spewed hate-filled bullshit. I have not been able to tolerate the man's voice, speaking manner, and body language since I first learned of him in the 1980s. Hearing him speak is like nails on a blackboard to me. No wait, I may very well rather hear nails on a blackboard.

He is incoherent and has a thoroughly unpleasant demeanor. I wish I could understand what people see in him, but I honestly don't. For me, he'd probably come across better in writing, but that isn't saying much. Put a pen in my cat's paw and what he produced would probably make marginally better sense than anything Trump could say or write.

.

Over and over.

in pants.

Honestly, he's as dimwitted as Caribou Barbie. Not a lick of sense in her word salads, just like Trump. We have the female Palin running for President. That's what Trump reminds me of.

who's never tried any other job, but suddenly wants to change careers ...

and rule the world. But alas, for that task, he really is too demented already.

If she were allowed to call a focus group and a team of lawyers in she would be fine.

Every time he is telling a "whopper" or fudging his words, his opponent should ask him to write that down for later reference.

then he'll pivot to the audience and say "see? I did what she wanted!" and they'll cheer him...

It's based on the real life experiences of artist Margaret Keane, played by Amy Adams, whose con artist husband Walter Keane (played beautifully by Christoph Waltz) is able to convince the public that her artwork is really his.

(Warning: Spoilers for those who haven't yet watch the movie but might want to do so)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
After a fall out with her husband, she sues her ex-husband for misappropriating her work. Her ex continues to insist that the paintings are his. At the trial, the court decides in order to best determine whether Margaret or Walter is the true artist of the paintings, the two would sit down in front of the jury and make a painting, and the jury could then determine which is the authentic work.

Margaret sits down in front of her easel and gets right to work. Meanwhile, Walter sits and stairs at his blank slate. When asked whether he actually intends to paint anything, Walter picks up his paint brush, stretches out his arm, and.....then claims he's pulled a muscle and can't paint.

Margaret of course wins the rights to her paintings.

Or just give his Twitter URL to the neurologist.

personality -- issues have little to do with it. Obama championed "Hope" with passion in his voice and overcame the twin obstacles of African heritage and a decidedly non-waspish name. GW Bush was the kind of good old boy voters wanted to have a beer with. Reagan came across as a genial grandfather type. Clinton had a kind of youthful charm back in 1992, and he played the sax on tv.

Trump's appeal is based on voter perception that he's a tough guy who gets things done. If he can't "make America great again" no one can.

It's all a steaming pile of bullshit, of course, and my take is he never intended to get this far. But nonetheless it seems to be working precisely because he's not a policy wonk.