Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry 1501
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...
18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many ways to tally the votes (electoral college, proportional electorate by state, etc), but if the votes themselves are vulnerable to fraud then democracy of any type is in peril.
no no no no (Score:5, Insightful)
The original poster is talking about a radical reform of our electoral system, not nitpicky details of whether we should use this machine or that machine to tally votes.
I'm not saying yours isn't a valid question; but it's going to be asked a thousand times by CNN et al. However, you can bet no one at the debates is going to ask a question about a major overhaul of our democratic system like the parent post. This is the perfect forum to ask these tough questions that wont be covered otherwise... I can honestly say I have zero interest in the Bush-Kerry debates on tv, but I would love to hear their answers to half of these questions that were proposed.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2000, George W. Bush carried 30 states [terrytraub.org], though most of the most populous states did not favor him. This is truly an example of what the electoral college was designed to do.
These arguments people make today about stealing elections and the unfairness of the system really stem from an ignorance of American history. True, the electoral college system is not perfect and perhaps should be replaced with a simple absolute majority in this age when people no longer identify so strongly with their locales.
Someone else pointed out that there were several presidents who did not win an absolute majority of the vote, but very few actually lost the popular vote. Clinton did not win an absolute majority [uselectionatlas.org]; more people wanted either GHW Bush or Perot than wanted Clinton by quite a large margin, i.e. about 57% to 43%. However the electoral college gave it to Clinton. Interestingly, no one talks about how unfair it was that Clinton got elected, perhaps because he was lucky enough to preside over a great economic boom that ended just as he was leaving office.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true, Clinton didn't win an absolute majority, but you neglect to mention that he did win the plurality. Nobody was bitching about it then because he still got more votes than any other individual candidate, something which GWB cannot claim.
A LINK TO DISPLAY THE DAMN QUESTIONS (Score:5, Informative)
CLICK THIS LINK [slashdot.org] for the proper Slashdot sorting to find the questions.
-
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, that's how the founders did it (Score:5, Insightful)
So originally, it was (at least partially) intended to select a candidate who was popular across the entire Union and supported by the body of Electors who were entrusted with the duty of selecting somebody who they believed would be most qualified.
In today's world, people aren't voting for an Elector whom they trust to select a quality candidate -- they're just voting for a party, since most Electors are pledged to their nominating party (this wasn't anticipated at the time). The result of this strict two-party system and our increasingly national awareness is something much closer to mob rule.
Re:Um, that's how the founders did it (Score:5, Insightful)
And why is it, on the ballot, I only see the names of the candidates (Bush, Kerry, etc) and not the names of the ELECTORS that I'm REALLY voting for?
Thanks.
Re:Um, that's how the founders did it (Score:5, Informative)
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:Um, that's how the founders did it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:4, Interesting)
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. Sure, none of these got more than 50% of the popular vote, but they all got more than than the other candidates.
Why didn't you include the Y2K election, in which G.W. Bush got less than 50%, as well as losing the popular vote? [wikipedia.org]
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a question: Why do you think a President ought to be chosen by popular vote?
I'm sure your instinct will be to tell me that I'm asking that question the wrong way around. That's a sign that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated. Make an effort to cast aside your assumptions and try to build a case for chosing a President by a simple majority. If you're honest about it, you'll find it surprisingly difficult.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Get a dictionary and look up "majority". Then flip to "plurality".
Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
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.
Would you also claim "Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought that slaves had 3/5ths the value of a man"? Of course you wouldn't.
That was just a compromise offered to convince the slavery states to join up. Likewise, the creation of a Senate whose representation is independent from population was an enticement to attract smaller states into the federation.
Appeal to tradition is rhetorically invalid.
you'll find it surprisingly difficult
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.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Interesting)
I already went over how inclusion in the Consitution doesn't prove it was considered ideal. They were practicing pragmatism. The desire was for a fair system- but creating fairness on a bed of injustice means that some people will lose power and refuse the change. To mollify those people, concessions were made.
No serious historian thinks the means of apportioning Senators was anything but a sop to Rhode Island and its ilk.
This isn't a case where their motivation was a mystery; it was spelled out.
Maybe it was written someplace, but not in the Federalist Papers. You are conflating directness and proportionality. That paper is primarily about the mechanical methods of conducting a vote, which was of import back then, as a single vote spanning the distance from Massachusetts to Georgia was an unprecedented concept.
Fewer than 6 words of the Federalist Papers have any bearing to the topic under discussion, and they are parenthetical. (They are in the 8th paragraph, by the way).
The electoral college is about "unequal political privilege"? That's not something you can just state unsupported and expect to be taken seriously
Do you need support for claims like "69 is less than 87"? Because that's the degree of self-evidence we're dealing with here. Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a representative federal republic and therefore, the states actually choose the president, not the people.
I suggest you get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places
Wrong. Your vote would count just as much as anyone else's did- there just happen to be more people in those places.
Do you know why $10 from me buys just as much as $10 from Bill Gates?
And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all,
So you claim that rural people deserve more power than city people? Why is that? Does the country lifestyle make them inherently more moral?
Arguments like yours are terribly vulnerable to parody:
Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places. And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all
See the pattern? You need to explain why one kind of minority deserves a boost to it's power, but not any of those others.
So if disenfranchising 40% or more of the population is your goal
Only 40%? The existing system has disenfranchised the 75% of voters who don't live in swing states, so that'll be an improvement.
Of course, according to your argument, 49% of the population is ALWAYS disenfranchised by the other 51%. From one point of view, that is true- but still meaningless.
Electoral voting helps prevent local heroes... (Score:5, Insightful)
quoth the parent:
You're missing the point. The high-population areas do indeed have more power than the small areas -- but they have slightly less power per unit person, which is how it should be.
If you think of the poll as a kind of discriminator device (it is), reducing a nearly-floating-point number to a single bit via sum-and-threshold, then the electoral college clamps the output from any one geographical region. There's no practical difference between, say, a 51% majority and a 98% majority in New York City or in Los Angeles. That makes it harder for those places to dominate the election. Consider a candidate who enjoys a 98% majority in San Frangiego and Boswash, but only obtains 35% of the vote in the rest of the country (pretty dismal). In a straight-sum system, that candidate might win based on the popular vote and stress the country. Those disgruntled states might even try to secede, if the pattern repeated long enough.
The electoral system tilts the game in favor of moderately broad support bases. You can't win the presidency without support from a much broader geographical base than would be required under the straight-sum system.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
We are a Federal Republic which is a hybrid form of a Democracy. We lose sight of that in todays world of 15 second sound bites and bitter politics. The Executive branch represents the Union of States. This is not apparant to the casual eye .. but was the intent. It was very weakened with the passage of the 17th amendment.
The 17th amendment dictated that Senators are elected by popular vote of the state, prior to that, they were appointed by the legislature or govenor.
So, todays system of electorial college is basicaly proportionality by state. There never was and there is no such thing as "the popular vote". It's a novelty invented by the losers to chastise the winners or the winners to chastise the losers, however way it goes.
The electoral college is the last vestige of our federal republic. I would hate get rid of it because if we did, we would quickly slip into fascism .. liberal or otherwise.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Insightful)
It is perhaps possible to come up with convincing arguments for maintaining the electoral college as it is, or for changing it without eliminating it entirely, but merely implying the alternative would be fascism is inadequate.
The founding fathers were not particularly ingenious, they were a bunch of essentially aristocratic(though without formal title) land owners who wanted more say in local government and higher profits on their shipping. They weren't particularly bad men, but they weren't infallible saints either(see slave=3/5's of a person or the fact that they counted for population even when they couldnt' vote). The primary reason they created the electoral college rather than the popular vote(or so I've always been taught) is that, like aristocrats throughout time they feared that true democracy would result in mob rule(read poor people who might want to know why the founding fathers had so much money).
In the end, they came up with a reasonable(this does not mean perfect) governmental system, which was, for the most part about as liberal as was possible at the time, but most of its provisions are simply English common law and experience codified into a single document.
The US constitution is not the be all and end all of government and the constitution itself isn't why we have or do not have freedoms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the Soviet Union had one too, one which in theory granted more rights to its citizenry than does ours, but that was only theory. Our constitution works because we have a general belief in the rights of the people, as do many other systems where those rights aren't written down.
The States choose the President (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States of America is technically a government of, for, and by the States. It's a government of the people insamuch as the People live, work, and vote in the States.
This is something that is glossed over in most history classes, so most of you never have been exposed to the idea. Back in the day, the idea of any kind of overarching government was an anathema to both the People and the States. However, it was recognized that some things (international relations, interstate commerce, war & peace, etc) were handled more effectively by a government representing the states, and that could mediate between the states.
It was also recognized that the Continental Congress was broken, as it couldn't pay off all those Revolutionary War soldiers who were, in some instances, taking over state houses and threatening Congress with death, etc.
So, well, that's the genesis of the American government. It was put together by a surprisingly talented bunch of men, with a distinct perspective on the world and the behavior of mankind. So far, their system has mostly worked.
The reason the electors are good is because they act as a failsafe. I think that most electors are bound by law to vote the way the state votes. However, just because the law says something doesn't mean you have to follow it. If a majority of the electors felt that someone would be a Bad Choice, they could bolt...or abstain...or something.
That's the last check. It's unclear what would happen in that case, but you never know. Rogue electors might be legal enough to throw the election to the House. Who knows?
18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE (Score:5, Insightful)
In the next four years we will see the appointment of possibly two new Supreme Court justices. Who would you appoint to the Supreme Court and why? If you don't have a name... describe the qualities that you would seek and why you seek them.
18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:4, Insightful)
What this provides is a situation where being a drug producer is so ludicrously profitable compared to anything else you could be doing with your time that nothing short of indisputable scientific proof that there is in fact a Hell could possibly convince people to stop producing drugs.
This also provides a situation where being a drug dealer is so ludicrously profitable compared to anything a person with no college (or even high school) education could be doing that nothing short of indisputable scientific proof that there is in fact a Hell could possibly get people to stop selling drugs.
It also points out that using the criminal justice system to try to cut off the supply by throwing dealers and trafficers in jail is akin to battling a hydra with tens or hundreds of thousands of heads. Just try and cut off enough to matter before they can grow back.
It was really a fascinating article. I don't really feel like it taught me all that much that I didn't already know from 1920s American hisotry, but it was easily the most well-thought-out discussion of the War on Drugs that I have ever seen, with some incredibly lucid and pertinent examples, and it completely steered clear of the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric that both sides of the drugs argument usually prefer to stick to.
Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
The first is drugs where dependence is chiefly psychological (alcohol, most psychedelics, marijuana, X). The second is drugs which have a strong physical component to dependence (nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates). The last is drugs which induce violent and unpredictable behavior in the average user (meth, PCP, Ketamine) and are usually dependence forming.
The first category should not be illegal for any reason. However, I like the idea of denying welfare checks to folks who continually test positive for those drugs. I also like the idea of taxation at the state level to avoid such drugs becoming consumer staples. (Think of it as a luxury tax.)
The second category should be legal simply to reduce the criminal profit motive;criminal action from the second category almost invariably is a result of an addict not being able to find a 'fix'. Taxation proceeds from the first category should go towards providing rehab clinics with funding in order to get people off the junk once they go and get hooked (if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence).
The third category should only be available via the medical community and prescribed as necessary, but with general distribution regulated by the states. These drugs are so dangerous and unpredictable across the set of users that just allowing their use might present a clear danger to others.
I believe the above notes form a basis for a socially responsible and freedom enhancing drug policy.
Note that this is all contingent on getting the federal government out of regulating intrastate matters, and the idea that government should not regulate your own body, but is responsible for preventing you from doing harm to others through your poor choices. People are going to use drugs and fuck up their lives, just like they always have even within prohibition. Why waste money and make criminals of folks who only wish to harm themselves?
18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel that 9 is too aggressive suggesting racial motivation and possibly giving the candidate an easy out by challenging the stereotype rather than answering the question. Question 7 as well suffers from a touch of rhetoric, perhaps a combined question would do better.
In the name of America's youth, billions of dollars have been spent on the War on Drugs. Drug convictions are punished with a disproportionate severity with respect to other crimes. This shows up not only in terms of a rapidly growing prison population but other punishments like the HEA drug provision which deny students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid, a privilege that rapists and murderers are allowed. As a member of the so-called "DARE generation", my question is simply, do you find our current drug strategy effective, or is it time to look to alternatives for reform?
I'm worried that I didn't quantify the "disproportionate severity" well enough (think they'll get an out arguing that?) and I wouldn't mind incorporating the fact that the HEA drug provision specifically interferes with the ability of the person to rehabilitate but couldn't find an easy way to slip it in there without asking a second question.
Any improvements?
btw. technically I am also a member of the "DARE generation" so I'm not an american so I don't know if I can really hijack the question
18-35 #10 DRAFT (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #10 DRAFT (Score:5, Insightful)
It's class that's disproportionate.
Posion pill legislation... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason why they want an all-inclusive draft is nothing makes fence-sitters on a war start to hate it than the possiblity of their family members or themselves being thrown into fight against their will. That's the real point, to force a pull-out of Iraq.
Re:Posion pill legislation... (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) US troops overseas in places like Germany and Japan reaffirms the commitments inherent in NATO. While the NATO alliance was once about mutual defense, it's now a league of ideologically aligned states. As such, it provides one of the single most stabilizing influences in the world. Pulling back from these commitments signals a US regression towards isolationism which, in turn, signals a weakening of the NATO alliance.
2.) US troops manning bases overseas provide forward deployment points for conflicts world wide. The reason we use air force bases in Germany for casualties in Iraq (for example) is that the facilities are just as good as those available in the United States but don't involve hauling injured persons across the Atlantic. These bases provide a strategically valuable bridge between the home front and the forward operating theater.
Fundamentally, this pull back is a very very very bad idea. It's being done for political reasons to assure people that we won't need to worry about reinforcements for those being cut down in Iraq. Mostly, it's being done to convince people like my extended family that their sons and daughters who are in the guard won't have to go overseas to fight in a war that most of them are indifferent to.
The draft thing is being kicked around as a metaphor for a bigger problem. Most people who are in the US reserves (guard, etc) are in them with the same preconceptions that Bush and his fellow guardsmen had in the 1970s, namely that you can serve in the guard and not see combat. Admittedly, this is a really stupid conclusion to make. Nonetheless, people made it and now they're afraid they'll get sucked into Iraq because of Bush's war. Kerry bats around the draft because implicit in that idea is that the guardsmen are going to Iraq, it also conjures up the specter of Vietnam. Bush pooh-poohs the idea of a draft to downplay the possibility of guardsmen going to Iraq and to quash the specter of Vietnam.
18-35 #11 DRAFT (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT (Score:4, Informative)
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?
18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED) (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:4, Informative)
"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 #17 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:4, Informative)
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).
18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the question. I wish the public knew more about each candidate's policies to ask harder questions, but truthfully I don't know either's take on what to do in the conflict. The only danger is that Kerry says, "I'll find out when I get to office," and that Bush says, "Kerry has no position" and then lies about his own position.
18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF? What about the national debt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? What about the national debt? (Score:5, Funny)
18-35 #21 GLBT (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #21 GLBT (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #24 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #24 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you, dear candidates for the post of self-appointed leader of the free world, find any discrepancy or possible double standards in the United States' foreign policy wrt. the above-mentioned setting?
18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
The Shia comprise of 2/3 of the population and the cleric Al Sistani is the most revered person in all of Iraq right now. What will the kurds and the sunnis do if the parliment if 2/3 shia?
18-35 #28 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #29 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #31 LEGAL REFORM (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #32 MEDIA/DEREGULATION (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #33 MEDICAL (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #34 PERSONAL (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #35 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #35 PERSONAL (Score:5, Insightful)
here you go. [whitehouse.gov]
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.
But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.
I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
18-35 #36 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #36 PERSONAL (Score:4, Insightful)
18-35 #37 PERSONAL (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #39 SOCIAL SECURITY (Score:5, Insightful)
18-35 #40 OTHER (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #40 OTHER (Score:5, Insightful)
Specificity doesn't guarentee answers, but it makes evasion more obvious and sometimes that's all you can hope for.
13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION (Score:4, Interesting)
13 - 17 #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION (Score:4, Interesting)
13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, the idiocy of youth...
13 - 17 #4 ISSUES OF MORALITY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:13 - 17 #4 ISSUES OF MORALITY (Score:5, Funny)
John David Ashcroft, at the direction of Jesus H. Christ!
Any questions?
Ask 'em in Guantanamo!
13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION (Score:5, Insightful)
13 - 17 #8 ENVIRONMENT (Score:5, Interesting)
13 - 17 #9 IMMIGRATION/JOBS (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this was a bad idea: (Score:5, Insightful)
? #2: Score +5, Interesting
? #3: Score +5, Interesting
? #4: Score -1, Troll
? #5: Score +5, Interesting
? #6: Score +5, Interesting
OK, maybe there is some value to breaking the questions down like that, but if ever there was a time that we needed a cap much larger than 5, this posting is it.
(Or perhaps re-post all the +5 questions, with a post that doesn't have the +5 limit.)
4-11 #51 LIKENESS TO PAST PRESIDENTS (Score:5, Funny)
Assessment of questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Electoral Reform - Oh brother. The electoral system is not broken. You should understand that the fact that a minority-vote-getter can become president actually proves that "Majority rules, minority rights" does exist in this country. Besides, electoral voting actually strengthens the individual vote (Miami-Dade county would not even exist if it wasn't for the 2000 vote).
2) Online Voting - my opinion, but I think there's more pressing issues than just the opportunity to vote online (besides, you don't get the obligatory "I voted" sticker).
3) Judiciary Appointment - this process was made to prevent stupid Joes from appointing judges. You can call it corruption, but Bush has had a *ton* of court appointments denied by Congress
4) AIDS - not unique. This question always appears in the debates, and they always have canned answers. "Blah blah, money for research, blah blah, I don't have AIDS, so I don't care, blah blah." Move on.
5) Supreme Court Justices - PICK THIS. Every president wants some "echo" of their power to last throughout the ages, and this dates all the way back to John Adams and the appointment of Federalist John Marshall. Ask this question, and you get a good mirror image of the policies you can expect from candidates themselves.
6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.
7) Drug Fight - Don't ask -- you'll get another canned answer from the politicans. "DARE this, Community involvement that, but you gotta love the alcohol commercials!"
8) Medical Marijuana - Another canned response "Needs more research - need to make sure there's a way that it doesn't get abused." Not worth the breath, hippie. Go pack your bags and move to Holland.
9) Drug Provision for Financial Aid - Definately the way to Go. My gosh, this is a good question, and one I never thought about before. Poster definately has a point that those who have paid their time still deserve an education.
10 and 11) Draft - They'll all deny it, and everyone knows that. They may plan it, but they'll never admit to it. So don't bother to ask.
12) Focused goal on Alt. Fuels - Worth Asking, especially with the spin on the "10 year mission to the Moon" emphasis. It just goes to prove that things can get done if you really put your mind to it.
13) Child Abuse - Sad to say it, but skip it. What you need to stop this is GrassRoots - neighbor to neighbor, family to family, friend to friend, and teacher to student is the only way to fix abuse. Jail does not deter hate.
14) Animal Rights - Eat more meat. Death to PETA. Next.
15) Sex Ed - Thought Provoking - it's a good domestic question, because teenage pregnancy has always been a problem.
16) Home Schooling - Last I checked, Bush was supporting it with "No Child Left Behind." If he wasn't, he'll just plug it as another alternative to failing schools.
17) USA, the World Bully - Fine ask it, but the same question will be asked in the debates, and the answers will only be the same as what is said in the television commericals.
18) Isreal vs. Palestine - Don't ask, don't tell - it's been the policy for the last 50 years regarding the actions of Isreal. No US leader that I know will change that right now.
19) Integrate Family Values - Of course, the president has always been responsible for raising the children of the US-of-A. Need family values? Find a family that you can value.
20) Metric Conversion in the USA - thanks. I needed a laugh. Metric in the USA? That's hilarious.
21) Civil Marriage for Gay/Lesbians - Stick it to them and watch Bush squirm. Worth asking, just to watch candidates try and see how to ride the fence.
22) Insurance Reform - WILL MORE PEOPLE SCREAM FOR THIS QUESTION - I know almost all of us here are young, healthy, and isured, but believe me, a lot of people are not, and health insurance in the US is insanely expensive, for all the wrong reasons (how many senior citizens actually earn enough money to pay even $300/month, a modest amount, for prescription drugs). And will people stop looking for lawsuit windfalls from doctors?
23) Family Immigration Reform - UNITE FAMILIES - Sorry, I'm biased against this one, because I am in the process of trying to immigrate my wife to the US, and I could end up waiting at least 7 months for the process to happen. There's no reason why married people should be apart for so long. Course, with the general populus complaining about immigrants in general (mostly due to illegal immigrants, which is not what this question is about), this Q will probably not see the light of day.
24, 26, 28) Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea Wait for the Debates - you'll get a canned answer by then.
25) Iraq's effect on Military Spending - defecits, now and in the future. Next.
27) What if Iraq votes for Islamic Gov't? - Then we'll invade them again, because obviously they don't understand what Democracy means.
29) Peace in Palestine - Let me enlighten you about Islamic law: Revenge is condoned, in face it is encouraged. You kill my brother, I have a right under Islamic Law to kill your brother. Palestines will continue to attack because they have been attacked. Revenge begats revenge. Only Israel and Palestine can choose to end their own hate.
30) Legal Reform w/ the RIAA - Question: Do you have $$$? No, well, that's too bad, because Viacom is paying me plenty.
31) Malpractice Lawsuits - PICK THIS! The US has to do something about Tort reform. Tort is the largest leader when it comes to insurance costs, and limiting the lawsuits will definately drop insurance premiums (don't believe me: compare medical statistics between the states of South Dakota and Nevada).
32) Media Deregulation - Worth asking, but nothing will probably ever become of it. See response #30.
33) Maternity Benefits - Good social question to ask, especially with large corporations sticking-it too mothers who need those kinds of benefits for their family (Walmart, *cough*, *cough*).
34) Who's working for you when you campaign - Never thought about that, but come to think of it, what are the candidates supposed to do besides campaign?
35) Biggest mistake - Asking this question. Never expect a candidate to be very reflective at his past. They're never going to admit weakness. Next.
36) Is it OK to change your mind? - CATFIGHT!!! YES!!! It's always ok to change your mind, as long as you are the one who changes it, and you do it after being educated about the wrong decision/s. Course, that's not the answer you'll hear either of them say!
37) Good Books that influence you - "Um...Dr. Seuss?" Next.
38 + 39) Social Security Reform - Watch the news. Listen to the debates. Each has a canned answer. Don't waste your breath; others already have. No one understands there is no "personal accounts" with SS. Today's taxpayers pay todays retirees. That's the system. Soon, there will be too many retireees and too few taxpayers. But they don't get that.
40) Intelectual Property - Yea, right. Like the candidates are going to understand this question. Course, it will be worth asking it just to see the confused look on Bush's face and another possible Bushism for the Calendar.
41 - 50) 13 - 17 Aged questions - Ask them all! Kids deserved to be heard, because it feeds their interest in the political system, and it gives them faith that their questions will be heard by leaders. Especially important: #5, Would you be willing to die for your country? Look them in the eyes ask they answer the question. Better yet, have John McCain standing right there and tell the audience who answered truthfully.
The last question to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of people poured over the wording, grammar, and nature of these questions, making them as simple and clear as possible, yet both of you won't ANSWER THEM.
We don't want to hear you talk about unrelated crap that has nothing to do with the questions in front of you, we don't want a rambling missive about the failings of your opponent(s), we don't want a speech riddled with prewritten soundbites. We want answers.
When will we get simple, clear answers?
Re:The last question to ask (Score:5, Funny)
I answered the questions you gave me directly, speaking to the concerns of the American people, who, I believe, should vote for me as their candidate. If you look at my record it is clear that I represent all that is good in the world, and will lead us into a stronger nation is this new, post-9/11 world.
The questions posed showed what a diverse and complex world we live in these days. As a result, you should vote for me, because I am best able to cope with these new issues as we move further into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Either Candidate.
Questions for Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.as
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/ch
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.
What's really really sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I came back down to earth.
As much as I have hundreds of questions I could pose to each of the candidates, I know that ultimately any real tough or direct question would never be answered from them in any straightforward manner.
So what's the point?
Ask yourself, what could either of these men tell you that would really change your mind about them? What brilliant revelation will come from their lips that will suddenly make you understand? We've delved into their history to the nth degree. If you can't tell what kind of people they are from their past and their present, and knowing that in person you're going to get "politician-speak", what's the point?
98% of the questions posed here would never pass muster to be asked to either of the candidates in a substantive public forum, and ironically, all of us know what the answers would be. Bush would respond with a shallow, thoughtless one-to-three word quip and then look at you like you slept with his wife while signalling the SS to remove you, and Kerry would blather all around the subject and twist it around to the talking points he rehearsed earlier in the day.
No wonder people don't vote. No wonder we don't have truly great people in office any more. Who wants to put up with it?
Aside from that, you bet your ass I'll be voting this year, as I do every year. The people this election is really about are not the people running, but everybody else in the country. You don't need to know diddly about Bush or Kerry. Look at your world and ask yourself if in the last four years you like the way things have been going. If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush. If you aren't happy with the way things are going, one things for sure, keeping the same guy in office won't improve things and considering how the last election went, you can't afford to vote idealistically for a candidate who has no chance of winning. So it comes down to Bush or Kerry, and you must vote Kerry if you don't like the status quo. What either of them do or say at this point is moot to me. I'd vote for a bagel over Bush just to see if it could run the country better, and even in that case I'd be more hopeful and optimistic than I am now.
Sad but true unfortunately.
Missing questions (Score:5, Insightful)
- Deficit
The U.S. deficit stands at a record $477 billion. How would your Administration curb the deficit? Is there any way to cut spending without hurting homeland security, the Iraq situation, education or social security?
- Intellectual property
What is your policy on the INDUCE Act and extensions to copyright law? What is your attitude toward the preservation of Fair Use provisions in copyright law? How much power should organizations like the RIAA and MPAA be given to enforce copyright?
- Iraq situation
President Bush, how do you justify the war in Iraq knowing that before the war Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD and had no ties to al-Qaeda, and that parts of Iraq are now under the control of terrorists? How can you claim to be fighting a relentless war on terrorism when you have designated areas of Iraq as no-go zones for U.S. troops? To both candidates: in light of the CIA's recent predictions, what is your plan to avert a civil war in Iraq or defeat the insurgency? How do you plan to fight the insurgency without offending Iraqis and contributing to the cycle of violence?
- War on terror
Do you foresee an end to the war on terror? Will legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and other suspensions of civil rights continue indefinitely?
- War on terror
Over $200 billion has been spent in Iraq and airline security has undergone tightening while port security and chemical plant security remain in large part unimproved since 9/11. What are your plans regarding this? How would your Administration protect the homeland?
- Religion
What is the role of religion in decision-making in the presidency?
- Electronic voting
(by bort27 [slashdot.org])
Dear President Bush and Senator Kerry,
For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.
The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.
William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?
- Kyoto by caseydk [slashdot.org]
Senator Kerry, How do you reconcile the strict environmental guidelines established by the Kyoto Protocols - which you have spoken in favor of - with the creation and continuation of high tech - and therefore high energy consumption - industries?
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like a law on Steroids. And that's why the Founding Fathers set the bar high for them; the 18th amendment is the clearest example of abuse in an otherwise fairly tolerable history (unless you semi-religiously believe that the Fed has no grounds to collect income tax
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #4 AIDS: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's getting modded as a troll, which may be unfair; that may be a reflection of the way it spends too much time leading the witness, so to speak. Yes, I assure you, both candidates will promise you anything you want after asking a question like that, and the 15 trillion I spend will be better spent than the 15 trillion the other guy would spend.
Re:18-35 #4 AIDS: But asked a better way (Score:5, Insightful)
A better way to ask the question:
The U.N. has set a goal to fund global AIDS research at $15 billion by 2005 and $20 billion by 2007. Given how distructive AIDS and HIV is to society, what portion of that tab would each of you recommend paying and why?
Re:18-35 #3 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of dealing with the problem, the actual illegal immigration, we deal with the symptom, the illegal immigrants. Politicians won't touch the situation because of the Mexican lobby. Would they be able to convince their Mexican constituency that they could increase the ease and volume of legal immigration, and use the saved money to fund better border patrols, for the benefit of all?
If the Mexican people like our government so much, why don't we just open the border, then when Mexico has all of 10,000 citizens left, we'll annex it into the U.S. I know I know, impossible, ignorant, etc, but it would be neat.