Report Inappropriate Comments

Totally agreed, Scal. The 2016 debate exposed the now two-time election reject for the defective candidate that he was, unable to answer even the most basic questions from high school students.

And while I agree that then-Mayor Avedisian didn't give his best performance, the two-time election reject abjectly embarrassed himself, only one of many examples of such behavior on his part.

To your other point, I'd only suggest that the majority of voters have, at best, a basic understanding of city operations and issues, so the questions posed at this type of debate are pretty well aligned with what voters want to know.

Now, this is not a knock against voters -- or, as the two-time election reject seems to think, a reason to think they can be fooled or lied to; it's just an observation that, because of the other priorities in their lives, most voters don't get too far into the minutiae of how the city runs.