Debate Thoughts
Urgings to Engage Thoughtfully
Tomorrow night is the first presidential debate between two people who are polar opposites by any stretch of the imagination. One is a man and the other a woman. One is Caucasian by ethnicity and the other is not. One is Conservative and one is Liberal. One has led the country before and one has followed an appointed head of state.
Both candidates. in all honesty have had a somewhat sketchy romantic past. One has allegedly exploited the weaker sex for pure sake of his ego and the other allegedly allowed herself to be exploited by willing partners for political and personal gain. Neither have been angels, can we agree?
So, how are we to judge who would be our best choice? Should it be by gender bias or the color of skin? Should it be by following a party just because we have voted that way for years?
Should we only go by their past records of accomplishments? Can we even believe the media to give us those "facts?" Or can we just go by recent memory? Have we pursued the truth from various sources or been fed by only one?
Can we make an honest appraisal of whose administration we've personally (and as a nation) been better off with economically? Have we been safer at home and abroad? Has there been more peace and stability in the world?
And whose values and beliefs match our own more closely? Can we trust their words and their promises, their platforms? Do they even have a plan? Are they talking out of both sides of their mouths? Who has the better plan? What would be the consequences of that plan?
It is our duty to listen, observe, weigh the facts. I hope that plenty of thought goes into your choice. I hope we aren't, as a nation, relying on the popular/trendy Hollyweird opinions to cloud our better judgement or sway us from our own core values. I urge all Americans to check ourselves and put our own critical thinking caps on. This election is too important not to give it our utmost attention.
Play the devil's advocate by giving each of your pre-conceived ideas a quiet place to sit and really listen to who is answering the debate by what you know that is important for our country and its people.
A coin has two sides. A debate should encourage bringing the opinion of a topic to the table and proposing a plan to make the situation better. It's not to slander the opponent, but to show why the opponent's plan is weak and why the other's plan would work better.
When a debate becomes a debacle, it is very uncomfortable. Instead of a stage, it feels more like an arena. There is no need for popcorn and drama. I hope both debaters will be mature and intellectual, sincere, and calm.
According to Sam Cabral of BBC News, "They (moderators) will not have to deal with two candidates interrupting each other because the mics will be muted when either of them is not speaking." I'm glad that ABC News, who is hosting the debate and the candidates themselves are opting for this format. American people deserve this level of decency.
These are just my thoughts and opinions, but I would enjoy hearing from others after the debate, as to what your thoughts and opinions were. There is no need for discord among friends. Let's please keep this as respectful as possible. I would like to know if your opinion on either candidate has been swayed? What did you like best and least about each one? And what is your greatest concern for America in 2024?
About the Creator
Shirley Belk
Mother, Nana, Sister, Cousin, & Aunt who recently retired. RN (Nursing Instructor) who loves to write stories to heal herself and reflect on all the silver linings she has been blessed with :)
Keep reading
More stories from Shirley Belk and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
President Donald J. Trump
I've got to tell you from the beginning, I've always loved Dennis. He and I are both Baby Boomers having made his mark in the comic strips in early 1951. And so is Donald. If you look closer, you will see that Donald and Dennis both probably share the same barber, too. And, good gosh....don't they both just stay in trouble??? Honestly, I think they both mean very well, but it seems like they just have an innate talent to irritate others. But I love bad little blonde headed boys (I had two sons that are just like that, too.)
By Shirley Belk5 years ago in The Swamp
Trump says his Greenland fixation is about national security. Europeans are skeptical.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland has sparked international curiosity, diplomatic tension, and a fair share of skepticism. While Trump maintains that his interest in the vast Arctic island is rooted in national security concerns, many European leaders, particularly in Denmark, remain unconvinced. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has long been recognized for its strategic location and abundant natural resources, but Trump’s public comments have intensified discussions about geopolitical priorities in the Arctic. Trump’s Rationale: National Security Concerns Donald Trump first brought Greenland into the headlines when he floated the idea of purchasing the island during his presidency, calling it “strategically important” and likening the potential acquisition to the United States buying Alaska in the 19th century. According to Trump, Greenland’s location near the Arctic Circle makes it a critical asset for military operations, surveillance, and early warning systems. He argued that American control over Greenland could enhance U.S. defense capabilities and serve as a deterrent against adversaries, particularly Russia and China, who have both been expanding their presence in the Arctic. Trump has repeatedly framed the issue as one of national security rather than economic or symbolic interest. In interviews, he emphasized that Greenland could serve as a “defensive outpost” and claimed that the United States needs to safeguard the Arctic region against potential threats. He also noted Greenland’s proximity to key shipping lanes and resource-rich territories, suggesting that American involvement could secure both strategic and economic advantages. European Skepticism Despite Trump’s security-focused reasoning, European leaders have met his interest with skepticism, if not outright amusement. Denmark, which maintains sovereignty over Greenland while allowing the island broad autonomy, has been particularly cautious. Danish officials highlighted that Greenland’s residents have a strong preference for self-determination and have no appetite for a sale to the United States. Greenlandic politicians themselves, including the Premier of Greenland, have publicly dismissed the idea, calling it “absurd” and “unrealistic.” Europeans also question the feasibility and appropriateness of a purchase, given the legal, diplomatic, and logistical challenges involved. Beyond the immediate political hurdles, there is unease over what American ownership would mean for European influence in the Arctic. For many EU leaders, Greenland is not just a landmass but a partner in Arctic governance, environmental research, and resource management. A unilateral U.S. takeover could disrupt existing agreements and heighten tensions in a region already facing the effects of climate change and increased military activity. Geopolitical Stakes in the Arctic The Arctic region is increasingly being recognized as a critical theater for geopolitical competition. Melting ice has opened new shipping routes and revealed previously inaccessible mineral and energy resources, including rare earth elements. Both Russia and China have been asserting their presence, establishing military installations, expanding shipping networks, and investing in research infrastructure. For the United States, Greenland’s location offers a strategic vantage point to monitor these developments and project power in the northern hemisphere. Trump’s fixation on Greenland, therefore, is not entirely without precedent. Historically, Greenland has hosted U.S. military bases, most notably Thule Air Base, which remains operational and supports missile warning and satellite tracking missions. However, Europeans argue that the security rationale does not necessitate ownership. They suggest that continued defense cooperation and presence agreements, without transferring sovereignty, can achieve the same objectives without provoking diplomatic friction. Public and Media Reactions Trump’s Greenland comments have drawn widespread attention and, at times, ridicule in global media. European newspapers have described the proposal as “bizarre” or “absurd,” while analysts debate whether it represents genuine policy consideration or merely a rhetorical flourish. In the United States, reactions are mixed. Some view the Arctic as strategically underappreciated and see Trump’s attention as prescient, while others question the practicality of purchasing an entire territory for security purposes. Meanwhile, Greenland’s population has leveraged the attention to underscore its priorities: autonomy, economic development, and sustainable management of natural resources. Many Greenlanders have voiced that they would prefer international investment and collaboration rather than ceding control to a foreign power, no matter how powerful. The Broader Implications Trump’s Greenland fixation highlights larger themes in global politics: the intersection of national security, natural resources, and international sovereignty. It raises questions about how countries perceive strategic value and how leaders communicate geopolitical priorities. While the former president frames Greenland as a security imperative, European skepticism underscores the importance of respecting local governance and diplomatic norms. As Arctic competition intensifies, the debate over Greenland serves as a case study in balancing ambition with pragmatism. For the United States, maintaining influence through military cooperation and partnerships may prove more effective than pursuing outright ownership. For Europe, asserting diplomatic authority and defending the autonomy of Greenland remains a top priority. Conclusion Trump’s comments about Greenland illustrate the tensions between American strategic interests and European skepticism. While national security may justify a heightened focus on the Arctic, outright acquisition of the island remains politically, legally, and diplomatically unfeasible. The episode underscores the complexities of Arctic geopolitics, the sensitivities surrounding sovereignty, and the challenges of aligning ambition with international norms. In the end, Greenland itself remains at the center, its people and government navigating between global powers with caution, pride, and pragmatism.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (6)
Agree with Lamar.I like your neutrality and exhortation to people to vote wisely, Shirley. And they should.....the world hinges on the decision.
I really like your unbiased approach to this. Like Mark, my mind is basically made up without the need for a debate because predictions say, one of them will become unhinged, further proving their inability to lead. Great article, Shirley.
Shirley, I liked how you presented a balanced view of a potentially contentious topic. I already know how I'm voting, but I will listen anyway just to see if my choice might change. I doubt if that's possible. Intelligent article.
Thank you for this presidential debate reminder . I am glad that the mic will be muted so the time given is fair as well. I take my vote seriously as well. Great thoughts in this piece ♥️👍🏽
This is so anxiety inducing. Hope everything goes well
This is such a sage piece, Shirley. However you feel about either candidate, weighing up why they are the best person to rule is about more than just their appeal. People should listen to what's being said and look at the evidence of their government. And we should, as adults, be able to discuss our views without it degenerating into insults or in extremes, violence.