Presidential-style debate would have stopped Yingluck becoming PM

Apparently my finer points on the benefits that would have come from a US-style election debate between Yingluck and Abhisit were beyond Dr Frank’s comprehension. His view was clouded by sarcasm and somewhat destructive and ignorant.
First, such debates draw commitments from debaters that can then act as benchmarks for their future conduct in governing a nation. A taped confrontation is better than relying merely on campaign promises, which can be shifted.
Second, the beauty of these confrontations is that all points can be fact-checked within 24 hours. Fact-checking of last Monday’s debate revealed seven out of 10 of Trump’s claims were false; three out of 10 of Clinton’s.
Third, presentation and mannerisms were tested for hours under spotlights that revealed even the smallest pimple. Trump’s appearance was unpalatable, with hair that looked fake, while Clinton seemed immaculate.
Fourth, a similar debate here would have shown whether Yingluck’s knowledge of politics and economics matches her educational record of a master’s degree in public administration from Kentucky State University. Remember, Yingluck declined to engage in such a debate! Under the scrutiny of close fact-checking, would Yingluck and her family members have been so careless with populist policy that caused an unprecedented loss of hundreds of billions of baht through the rice-pledging scheme? If debates between the two leading candidates had been mandatory, Yingluck would never have been named by her brother as his deputy. She was originally earmarked for business, but Thaksin ran short of relatives to control Thai politics. I feel sorry for her, given her destiny.
Songdej Praditsmanont