The Rematch: Trump's Troubles-v-Biden's Balls or Is It the Other Way Around?

The Great Debate That Might Have Never Was Is a Sorry State of Affairs

Prologue

An ancient adage suggests that “the way to a man’s heart is his stomach.” The way to my heart is my mind. In fact, I suspect they are identical in my case. The one thing that supersedes all other things in certain humans (that I have come to know): racism, sexism, classism, ism-ism and the rest of the offal poorly disguised as a society, is cerebral horsepower. A self-realization and actualization, a relentless benevolent cognitive greed, a hunger for knowledge knowing that the more you gain the more unknowledgeable you become. An endless intellectual pit. An abyss in which slavery is the only freedom there is.

Freaky-deaky, most certainly. When I observe this trait, this capability, this penchant, in others it results in nothing south of a nocturnal emission. For intelligence, like math and ignorance, is the most seductive of equalizers (assuming one can be seduced). Though counterintuitive on its surface, seduction is the most democratic of things.

Pursuant to the aforementioned and since it is tangentially relevant to the context of this content, all should know that the following is a matter of honor. I was once honored to ask the legendary Jim Lehrer a question about presidential debates on NPR as the 2012 election loomed (9:13-11:27 on the meter). I came of age watching him on PBS and greatly admired him.

The entire interview itself is roughly 23 minutes long and even if the presidential “rematch” of 2024, from a debate standpoint, fails to manifest itself there will be debates among surrogates (particularly at the vice-presidential level). Thusly, these 23 minutes are priceless, both in hindsight and foresight, particularly to those interested in such things. Award winning journalist Pat Morrison’s introduction is that of a virtuoso.

The Great Presidential Debate That Might Have Never Was

It is pathetic, quite telling, and indicative of the sign of the times that I even need to make a journalistic disclaimer, but I must. There is absolutely no tenderness in my heart, as referenced and defined supra, for any U.S. politician. The species itself is morally tainted and mortally contaminated. They are dishonest enemies of the common good, predatorial, social whores, artificial and the product of a flawed manufacturer. Throw enough money in front of them and they’ll sell their goddamned souls.

Recently, I informed someone that was on the oligarch rhetoric bandwagon that the United States does not evolve, it never has though it has developed considerable mastery at presenting the illusion of evolution. Under optimal conditions, the United States revolves and at times, as in the current state of affairs, devolves. A former U.S. president once said, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” The president that quoted the phrase was Barack Obama (see second sentence of previous paragraph).

At the 2012 Republican National Convention, actor Clint Eastwood (another pasty vicarious tough guy) was a keynote speaker and placed an empty chair on the stage. The empty chair represented Obama and Eastwood spoke to the chair as if Obama were in it. Currently, and for several months, Donald Trump has held rallies with an empty podium next to him on stage. The empty podium represents Joe Biden and Trump, in every conceivable way, has challenged Biden to a debate. Trump is on offense, or so it appears.

The Biden administration has been all over the map on the issue of a debate. Some say why legitimize Trump by Biden “lowering” himself. The Trump people say Biden is ducking. The Biden people say Trump’s supreme court is a politically activist one and shielding Trump in his various legal troubles, indictments and charges in an attempt to see that he is elected. Trump’s people say that the justice department has been weaponized and that lawfare is being used against him to keep him from a certain election to the presidency. I tend to think that both sides are equally rational in their ridiculousness.

Last Friday, while being interviewed by schlock-jock Howard Stern, Mr. Biden said he would, in fact, debate Trump. In a somewhat surprising and quite lily-livered revelation, Biden stated he would debate Trump "somewhere. I don't know when.” Trump quickly responded on social media with the succeeding message.

“Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, an old expression used by Fighters. I suggest Monday Evening, Tuesday Evening, or Wednesday Evening at my Rally in Michigan, a State that he is in the process of destroying with his E.V. Mandate. In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT - A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT! It’s the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight - on National Television, I’ll wait around!”

Some say the debate will happen, some say it will not. What is really relevant is that it is even at issue. It should be sacrosanct that the two nominees for the political duopoly confront each other face to face and prior to an election. Cosmetically, both prospective participants are problematic. Trump’s troubles are him being in court daily. Biden appears ball-less absolutely lacking the faculties to go unscripted in a hostile interrogatory environment for two or three hours. And then there is the practical.

Who would be debating whom Biden-v-Trump, Trump-v-Biden? Does it matter? Does it possess, purely in its verbiage, a subliminal cueing? It absolutely does, as do all linguistic manifestations involving humans. The so-called Fourth Estate will deploy use of phraseology such as “The 2024 Presidential Debate” or some close iteration for that very reason. Assuming that this debate that “might have never was,” occurs. There exists a warehouse full of reasons why it wouldn’t and (read my somewhat negroid lips), couldn’t.

Litigation at its core, in the United States, is verbal adversity and hostility; it is a debate. In a criminal matter, before arraignment, before any witnesses are called, before discovery, before any evidence is heard, a case gets a title. The same applies for a civil matter.

In the criminal matter it is always “The State of…” or, more often “The People” versus John Doe. Consistent with my usual mild editorial digressions, I most desperately would like to expound on who “the people” are. So badly I am girding my loins at this moment, but discipline shall rule because “we” the people, right? Consider yourself spared.

In a civil matter, the plaintiff’s name is first because the plaintiff is on offense. The People are on offense in criminal litigation. Whoever is on offense, by case title alone, has a subliminal edge that is very nuanced, but everyone involved is affected by it. It is the linguistic equivalent of the difference between bringing a person charged with a crime into court shackled, unkempt and clad in jail garb as opposed to her arriving coiffed, smartly dressed, and smelling heavenly.

Epilogue: The Rematch in a Sorry State (of affairs)

The impending 2024 presidential/general election is being characterized and, most importantly, promoted and marketed as a “rematch.” I call it a sociopolitical travesty of which the United States ought hang its head in shame, lower than it usually should. I make the preceding factual statement completely, and utterly, aware that if such a thing were possible the United States would cease to exist “as we know it.” Because we are not US.

Never have been.

There are very capable, intelligent, decent people in the United States. Not a lot, but significantly more than two. The thought that two doddering, racist (yes, both), Jim Crow Era, cognitively sluggish European men are the best candidates to serve as executives that it can bring forth is petrifying. Literally.

Whether or not the United States and “Western World” collectively has the intellectual horsepower in and of itself to realize it is being rebuffed, scoffed at, laughed at, cried at, bawled at, howled at, and sobbed at is possible but highly unlikely. Should that remote chance manifest itself, it will be resultant of things that many are incapable of comprehending. The global laughter and despair are convulsive, yet they are coming from the same place as they are the precursing headwinds of The Winds of Change. Pay close attention to when the foregoing was published Winds of Change.

In the preceding paragraph, I spoke of intellectual horsepower. Note that I made no mention of moral or spiritual prowess. There is no need for the supposition, speculation, mining or hope for either. One should never hemorrhage away life attempting to score points with an absent opponent; a thing we only learn by doing just that. Amongst life’s cruelest jokes is that it often points out our mistakes when it is much too late for us to profit from them.