Slashdot Mirror
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...
The United States, by invading Iraq, used international support and resources to lead the fight against nuclear weapons. However, no weapons were found in Iraq. How do you think this has hurt or helped our efforts against nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North Korea?
What is the plan for dealing with Iraq if the citizens of Iraq vote in favor of a fundamentalist Islamic form of government that resembles the one currently existing in Iran? How will your administration work to preserve the roots of democracy that have been cultivated in this middle eastern country if the citizens of Iraq vote in a theocratic form of governance?
Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations. While the Senate's overruling of the FCC's controversial 3-to-2 decision to further deregulate media ownership rules in June of 2003 is a source of encouragement, most Americans want more variety in their sources of news and entertainment. What will you do to ensure that Americans have accurate sources of information to base their democratic decisions on?
What are the three written works or political thinkers that have contributed the most to your philosophy of governance, and why?
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 the benefits I've paid for, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely a Roth IRA.
Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole? How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs need to be handled? How does having countries like Japan who are buying our debt change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
Why do you say bad things about each other? When I grow up and become President I will be truthful and honest and I won't talk bad about the other guy. You both have a war against each other and you are forgetting we don't care about your war but we care about the War in Iraq. I would like for you to say one good thing about each other.
If our society were to take a dramatic downfall in morals, what would be the best course of action? Who decides what is moral, and why are we basing our legislation on a book that was written centuries ago?
The Bush administration has made a big deal of President Bush's Christian faith. Democratic candidate John Kerry is also a Christian. My question for both candidates is how does your faith affect your decision-making for the future of our country? Also, America is based on the separation of church and state. For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
This question is for both candidates. Senator Kerry, if you are elected President, what would you do to cut down on guns in school? President Bush, if you are re-elected, how will you try to cut down on school violence?
Because there are more promising people to tend to.
Does it seem that this question is loaded with bias against the electoral system? I think a question regarding the future of the electoral college is a good one, but this one seems loaded.
Perhaps it would be better to ask whether the influence of the electors should be removed, maintained, or increased?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Drop the first part of the question. All it will draw are generic homilies about the importance of IP, how wonderfully innovative Americans are, and how Americans will be more innovative with me than the other guy.
Specificity doesn't guarentee answers, but it makes evasion more obvious and sometimes that's all you can hope for.
Additionally, could you explain why outlawing alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, yet no amendment is necessary to prohibit the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs.
So you're a young voter who
- doesn't smoke pot,
- drives slowly
- isn't worried about paying for college
- and stands to benefit from tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%?
Because that's what your "representatives" are voting for: more drug laws, more prisons, and more corporate wealfare.And your biggest worry isn't getting laid, or getting into a good school, getting a decent job when you graduate or avoiding having to join the Army and go to Iraq, it's the gasp unelected judiciary "promot[ing] their own political and social agendas"?
Come the fuck on!
Is there anyone reading the parent post who thinks it wasn't written by Karl Rove or Jerry Falwell and then pressed into this "young voter's" sweaty palm by rich Daddy, who told him, "now go out and make Dubya proud"?
Don't piss down my leg and tell me that it's raining, frat boy.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I think this is the best of the three questions on drug policy. Frankly, they are redundant and should be lumped into one question somehow.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
A better electorate question might ask the candidates how they feel about the usage of paper-less electronic voting machines which have proven vulnerabilities.
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.
Favorite
Is this really the President's job? Family values are such a touchy issue that if a President brought their opinions in there, it would likely be a breach of the separation between Church and State.
Why should 270 million citizens continue to pay $50 billion per year to try to change the habits of 20 million people, considering that this policy has not been able to change those habits in 82 years and at a total cost of nearly one trillion dollars?
# fuser -v
#
Read this question out loud to yourself, slowly and clearly. It took me a full minute. Too long.
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.
Yes, we should have let the hanging chads be recounted indefinitely until Gore won.
Bush wins, shit
Bush wins, shit
Bush wins, shit
Gore wins. We are finished counting!!
Additionally I think it's probably important to note the presence of 'rider bills' that ride on already-existing bills. That is what most 'flip-flopping' is all about.
this question is way too "iffy". rephrase it:
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.
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
You know you like it.
It's a good question because it asks for specifics. Bush's policy has always been vague in my mind - he seems to both give Israel a carte blanche yet at the same time push an internationally-backed effective-seeming road map. (Compare his internationalist-sounding approach of a year ago with the current ineptitude surrounding Israel's against-road-map new settlement building.)
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.
|/usr/games/fortune
Other people have raised the nuclear proliferation issue. This question ought to be pared down to the Taiwan part, and asked. It will be a huge test of our country's resolve, and a defining moment in the international perception of the United States, if China attempts to invade Taiwan.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
It's class that's disproportionate.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
The national debt sits at 7.4 Trillion dollars, we have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit, a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and the one question about the global economy is about the frickin' metric system? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
If "monthly outgoing" means that base it on the monthly money you have left over after expenses, why wouldn't everyone spend as much as they can to get free insurance?
Universal Healthcare is the only answer... Let's join the rest of the first world.
Selection of a supreme court justice is usually done after an extensive search and selection process. Any off-the-cuff answer the candidates might give would be meaningless.
I would cut out the first two sentences of this question. The author states his bias (not that it's a bad bias, but it's still bias) and essentially states the answer he'd like to get back. Cut out the first two sentences and let the candidates stand or fall based on their own answers in their own words.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic.
I have two issues here. Firstly, the two-party system was by design and has its benefits. It is not a historical mistake to be corrected (ok, really three things. The electoral college was also not a mistake). Secondly, the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Democracy was intentionally avoided. It is actually a well thought out question and surely sincere, although not well informed.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
Outlawing Alcohol didn't require an amendment, just as the proposed Family whatchamacallit act to define "family" doesn't. The point was that by putting it in the Constitution that it would be extremely difficult to slap down. Which is also the point of the Family amendment.
:-) ).
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
- Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
- A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
It should not be asked.rewriting history since 2109
Interesting? Oh Lordy Lord!
Increasing the number of people creates more jobs that it takes. If this weren't the case, then villages with a population of 5 would have full employment, and cities with a population of 10 million would have 99.999% unemployment.
Add to that the increase in cultural diversity that immigrants bring ( I believe something the Yanks are sorely missing, by the way ), and you have some very strong arguments for increasing the number of immigrants.
Please don't let this nationalist trash get regurgitated again.
Why won't the questioner understand that he's asking a loaded question? Does he understand that the's stating a clear opinion instead of asking for a response? Is he aware that it might be better to ask a question, and evaluate the response, rather than simply state an opinion?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
This is an entirely unrealistic question, and should be modded down. I'd love to know the answer as much as the next person, but no politician can name appointments' names before the time comes. Just not gonna happen.
As a secondary complaint, the title "CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE" only peripherally pertains to the question itself. It should carry a more accurate title, like "SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS".
? #1: Score +5, Interesting
? #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.)
That's an easy one. Outlawing alcohol didn't require an admendment... a simple federal law would have done the trick. However, the forces that wanted prohibition were so overzealous they reached for the higher standard so that it'd be harder to overturn what they did. Too bad for them, that higher bar for clicking "undo" ended up getting met anyway.
I seriously doubt either Rangel or Hollings seriously want there to be a draft for the sake of bringing people involuntarily into the armed forces. The armed forces have even been pretty loud in saying they don't want a draft as non-trained people who don't wanna be there is of no use to the skill-based armed forces of today.
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.
Asking if the current drug strategy is effective is pointless. It's an invitation for platitudes about how many lives have been saved by all the drugs that our marvelous law enforcement officials over the years, but of course we always want to do more. (Big smile.)
Instead, I recommend asking "What programs and goals do you support or plan for reform of our laws and enforcement policies relating to illegal drugs?" It still gives them some latitude, but doesn't outright invite them to ramble on at length about how wonderful the existing system is.
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.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
How was the two party issue by design? Explain this one to me. As I understand it, there is no inbuilt system of "Political Parties" in the US system the way there is in various other systems.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
The electoral college helps protect smaller states from being dominated by larger states. At one time, Americans identified more with their state than with their country; e.g., Thomas Jefferson declared that "I am a Virginian", not an American. The smaller states feared that the large population centers would swamp them and effectively reduce their voice in government. Therefore, the electoral college sometimes allows a candidate to win who did not win the collective majority.
In 2000, George W. Bush carried 30 states, 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; 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.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Just how do you think we're going to get out of our debt if we don't do things to increase economic activity. Can't tax income that doesn't happen...
Converting to SI might help us cut down that 500 billion trade deficit stat you just quoted.
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?
Who did what now?
Instead of all the two questions here, after the statement I recommend asking "How would you rectify the disparity between persons who have been convicted of drug offenses being barred from receiving financial aid, and persons who have been convicted of rape or murder not being barred from receiving financial aid?"
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.
Combine 9 & 7.
:)
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
I stole this Sig
This question is a real waste of time. Both candidates will recognize instantly that they have no chance whatsoever of getting elected if they don't say yes.
The difference in those cases is that the person who got the greatest number of votes in each election became president, which is not what happened in 2000. We're not necessarily looking for a majority, but when the president-"elect" gets 500,000 fewer votes, something's whacky.
Haida Manga
As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Definately, though the thing I really think needs to be established is that a) marjiuanna is not a gateway drug (I garuntee this will be their answer unless it's countered in the question itself) or if conclusive evidence of a cannot be found then b) marjiuanna is a gateway drug only due to the fact that it is illegal (can any evidence from Holland be gathered here?), this makes it very tough to justify draconian anti-marjiuanna laws. Of course it's easy to say this, now we actually need the studies to back it up :)
I stole this Sig
Your use of the word 'supply' reminds me that The Economist actually had a very insightful article on America's drug policy a few years ago. The entire article basically spent a long time explaining in minute detail how America's drug policy is a complete failure and can only be a complete failure because it creates an artificial perception of short supply without actually making much of a dent in the supply at all. Because of this, the street price of drugs has skyrocketed, but the cost to produce those drugs has increased very little, and the amount of drugs being sold has decreased very little.
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.
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?
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
And while we're at it... can we get the number of stateside Americans who died since the end of major hostilities too? Granted, very few of those would be directly linkable to the war... but it's a stat and just about as useful as the one being requested by the parent post.
"Working people" is far to leading. The implication is that those who are "rich" are not working. There are plenty of professionals (doctors, lawyers, small business owners) who work 80+ hours/week, and thereby make $100k/year or more. Are they not "working people?"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Add to that the increase in cultural diversity that immigrants bring ( I believe something the Yanks are sorely missing, by the way )
By your use of the word "Yanks" I must assume that you are from the UK or some other Commonwealth or former Commonwealth nation. I think that you'll find that the non-Anglo population of the United States is far, far larger than that of the UK, or any other Commonwealth nation with the obvious exceptions of those former colonies whose populations have always been majority non-Anglo. Realize, for example, that most projections show that by 2050 the majority of the US population will be non-white.
Anyone who could fault the US for lack of cultural diversity that comes from immigrant populations is woefully lacking in any significant knowlege of US history (hint: everyone here except the Native Americans is a descendent of immigrants), and current ethnic diversity (have you ever been to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Kansas City, Detroit, San Francisco or Los Angeles? hint: all of these cities have huge non-white populations, most representing numerous ethnicities).
My travel in the UK makes it clear to me that the UK, for example, has far less ethnic and cultural diversity than most of these cities above, even in a major urban center like London.
In several resent speeches, you have complained about what you term "vicious, unfair, partisan" attacks on your character from supporters of President Bush. In light of that, I was wondering what you thought of the many comparisons made by liberals of President Bush to Adolf Hitler. I am not speaking here of the usual Internet kooks and yahoos, but of several national figures such as cartoonist Ted Rall, billionaire currency trader George Soros, and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Do you feel these comparisons are valid? If not, do you feel that they are within the realm of "respectable" political opinion? If not, what statements have you or your running mate made to condemn or discourage such statements?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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?
Where do you stand on English as the national language?
Maybe this is "-1, Offtopic", but how do I find out who my Electors are?
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.
Interestingly, no one talks about how unfair it was that Clinton got elected.
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.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
To the candidates in three parts:
(I) President Clinton was dragged through impeachment charges, rightly, because there was evidence to suggest he lied during a trial. Despite this mess, and your side of the political fence, when a President violates the law, it seems serious enough that it warrants high attention.
In that vein, do you think that: (a) lies by the President to start a war (e.g., purporting the existence of weapons of mass destruction), if done so with the purpose to deceive the public, warrant a charge of high-treason if substantiated, (b) would such a charge warrant the death penalty, and (c) should be an inquest for President Bush for such a charge of high treason? Why or why not?
(II) Alternatively, if a President is grossly negligent in starting a war by relying on faulty intelligence, should he be culpable? Why or why not?
(III) Finally, if the President did not lie about weapons of mass destruction, is there any other option but to deem that President as being anything but grossly negligent when it turns out he chose to rely on intelligence that has borne out to be false by the lack of existence of any weapons of mass destruction, and if so what is that alternative view?
--On a side note, I wonder why no one is bring this up? Seems lies (falsified memos/intelligence) to start a war would be a bit more serious than lying about what intern you screwed (both are bad, but one is significantly worse if its true).
Recently I had to leave the US after working and studying there for 7 years. This was (to my surprise) due to the fact that I lost my job, and was no longer welcome in the land of the free.
What changes do you plan to implement in this wonderful country that will provide some safety to those law abiding, tax-paying, non-permanent alien residents (a/k/a non-green card, H1B holders, "not marrying so I can stay" foreigners, etc)?
Furthermore, if you were forced to leave America right now, would you think it is fair to leave behind every friendship you have made during the last 7 years (even thought you have never broken any immigration or otherwise law)?
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.
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
No, AC, I didn't miss his point at all. Reading between the lines, it seemed to me that he was muddying up the waters to the point where he was saying "people shouldn't complain about the election of GWB, because Clinton's was also illegitmate". If there's one thing I HATE it's when spin is used to create a draw where one side should clearly be the loser. Comparing the legitimatices of BC's and GWB's respective elections seemed to me be practically shouting with this kind of spin. I could be wrong, however, and if the parent had no such agenda, then I apologize to him, and to you as well.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
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.
And the brethren went away edified.
It's only "whacky" if you assume that a majority of the popular vote ought to decide the election.
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.
Yes, there are basically only two ways you can go on this. Give everyone "free" health care paid for by taxes, or tell these people to fuck right off. Because if the government tries to regulate these things it will go straight to hell.
Part of being an adult is not living beyond your means. If you can't care for your kids, don't have them. I know bad things happen to good people but that's always been true. If your mortgage payment means you can't afford health care, you needed to buy less house. If you couldn't get less house where you live, you needed to move someplace cheaper. Mind you, I'm all for national health care. Want to know why? keep reading. :P
I had a nice little career going until the dot-bomb and since then I've had a hard time even getting responses to my resume, so I went back to school and haven't even been looking for real work outside of the college. I'm working as an intern, being paid horribly poorly for my work doing PC support, and otherwise living on student loans and federal grant money. It's all non-taxable which means I basically have no income according to assorted social services (even with this money, I make basically nothing) so I get medi-cal.
In other words, I have access to better health care than someone who works full time at a fast food joint, even though they work far harder than I do. This doesn't seem fair to me. Those people should have access to my health care.
Arguably I shouldn't have access to it myself but I'm working to better myself so I have an excuse :) Besides, a nation is made up of its people and if you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything. A nation of sick people is going to be sick.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
here you go.
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.
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.
Better yet, why is marijuana illegal at all? If people have the right to drink alcohol. Alcohol, gets you drunk, which impairs your motor skills, decision making skills, and has other various effects on various people. (Sad drunks, happy drunks, angry drunks, i-love-you-man drunks, etc.) So why is the consumption of marijuana also illegal when it has many of the same effects (if not better, such as relaxing and medically beneficial)? Either criminalize alcohol, or legalize marijuana.
Cite references to back that statement. Many won't believe it.
They *are* terrorist groups. They target civilians. Remember that pregnant woman who was killed with her children? When she was dead the terrorist shot her pregnant belly to make sure the baby died with her.
If they targetted only military targets, they'd be militants. They target mainly civilians (especially kids and teenagers), so they're terrorists. It's really that simple.
How about this: why, in the communication age, do we still have what basically amounts to a fuedal system of government? Does there really need to be a distinction between state and federal legislation anymore? It may have made sense 100 years ago, but modern technology seems to have seen to it that the logistics of long-distance rulership are now mostly trivial.
The reason no one brings this up is because there were no lies told by President Bush. If you disagree, please cite, with sources a single lie told by President Bush. Please note that in order for something to be a lie it must be an untruth deliberatly told, not something believed at the time that later turned out to be false.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the States as political units are obsolete. I disagree: small political units are the essence of self-determination. Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people; this was part of the reason for the failure of the Soviet Union. In any event, this would be a draconian change to our system necessitating a virtual rewrite of the Consitution. I doubt you'll find much support for such an undertaking.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the electoral college was put into place because a direct popular vote would have been impractical. That had nothing to do with it at all. See my reply to an earlier post in this thread for a link to the Federalist Paper discussing Presidential elections.
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
So you are saying that the government has the right to prohibit something for cultural reasons?
Oh wait.. So long as it's not _your_ culture..
-metric
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.
this question sucks, it has no informational value whatsoever.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the electoral college was put into place because a direct popular vote would have been impractical. That had nothing to do with it at all
Funny, because that's exactly what the Federalist Papers are all about. The majority of the text is spent discussing the trustworthiness of the electors, and how they will be chosen to represent neither their personal interests, nor those of a monied club or foreign empire.
Since your claims about the contents of that document are so at-odds against the actual text you linked to, prehaps you'd care to paste in a few of the bits that shore up your position?
(And just to make it more of a challenge, you're not allowed to choose sentences beginning with the word "Talents". I've already read that one line, and it's insufficient)
The problem I have with providing assistance to the working poor is that it doesn't really help the working poor, but gives more money to the insurance companies. (backhanded corporate welfare?)
It just abrogates the problem.
What needs to be done, and I'm not advocating nationalized healthcare, is do something to stop the corroboration/collusion between the AMA, Drug companies and Insurance companies.
This system is price fixing at its worse.
The AMA artificially sets limits on how many people can enter medical programs per year. This isn't a quality issue, it's a means of keeping the medical professionals salary high.
Drug companies do great research but they also collude with the physicians to push whatever they are making. I've sat in on enough free lunches by drug company reps to see what's going on. Many doctors have been turned into shills for the drug companies.
Medical insurance is a perpetual motion machine that needs a big stick put in it. They at times dictate to the doctors what can be done or what drugs they approve.
Average people cant get good care without it, and when they do get care they are limited to what their plan covers.
Solutions? I don't know other than tearing the whole world down and starting again.
Who run Barter Town?
No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position.
No, the burden is on advocates of change to promote their position and convince others to change from the status quo. Someone defending the status quo simply has to point out flaws in the challenger's argument and convince others not to accept the proposal. Therefore, please explain to us why the President should be elected by a majority -- or plurality, your choice if you can defend it -- of the popular vote.
When I first saw this topic it really got my brain reeling about the possibilities.
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.
By Margaret Thatcher of course.
And so where the Israleis fighting for their own state.
And so on and so forth.
Be careful, your terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The states, not the people, choose the President.
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?
"if the election were decided by popular vote because swing states become far less important,"
Why shouldn't they be less important? Why should ohio or missouri be more important then NY or California. Both NY and California contribute more to this country just about all other states combined both economically and culturally.
evil is as evil does
To use an Australian example (well i am from there). What's wrong with a public health system that covers the majority of medical issues within reason, and people electing to take out Private Medical Insurance if they wish for more comprehensive &/or quicker cover for any medical conditions?
I mean c'mon, the system you've got as i understand it is pretty fricking useless unless you've got medical insurance. I mean, charging $20 for a swizle stick to hold someones tounge down? sheesh!
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
"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?"
You know I am still waiting for Republican to tell the people of florida they should not get federal or state govt handouts just because they live in a state that gets hit with hurricanes every year.
It's an election year though and every republican in Florida is looking to spread the pork around.
evil is as evil does
Why is there no question about this? Specifically, I'd like to hear what the canidates have to say about the Fair Tax proposal http://www.fairtax.org/.
Both men were given this opportunity during the vietnam war. Both men came from privledeged families and had the resources to avoid going to war.
Kerry went to war and Bush did not. While at war Kerry saw combat he killed people and he risked being killed.
This question has already been answered by history.
evil is as evil does
These questions lack the sort of rigor I expect from Slashdot. I suspect more than a few people didn't actually email them. Here are some questions that need to be asked of the candidates:
- 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)
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
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?
It's very simple, and has been discussed numerous times since 2000. If we elect the President by a simple plurality (or majority) then Presidential candidates will simply spend huge amounts of money in a few population dense markets. 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, they might as well not even vote. So if disenfranchising 40% or more of the population is your goal, by all means eleminate the Electoral College.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
"Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise."
Why are the Founding Fathers always viewed as infallible? Is is not possible that they could have made mistakes? Afterall how could they have foreseen how politics and society would change by the 21st century?
If you're going to insist that direct popular vote is better, you need to demonstrate why. You need to demonstrate why this would be a better system than the one in place. To do this you need to understand what the rationale was for the current system and demonstrate why that rationale no longer applies. That is has been largely subverted, and we have the kind of circus we get surrounding every Presidential election, is actually a good argument for returning to a more exact version of it. The authors of the Consitution were amazingly prescient in some ways.
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
"Mr Kerry, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Sheesh. These questions are so stacked that no one will ever take this community seriously.
If you read the Federalist papers, you would conclude that our founding fathers were more then simple wealthy land owners. Most abhored nobility and actualy outlawed it. .. Read the Constitution and amendments. At worst, they were philosophers. Though I would contend that they actualy transcended philosophers and were inspired by Deism. Many were Deists.
Of course they had the foibles. The 3/5's slave rule, and the Primary reason wasn't because of mob rule, but as one respondant put it, because voting took so darn long and we had alot of territory to cover. But they understood the side affects as well, as cleary pointed out in their writings.
To the person who scoffed at the idea of the 17th amendment: It wouldn't be so bad if Senators were limited to campaign contributions from individual residents who actualy live in the state. But as today goes, some Senators actualy get more campaign support from large states like California or New york, then they do their own state. how many Senators has California funded -- many.
While this has been true in the 20th century, I can't believe he would say that with a straight face. Was North America completely unpopulated by Native Americans, the French, the English, the Spanish, and Mexico in his version of colonial history? Do the borders that currently describe the United States exist in a timeless continuum?
Seriously, tort reform is a pipe dream like privatizing Social Security.
I see it as a non-issue because I won't see change in my lifetime.
Get your Unix fortune now!
And if you actually click on the above link to read Federalist Papers #68, you'll find that the present procedure bears no relation to the procedure described therein. That procedure provided for direct election of the members of the Electoral College. In other words, you didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, you voted for a bunch of delegates, by name. Those delegates then met, considered the candidates, and voted according to their judgement, not according to what the people who elected them wanted. The idea was that the average voter doesn't really know the candidates well enough (probably still true), and elects someone trustworthy who does. That's not what happens today.
The intended procedure can be criticized, but at least it makes more sense than the present charade, where all the delegates from a big state that votes 51%-49% can be told to vote for one candidate. I don't know how to describe the present mess, but it sure has little to do with democracy.
This is a good question, however it could be worked a little more.
Unfortunately people have the idea that animal rights means you are a crazy, because people don't understand animals can feel (mental or physical) pain.
Protecting animals can go a long way in helping people. For example, if the government would actually start regulating the meat industry better, millions of workers would have a better way of life. The meat industry is the most dangerous industry in america to work in, and it's all because of giant factory farms. This doesn't even begin to cover the environmental effects that this industry has.
A better way to phrase the question would be to make it about farming and health. Phrasing it in a positive light goes a long way too. For example:
How would you work to protect small farmers from being disenfranchised from the large corporate and factory farms? Would you consider greater tax breaks for farmers that grow healthier and more environmentally safe food?
Sadly people just don't get animal rights. When they are faced with the question in black and white terms they end up making excuses for their behaviors. Or they get angry and dismiss it all as crazy PETA nut-jobs (very unfortunate, because PETA is nothing more than a marketing tool, meant to piss people off to gather attention, defeats the entire purpose if you ask me).
Yeah, well, our beloved founding fathers also believed that if you weren't a white, land-owning male, you weren't entitled to a vote in the first place. See, the Average Person is too stupid to have such a great responsibility as voting, so the Educated Elite must do this for them.
The fact is that the founding fathers were still heavily influenced by a feudalist history. We have a president because they believed that we needed a figurehead king.
While this was terribly elitist of them, in itself it wasn't obscenely unfair, because originally, only wealthy white males paid taxes[1]. Technically, they were in accordance with the constitution: taxation with representation. However, to pay for the civil war, Congress imposed the first income tax, which they only collected for seven years. In 1913, the Constitution was ammended to allow Congress to tax income however they wanted to, and that's where we are today.
One could argue that since everybody is taxed, they should have have equal representation, which they don't currently. The electoral college was created because it took weeks to get across the United States, and it made sense to elect someone to speak for you and send him to the conventions and elections, and choose the best candidate. Today, the excuse electoral college supporters provide is that the electoral college prevents candidates from focusing their campaigning attention on heavily populated areas. Both of these reasons are absurd; the first because it is obvious that the original reason is now no longer valid, and the second because it just isn't true. Bush has visited Washington state something like twice during this campaign; he's visited Ohio -- what, 17 times already? The electoral college creates just as much imbalance as having no electoral college would.
However, the electoral college would still be workable (although, you have to ask "why bother?") if the electoral votes were assigned proportionally. Currently, if you win one state, you win all of the electoral votes, and there is no excuse for this than stupidity. It aggrevates the disenfranchisement of voters, and enforces the two-party system that we suffer under today -- although, as long as we have first-past-the-post voting in the US, we're going to have the worst democratic election system in the world.
Ironically, even a dictatorship is more fair to voters than the US election system. In a dictatorship, the one person who votes gets what s/he wants 100% of the time. In the USA, as proven in two elections in the past couple of decades, the majority of Americans have not gotten the president that they voted for, and a significant minority feel obligated to vote for "the lesser of two evils", because a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.
[1] This is a simplification. There were taxes on goods -- mostly sin taxes, like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and slaves -- and these were paid primarily by the wealthy.
The primary reason for the electoral college is as follows: it prevents the disenfranchisement of anyone who does not live in a metropolitan area. How times have the presidential candidates visited the "battleground states"? How many porkbarrel projects have gone to these states within the past four years? Now suppose that instead of a handful of states, the only things of concern to candidates were the votes of LA, DC, NYC, SF, Miami, etc--a handful of CITIES. Things would quickly get shitty for everyone else, because their votes wouldn't matter--they wouldn't be needed to win the "popular vote." Most calls for electoral college reform are based on an ignorance of political science. State-level reform, sure--look at Maine's system--but national abolition? Are you kidding?
Why won't the questioner understand that he's asking a loaded question?
Because nine times out of ten, if you don't ask a loaded question, the response will weasel out of the question in exactly the manner we have seen a thousand times. This isn't a normal interview, you can't ask followup questions when they wiggle out of your first one. You need to make sure that you've closed those loopholes in the first question if you actually want them to address the issue at hand.
A natural disaster isn't the same as everyday bills.
Well, but in the case of Florida these natural disasters happen every year, often more than once. It's not exactly unheard of that hurricanes hit Florida in hurricane season.
Temporary help isn't the same as a permanent subsidy. Anyone can need help once in a while.
Definitely, but by the very same argument Florida has already recieved help on numerous previous occasions. If you want to live by the argument "grown-ups should support themselves" the republicans in Florida should come up with a viable plan where they'll eventually no longer need our support. Perhaps it's time for them to create a new tax (say 10% of all income in the state) to provide relief funds for future disasters.
You clearly have no idea what "Fascism" means. I suggest you purchase a dictionary oir a history book.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
How can giving more weight to the votes of individuals possibly lead to fascism, unless by fascism you mean to imply any governmental system you dislike and which isn't blatantly communist(both fascist and communist have both been way too overused in the last 50 or so years).
It's what's called the Tyranny of the Majority - Germany, IIRC, had a purely popular vote in the early thirties. If you have a purely popular vote, you only need to convince the majority of actual voters that they are being disinfranchised by group X, or that party Y is somehow corrupt, to start losing some of what we have.
There's nothing special about being a democracy with a popular vote - they've been around for a long time. They generally fail, though, as soon as people realize that they can vote themselves stuff at other peoples' expense. You could argue that we're already in that situation now, but I think a purely popular vote would make it worse.
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
How can giving more weight to the votes of individuals possibly lead to fascism, unless by fascism you mean to imply any governmental system you dislike and which isn't blatantly communist(both fascist and communist have both been way too overused in the last 50 or so years).
Ever heard of Hitler? He was elected by popular vote and at the pinnacle of his government had 95% approval of the citizenry.
Homeschooling appeals to the president's conservative base...this a softball question to allow Bush to swing away and make his base happy.
Disclaimer: I was homeschooled.
George Bush is responsible for FAR more deaths worldwide than Bin Laden.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
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.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
This question gets at what could be a fundamental difference in education policies enacted by the President.
Will President Bush or Kerry support home schooling by insuring equal access to educational resources, athletic opportunities or facilities, funding (ala school vouchers), or tax credits?
This question is not related to sex ed, that's true. I don't know why it got tagged that way.
Still, this is one of the few questions to probe at general education policies.
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.
perhaps because he was lucky enough to preside over a great economic boom that ended just as he was leaving office.
*sigh*
Clinton was not, by any means, "lucky" to have presided over that boom, and I'll tell you why.
Clinton came in during a mild recession. One thing he did early in his term in office was get congress to promise to balance the budget. In order to get Democrats to agree to this (traditionally Republicans were the ones wanting balanced budgets) he raised taxes for the upper class in the same bill. Republicans, of course, insisted that this was a horrible move and would greatly damage the economy according to supply-side economic theory (aka Reagonomics, tricle-down economics, voodoo economics).
Now, here's some basic economics for you: Deficit spending and taxation are pretty much the same thing. When you deficit spend, you add money to the economy, which devalues the money that's already there. The effect is that you are transferring wealth from the citizens to the government, just as you would through taxation.
As Alan Greenspan put it, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." [1].
However, deficit spending hurts the economy far more than taxation. Pretend you are a wealthy individual looking to invest money. Say you narrowed it down to two options: You could lend money to someone with a great idea for a new business, or you could purchase property. Now, if inflation is likely to hit hard in the next few years, what would you do? Well, if you lend money to that guy, that money is going to be worth a lot less in a few years when he pays it back. But if you buy property, that property is only going to go up in value. So, you buy property.
Well, guess what? The economy booms when people are lending. Buying property does nothing for the economy.
Indeed, Clinton's elimination of the deficit led interest rates to drop to historic lows. In fact, simply the promise that the deficit would be eliminated caused people to start investing like crazy, which caused the economic boom, which itself helped eliminate the deficit. Circular logic? Reganomics seemed pretty circular, too, but Clintonomics actually worked.
And look what Bush has done. He gave us a massive tax cut, and is paying for it through deficit spending. He claims that his tax cuts will help the economy, but deficit spending hurts far more than tax cuts help. I'll grant you that the recession itself was not Bush's fault; the economy moves in cycles no matter what the government does. But Bush's policies are only making it worse.
Fiscal responsibility isn't just a happy thought. It's essential for a healthy economy.
"As has been pointed out, Kerry joined the Navy because they were the least likely to actually have to go to battle"
But he actually went to vietnam and actually killed people and actually got shot at and actually got wounded. If he wanted to avoid that he could have gotten deferments like Cheney did, faked an illness like Rush Limbaugh did (ingrown hairs), or gotten a national guard assignment like Bush did.
"George Bush flew jet planes - something inherently dangerous,"
Yes and so is driving. In fact driving is more risky then flying airplanes. IT's all moot anyway because he never showed up for his last physical and didn't complete his training.
I am sorry that Kerry did not get wounded enough or saw enough combat to make you happy but clearly he was willing to die for his country and Bush and Cheney were not.
evil is as evil does
If you live in a state that gets hit with hurricanes every year or so then it's long term isn't it?
"This woman wants help on an ongoing basis. Before she gets it, she should have to come up with a viable plan where she'll eventually no longer need it."
Pray tell what is she to do except maybe kill her son.
evil is as evil does
Here's a question: Why do you think a President ought to be chosen by popular vote?
:
:"the founding fathers were better and wiser people than we'll ever be; there's no point in criticising, let alone trying to improve their work". To try a daring analogy with programming, it's like believing that Linus' code is always bug-free and the single best and most elegant solution to a problem.
I dunno, maybe because that's what democracy is about. The people... vote... for their leader...
But that's not my main point. The really interesting part of your post is the following
Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise
So what? I mean of course the founding fathers were great and wise people and the constitution they wrote should be held in great respect and everything. But finding out what the founding fathers thought does not close the discussion. There are many reasons why the founding fathers could have thought that way. Maybe, at the time the constitution was framed, the objective was to bring together 13 very independant-minded states and the US of A didn't actually make much sense as a nation. Maybe the founding fathers made the best decision considering the situation of their time and since the US have changed in 2 centuries, the best solution would be different today. Maybe the founding fathers were just yielding to the political pressure of current state leaders. Or maybe it served their own political agenda. Maybe they made a mistake... They were only mortals after all...
This quasi-religious worship of their constitution is one of the greatest mysteries I face when it comes to understanding Americans (I'm French BTW). Most Americans I know have a lot of self-confidence. They believe that whatever the opposition, they will find a way to prevail. As a society, America always question status-quo. Businesses innovate and reinvent themselves or they die. I think that Americans, maybe more than other people, have this capacity to change their way of doing things just because the world has changed and there's a better way. I really admire that.
Yet, when it comes to the constitution, this boldness and self-confidence disappear. It's as if Americans said to themselves
I don't know where this contradiction comes from. Maybe it's from something they teach you at school. I don't know. But I think it's worrying because it blocks progress. During the middle ages, in the chaos that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, huge chunks of human knowledge were lost. Fortunately, some books written by Greek or Roman scientists and philosophers were salvaged and cherished like the treasure they were by generations of monks. This prevented Europe from getting 2 millenia backwards. But at some point it became a 2-edged sword. There was so much respect for the Ancients that knowledge could only match them, not beat them. Noone could advance a theory beyond the point where Aristotle or Archimedes left it because it would have meant that he was better than Aristotle or Archimedes. And that was unthinkable. As a consequence (and also for a lot of other reasons), scientific progress was extremely slow during the middle ages.
Similarly, I think that political systems should evolve and improve. I'll try another geeky analogy : the constitution is democracy's firewall; whatever the skill, wisdom and insight the founders had, the constitution is bound to have holes or vulnerabilities. More to the point, if it was adapted to the USA of the 1780's maybe it's partly obsolete today.
I'm rereading this post and realize that I'm a bit harsh to the parent. Your post was actually insightful since it invited the reader to question his beliefs. Also it doesn't even explicitely state that the current situation is good because the founding fathers thought so. Lastly, I don't advocate dumping the US constitution or amending it thoughtlessly; I just feel that critical thought is always a good thing, even (especially) in relation to the constitution.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Seriously.
Say Osama bin Laden is hated by all of the US, and a few hundred million people in other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care much either way because he's not targeting them. So that's about half a billion people that hate him. On the other hand, for much of the muslim world, he's a hero. Pakistan alone probably has at least 50 million people who love him.
Bush, on the other hand, has an influence on the entire globe, and had done a whole lot to get people to hate him everywhere. Remember the standoff with China in early 2001? The hatred isn't as universal as the hatred for bin Laden in the US, but even in countries which were once US allies, a lot of people hate Bush. Add to that the hundred million Americans who hate him, and I'm sure he takes the crown for the most hated person.
The very assumption that Osama bin Laden would be the most hated person in the world just betrays a very US-centric attitude, ignorant of the rest of the planet. It's about time American started realizing that the rest of the world doesn't see things the same way they do.
" No, what I'm asking is, for example, if Bush's national guard unit were called up for active duty, the question is would George have gone?"
Probably not. He failed to show up for his physical and therefore was not qualified to fly. Coincedentally it was the first physical that was to test for drugs.
GW went to the guard knowing full well that he would not be called up. It was unheard of at the time. He never expected to go to vietnam.
Kerry joined the navy knowing full well he would go to vietnam. That's the difference. One know he was going to vietnam the other knew he wasn't.
evil is as evil does
Drugs in the Netherlands is regulated, but users (and to some extent licensed sellers of the less dangerous drugs) are not criminalized.
Prosecution policy is based on the premise that criminal prosecution must be no more damaging to the drug users than the drug use itself. Besides that, a "war on drugs" is a waste of taxpayer's money and leads to no results other than overcrowded jails.
With respect to drug users, the protection of health is the key aim of Dutch government. The aims of Dutch policy are 1) maintaining a separation between the market for soft drugs (cannabis products such as hashish and marijuana) and the market for drugs that carry an unacceptable risk (such as the hard drugs heroin and cocaine) and 2) preventing drug users from ending up in an illegal environment, where they are difficult to reach for prevention and intervention.
Repression is mostly directed towards smugglers of drugs (both import and export).
Although numbers of users appear to be lower than in the US and many other western countries according to some sources, it is not clear that this is causally related to policy (or vice versa). Dutch culture is generally not more tolerant to drugs use in my experience.
Drugs policy is getting more repressive in the last decade, partially because of foreign pressure and partially because the Netherlands started attracting unwelcome foreign problematic drug users from the EU (since the Schengen treaty). The numbers are available through many drugs advocacy websites based in the US (google), but if you want a Dutch source in English on policy I recommend this .
Yes. The culture of the United States of America. The odds are very good that you picked up your habit while Marijuana was still very much illegal in the United States, so if you cultivated a dependency on an illegal activity, that's your own fault.
If you immigrated, it's generally not considered polite to come here and bitch about the rules. It looks a little hypocritical, considering how much the rest of the world hates it when Americans do it.