Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry

This is a strange post in that it has 50 comments attached to it already. These are 50 questions for Bush and Kerry selected by non-Slashdot moderators, as explained in our original call for help with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. At this point, where you come in is not only with extra-insightful moderation of these 50 questions, but with your "many eyes" trying to spot questions these two candidates have answered elsewhere so that the final questions presented to them are not repeats. The first 40 questions are from potential voters aged 18 - 35. The last 10 are from future voters 13 - 17. And that's enough explanation. From here we might as well jump right into the questions...

Support Election Reform, check out fairvote.org

[Anonymous Coward]

fairvote [fairvote.org] is the organization fighting for IRV and PR in America.

Californians, check out Californians for Electoral Reform [cfer.org]

Despite the lack of IRV and PR; please vote this November!

Re:13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION

[Anonymous Coward]

Although this is an excellent question, it is not technically correct to begin the question with, "Considering the reality of the rise in teenage pregnancies." In the US, the teen pregnancy rate has been falling in recent year [pregnancy-info.net], despite scare stories from the Right Wing.

Re:18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it refers to the Apollo Alliance [apolloalliance.org].

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Wyatt Earp]

I agree, it seems a bit loaded because of what happened in 2000. Few and fewer still on /. complained about Lincoln becoming President without winning the popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e le ction%2C_1860

39.82% for Lincoln

Or Clinton in 92 with 42.93%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden tial_ele ction%2C_1992

Or Wilson in 1912 with 41.9%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._president ial_ele ction%2C_1912

Re:18-35 #28 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[ruprechtjones]

...what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?

This is a sticky issue that I haven't heard either candidates tackle. I would love to hear what they have to say about the forever-present China/Taiwan issue.

Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[bofkentucky]

See Colin Powell's response to questions about American Imperialism

"We've fought in wars all over the world and never took any more ground than was necessary to bury our dead."
The free Market takes care of the economic side of imperialism.

We have neither the need nor the resources to subjugate the world.

Re:18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT

[lpret]

Didn't Bush address this in his State of the Union speech? After some googling, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20 030128-14.html [whitehouse.gov]

1.2 billion dollars to fund hydrogen fuel research and implementation.

Here's Kerry's response: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9341338.h tm?1c [kansascity.com]

Kerry proposed greater use of ethanol, soy-based diesel fuel and incentives to build and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. His 10-year, $20 billion plan envisions 20 percent of vehicle fuel coming from renewable resources.

See what 2 minutes of googling can do?

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[mrkslntbob]

If the two party system was by design, then Nader, the Libertarian Candidate, and a bunch of other people would not be on the ballot anywhere. However, they are allowed on, depending on the requirments in that state, most people just choose not to vote for them assuming they won't win, but if everyone went out and voted for a third party candidate, they'd become president despite not being a pawn of the Republican/Democratic parties.

Re:18-35 #31 LEGAL REFORM

[TheMCP]

Both candidates' positions on this topic are very much on record and, for that matter, predictable. (Malpractice lawsuits are a big republican bugaboo, Bush supports limiting awards severely. Democrats oppose limiting access to the court system, Edwards was a malpractice attorney.) Asking this in a debate would be a waste of time.

Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol is physically addictive. Hardcore alcoholics aren't pretty coming off it.

Ketamine is an anaesthetic, it shouldn't make people 'violent and unpredictable'.

A LINK TO DISPLAY THE DAMN QUESTIONS

[Alsee]

Having trouble finding the actual questions amongst all the replies?
CLICK THIS LINK [slashdot.org] for the proper Slashdot sorting to find the questions.

-

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was not designed that way. Just take a look at the Constitution.

and if no Person have a Majority, then from

the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 3)

It appears that the founders expected that it would be common to have more than 5 candidates for President.

Re:18-35 #29 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[rossz]

Sugar coating terrorists by calling them "militant groups" doesn't change the fact that they are terrorists.

As for the road map. Arafat killed that by not stopping his terrorists, excuse me, "militant groups", from bombing woman and children.

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[Kohath]

Geez. Editing.

Do you have a plan to offer financial assistance to the working poor to help them afford health insurance? What are the specifics of that plan? Does it offer relief for people with pre-existing conditions?

---

I don't know whether I agree this is a good question. Basically, it amounts to:

Can I have another government freebie?

How about no? A grown-up is supposed to be able to pay her own way. What's your plan to grow up and eventually be able to pay your own way?

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[EnronHaliburton2004]

This is one of the best questions in this forum.

To find out who your electors are, you need to ask the Secretary of State (it's probabably on their webpage).

Each state handles the Electoral College differently. Some states do list the names of the Electors on your ballot.

I believe this is the information you are looking for:

The U. S. Electoral College [archives.gov].

Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[upsidedown_duck]

How do you respond to that, and what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world?

Both canidates have already answered this question many times. Bush is in favor of spreading democracy the world over (as if it is as easy as spreading butter). Kerry has said he will push to restore the US' reputation and try to bring Iraq to a close multi-laterally and with the UN. This is one area where the canidates are suprising consistent in their answers.

I do hope people in other countries see that the USA is pretty divided over these issues (just like many people in their own countries) and that Americans just aren't a big bunch of bozos with grease stains on their shirts. Remember, you can hate us, but only in four-year intervals (you gotta wait and see if you can hate us for the next four).

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[hitchhacker]

Outlawing Alcohol didn't require an amendment.

So if the US Constitution says what the federal government is allowed to do,
then where does it give the fed the power to outlaw alcohol without an ammendment..?
The Interstate Commerce Clause? hardly.

-metric

Re:18-35 #25 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[strangel]

The subject matter seems valid, but the phrasing is HORRIBLE.
Try this: "What effect will the war in Iraq have on military funding during your presidency?". Not perfect, but at least that makes it a question.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[bnenning]

Well, Wyatt, all the examples you cite show that the elected candidate as the one who got the most votes, so I'm not seeing your point.

There have been 4 presidential elections [howstuffworks.com] including 2000 where the candidate who received a plurality of popular votes lost in the Electoral College. Arguing that the guy with the most popular votes "really" won is silly. Both candidates would have campaigned very differently if the election were decided by popular vote because swing states become far less important, and many voters would likely have made different decisions whether or not to vote for third parties.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[CaptainCarrot]

Wrong. Get a dictionary and look up "majority". Then flip to "plurality".

Fine. "Plurality" then. The point stands.

It's not clear-cut at all. We can never accurately know the beliefs of another person- we can only try to infer those beliefs from their actions. And if there existed important motives to act contrary to belief, then one must admit the question is not easy to solve.

If the writers of the Constitution had wanted a system for direct popular election of the President, they'd have put one in place. They didn't. This isn't a case where their motivation was a mystery; it was spelled out [yale.edu]. It's ironic that even though the framework of the process that was devised is still in place, much of the rationale for it has been subverted.

Honestly, if you haven't even read The Federalist Papers your civics education is incomplete.

Appeal to tradition is rhetorically invalid.

No, it's logically invalid. Tradition is appealed to in rhetoric all the time, and it often works. However, since I didn't do that, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position. It is the inherently less tenable side, for that is the cause of elitists, royalists, and dictators.

The electoral college is about "unequal political privilege"? That's not something you can just state unsupported and expect to be taken seriously. You're plainly not taking the trouble to question your assumptions. Open your mind and make an honest attempt to understand our electoral system and why it was put into place before you venture to discuss this topic again.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Minna Kirai]

That's what the system has become, but was it originally designed that way?

It absolutely was not. The evidence that the founders of the USA did not anticipate partisan polarity is right there in the Constitution itself. Just look at how the method used to elect the Vice-President has changed throughout history.

Originally [cornell.edu], whoever came in 2nd-place in the Presidential election became vice-President. Obviously, that would lead to hilarious and deadly consequences today- just imagine if Al Gore had served a 3rd term as VP under Bush! In 1804, the reality of parties became apparent, and the choice of VP [cornell.edu] was linked to the president.

Re:2nd hand drinking?

[tooba]

You're right, tobacco doesnt cause changes the same way pot does. It causes changes the way nicotine does. Those changes happen to be very addictive, unlike marijuana. Marijuana does not cause permanent changes in brain chemistry and cannot cause brain damage like alcohol can. Additionally, it has positive medical uses and can replace some drugs that have harmful side effects.

Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[WalksOnDirt]

This one? http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm? story_id=706591 [economist.com]

Re:CHARGING PRESIDENT WITH HIGH TREASON #1 questio

[Lightning Hopkins]

I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html [whitehouse.gov]
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html [whitehouse.gov] "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html [whitehouse.gov]
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that

Re:18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY

[The-Bus]

Rewriting: In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get similar benefits to what I would receive if I retired today, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security in any way.

Bush sort of explained the answer in his 2004 State of the Union address [whitehouse.gov]: "My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers -- to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people. And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars."

So, from my limited understanding, you can choose to have Social Security put into the market, pre-tax, similar to what 401(k)s and Roth IRAs are doing. By changing the question to not contributing at all, you remove this option.

Personally, I'd like to see Social Security phased out in the next 30 years. That's right, today's 35-45 year olds. You better start saving.

Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[daveschroeder]

The Iraqis don't want a fundamentalist Islamic form of government.

"...54 percent [of Iraqis] said a parliamentary democracy would be acceptable, 42 percent said they would accept a council of elders and 20 percent said they would accept an Islamic theocracy. One percent said a Taliban-style regime would be acceptable." [1]

"...73 percent of respondents said a new government should have freedom of religion..." [1]

Also:

"57 percent of [Iraqis] said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same." [2]

"When asked what Iraq needs in five years, people were more likely to say an Iraqi democracy, 42 percent, followed by "a single strong leader," 35 percent." [2]

[1] Source [cnn.com]

[2] Source [cnn.com] Oxford Research International National Survey of Iraq [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Questions for Bush

[Brandonski]

President Bush claims to be a Christian and named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher at the December 13 Republican debate in Des Moines. [trincoll.edu] Without going too far into, "What part of "Thou shalt not kill, didn't you understand?" My question to G.W. is, "If tomorrow, St. Peter asked you wht you invaded Iraq. How would you answer? You realize that political double-speak and half truths in this forum will land you in a very warm place for the rest of eternity".