John and Ken, Eric Garcetti harm Los Angeles at KFI mayoral debate

Earlier today, John and Ken of KFI in Los Angeles held a debate featuring all the candidates for the upcoming mayoral election, except for Eric Garcetti. Garcetti and his handlers are afraid of him being asked tough questions or being made to look foolish. That wouldn't cause him to lose the election he's almost guaranteed to win, but it would impact his future career (and his handlers' and backers' attempts to profit from it).

Garcetti needn't have bothered: the KFI debate was more an example of our ever-creeping idiocracy than something from ancient Athens. Granted, I only heard a small part, but the chances of real debate having broken out in the other parts are exceedingly slim.

In one segment, John Kobylt asked which candidates support sanctuary cities. That's a stupid question because it could have been clear just by doing basic research which candidates would support those policies. What they should have asked are tough questions designed to show how the positions of those who support such policies would harm the U.S. Simply asking who supports such policies doesn't change any minds; showing those policies wrong would.

Diane "Pinky" Harman (@pinky4mayor, she wants to "#MakeLAGreatAgain") said that, as mayor, she'd follow all our immigration laws. That's a generally good sentiment, but the problem is that very powerful forces don't want our immigration laws to be enforced. Those who say "Yeehaw!" (or the Los Angeles equivalent) when someone says they'll support our laws simply don't have the smarts to intellectually engage and vanquish the very powerful forces that don't want laws enforced. They also lack the sanity to work with those (i.e., me) who can intellectually vanquish those powerful forces (e.g., the Los Angeles Times). Those who respond to such simple-minded ideas suffer from Dunning-Kruger and just put on a show without ever solving any problems.

Later, someone asked the candidates "what are you going to do to keep us safe [from crime]". How does anyone think a politician will respond to such a question? As in countless past cases, those who ask questions at debates and townhalls seem to have lost access to the internet and can't do basic research first, then ask questions based on that.l

For an example of actual tough questions, see those on the DREAM Act page. I sent that link to John and Ken and said they could ask one of those, but obviously they chose to put on a cheap show instead. Which isn't unexpected: they're just shock jocks and lack the smarts, sanity, and patriotism to hold politicians accountable and show their policies wrong.