Marcin Bogdan: Debate after debate

On 11 April we had most likely the first case in Polish past that 2 debates took place on 1 day. Competitive but mutually exclusive debates, as evidenced by the fact that any candidates took part in both debates. Hence the title of my column "Debate after debate". This curiosity case is, of course, the consequence of an ongoing acute political dispute. A dispute in which both sides not only race for arguments, but besides effort to outsmart each other, outrun each another in various kinds of fortels and tactical plays. As a result, on 11 April a debate co-organised by the TVs "Republic", "in Poland24" and tv "Trum" took place first. Then the debate, whose formal organizer was the election staff of Rafał Trzaskowski. This is an highly crucial issue, due to the fact that due to the failure to observe the principles of equal treatment of all candidates, TVP could not be the public tv operator of this meeting. This in turn gives emergence to certain consequences. There has been a violation of the law due to the fact that public tv presenters cannot participate in events organised by election committees. There is besides a concern that the electoral committee of Rafał Trzaskowski will cover all the costs associated with the organisation of this debate, in peculiar the costs of advertising informing about the debate and the costs of broadcasting itself on TVP. Nor has the legal work to inform erstwhile transmitting product placements been fulfilled. However, since it is widely known how the law is treated and respected in Poland, it is simply a waste of time to deal with this issue.

Let us so focus on the most crucial issue, on the substantive side of both debates. Rafał Trzaskowski did not participate in the first, organized by the Republic, in Poland24 and Trwam. This is not only an example of ignoring these televisions, but besides an example of ignoring a large group of voters. The commentators called it a failure of this candidate without a fight, a struggle. Since I have already referred to the athletics language, it is worth noting that many commentators felt that the first debate would be for Trzaskovsky if he had participated in it, the “game” on the trip, as did Karol Nawrocki's participation in the second debate was besides a form of “game” on the trip. As has already been known, Trzaskowski gave his “game away” a fight. And how did Nawrocka “on the way out” look?

The second debate began with a strong impact. Karol Nawrocki put on the desk his position a white-red proponent, saying that he was moving for the President's Office under these colours, while Trzaskowski presented a proponent in rainbow colors, which Trzaskowski supported and identified with in his erstwhile political and public activity. To surprise everyone watching this debate, Rafał Trzaskowski immediately, shamelessly hid the prop under his desk. A fresh Left candidate Magdalena Biejat added the olive oil to the fire, saying: “I wanted to propose to Rafał Trzaskowski due to the fact that I just saw he hid the rainbow flag, I'm not ashamed of it, I'm happy to take it from you.It’s okay. ” Trzaskowski, as he had previously shamefully hid the rainbow prophesy, has now just as shamefully brought it out from under the desktop, saying with a trembling, matt voice: “There you go.It’s okay. ” 1 may fundamentally disagree with someone, even consider individual an enemy, but if individual like this openly and consistently proclaims his views and presents his reasons, 1 can respect him. This is the kind of respect that Magdalena Biejat deserved during the debate. If, however, individual is lying, pretending to be individual else, saying something different than he thinks, trying to pretend to be individual another than he is in reality, he deserves nothing but contempt.

It was a strong start to the second debate, a strong hit. Trzaskowski, who was its organizer, was “on his field”, looked like a nocdau fighter, like a kid lost in the fog. But possibly that's unfair, hurtful judgment. possibly during the run he thought things over, possibly he honestly verified his position. After all, it is crucial for everyone to find the right way in time. And the course of this debate may have indicated that. Rafał Trzaskowski praised Donald, but not Tusk only Trump. He declared that he had large relations with the Republicans, spoke openly about threats from Russia, and about refugees who are the 5th column. He stated that he was arrogant of president Lech Kaczyński erstwhile he opposed Russian imperialism in Tbilisi. He said of the "conflict in Georgia", not the Russian aggression against Georgia, but the fact that Trzaskowski is only learning right-wing communicative justifies specified "speaks". Not only the tv viewers, but besides the counter-candidates were amazed by Trzaskovsky's statements. At 1 point, Karol Nawrocki asked: “Who are you, Mr. Rafale?“

This question must have been raised by everyone listening to this debate. Whether Rafał Trzaskowski truly so diametrically changed his views, or just lying to his own eyes. And if he is lying, whether he will persist in this lie or not he will yet fall asleep on something. Charles Nawrocki wouldn't let go. He asked Trzaskowski why there was no name of Lech Kaczyński in Warsaw, and there is simply a street of the communist People's Army. Trzaskowski reposted without hesitation: "Unfortunately, there is no majority at the minute to make specified changesIt’s okay. ” It smelled like sensational. The Citizens' Platform has 37 councillors at the Warsaw Capital Council for 60, and thus a vast majority. Since Trzaskowski is ready to name 1 of the streets of Warsaw after Lech Kaczyński, but there is no majority to do so, this could mean that he switched to PiSu. After all, PiS has only 15 councillors and even with 8 councillors the Left is incapable to vote against the Platform. It smelled like sensational. I have already seen with my imagination how in the next time he has free speech, Trzaskowski will go into the mediate of the hall and warmly ID the PO for the floor, and announce publically that he has become a associate of PiSu. He will besides ask Jarosław Kaczyński to decision election support from Karol Nawrocki, a civilian candidate, to him, a recently baked associate of the PiS party.

But nothing like that happened, something much worse happened. In another speech, Rafał Trzaskowski, may have been caused by a tiring anticipation of counter-candidates who had a kind of warm-up in the first debate, or possibly caused by something completely different, fell completely asleep. Saying that he was in favour of the separation of the state from the Church, he said: “As we organize the celebration of the Warsaw Uprising, part of the tradition is that Mass is then organizedIt’s okay. ” I always thought that Holy Mass could be celebrated, that Holy Mass could be ordered in someone's intention. But I haven't met the fact that Mass can be arranged. No, I'm sorry, but I've met this one. A fewer years ago, during the alleged "marsz of equality" under the patronage of the president of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski was "organized mass". Faggot with a trombone on his head, in liturgical robes with rainbow colours, profaned the Holy Mass, mocked publically the sacrifice of Christ's death on the Cross. Yes, it was then organized “mscha” under the patronage of Rafał Trzaskowski. Therefore, I do not want Trzaskowski to organize "mush", I do not want Trzaskowski to organize our life in Warsaw, I do not want Trzaskowski to organize our life in Poland. The forecasters were fans of the Warsaw Legion, who inactive a fewer days before this debate, put an election banner in the stands during the match with a clear message: “18.05, 01.06 - but not TrzaskowskiIt’s okay. ”

Can a tv candidate's debate decide someone's victory? There is no certainty about this, but it is certain that the debate can find someone's failure. After the debate in Koński 1 thing is certain, fans are right, not Trzaskowski.

Mr Bogdan