Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry

Posted by Roblimo on from the the-two-best-major-party-candidates-in-the-whole-country dept.

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...

80 of 1,501 comments (clear)

  1. 18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    President Bush and Senator Kerry, both of you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard either of you take on the issue of election reform in our own country. 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. What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?

    1. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by trick-knee · · Score: 3, 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?

    2. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the writers of the Constitution had wanted a system for direct popular election of the President, they'd have put one in place. They didn't.

      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?

    3. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Temsi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, first of all...
      The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners. A slave, while not allowed to vote, counted as 3/5th a person, and thus that state got more electoral votes, which of course meant that the vote of a slaveowner carried more weight than the vote of the average person. Which is why there were so many Presidents from Southern states back in the day.

      Second. It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority. In fact, it's surprisingly easy.
      The president is the head of the Union. He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
      Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.

      --
      -- This sig for rent.
    4. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 3, Interesting
      He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
      Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.

      This is a non-sequitur, but let's pretend it isn't for a moment.

      The system for electing the President has been subverted by the practise of not placing the electors' names on the ballot, but those of the Presidential candidates themselves. Many inattentive voters in the 2000 election were sincerely surprised to discover that a President can be elected without receiving the highest number of popular votes. Candidates bring their campaigns directly to the people, and so do nothing to promote understanding of the Constitutionally mandated system. In effect, although the President isn't chosen by popular vote, the pre-election activity is carried out almost exactly as if he were.

      Dirty campaign tactics, dirty money, special interest groups, interference from foreign governments -- we have, or have had by now, all this as a result. It was all foreseen by the authors of the Constitution, and the Electoral College was instituted in an attempt to avoid it in the hopes they would, with some rationality, choose based on the merity of a candidate and not because of political affiliation or any like consideration. Even the fact that the Electors meet in their respective states and not all in the same place is to forestall any one group from exerting an undue amount of political influence over them, or politicking among them with some states banding together against others.

      Seeing as how all the above describes most of what is wrong with the system as it exists today, how would going to a direct popular vote fix that? Would it not make more sense to go back to something closer to the Constitutional design? Might we then avoid the kind of media circus that now attends every Presidential campaign and distracts the electorate from the real issues and qualifications of the candidates? How could we possibly fix any of this with a direct popular vote? (Much of it is already illegal, but it happens anyway, so passing more laws won't fix matters. We can't pass laws much more restrictive and still preserve our 1st Amendment rights of free speech.)

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    5. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So far, all I've been presented with is dogma.

      Yes, we can infer that, because that's all your posts contain.

      There was a very simple question asked: "Why is it better if the candidate with the most votes can lose the election?". You might TRY to answer that.

      To the extent your lengthy digressions have addressed that topic at all, they've taken the following structure:
      1. The Founding Fathers were really smart.
      2. Way smarter than any of you jokers.
      3. They set up the Constitution to work this way.
      4. Therefore, it's best this way.
      5. Now be quiet unless you can refute these 3 totally separate issues that I care about.

      Holes in that "reasoning" are almost too apparent to bear mentioning, which is prehaps why we haven't said very much about them.

      Most of the documents and rationalizations you provided have ignored the fact that states can choose the assignment of electors however they wish. Indeed, it seems quite plausible that the "Founders" did not consider the implications of that permission- because what arose is a form of Tryanny of the Majority, taking place in each of the 50 states upon every election.

      Certainly, Texas COULD divide its electors proportionally, and send out 20 Bush supporters alongside 14 of Kerry's men. But as Republicans have the majority power, they won't do this. The rights of the minority Texan Democrats are trampled by the dominant GOP. (The reverse problem happens to the Massachusett GOP)

      One might argue that this inequity is the fault of the states... but one would be wrong. The circumstance was the result of systems created by the USA Constitution, and only that Constitution has the power to alter them.

    6. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hmm, well, I guess I'm willing to support this statement, although I didn't make it.

      I don't think the Electoral College is a bad idea per se -- I think that it makes some sense to group people geographically and then have them vote as one, and plenty of people have made arguments, including some interesting mathematical arguments, to demonstrate that the EC increases, rather than decreases, the value of the individual vote.

      HOWEVER: What is not at all fair is the formula for distributing electoral college votes. In 2000, Montana had 1 vote for every 300K citizens, & California had only 1 vote for every 600K citizens. Every state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes, which gives all those gunslingers in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana WAY more than their share -- just as it gives them an outrageously disproportionate influence in the Senate (which I actually consider to be a worse problem). The source for those numbers says:

      While largely ignored by Presidential candidates in elections, the smaller states are not as completely irrelevant as they would be otherwise.

      This misses the point -- the small states are ignored by the candidates because they ARE NOT SWING STATES. Most are overwhelmingly Republican.

      The most surprising thing about American politics right now is that North Dakota and South Dakota have 4 Democratic senators, even though both states vote firmly Republican in the Presidential elections. I don't know what to make of this, other than to suppose that the Rs must be repeatedly nominating wackos for Senator in those states. If the party manages to get its extremists under control, we'll have 4 more R senators, with the result that about a dozen Republican senators will have been elected to represent about 10 million citizens, vs the 88 senators that represent the other 270 million of us.

      In any case, since the Constitution isn't going to change anytime soon -- the Republicans would have to be crazy to allow it -- the only real hope for the Democratic party is mass migration. They need to move about 1 million liberal Democrats out of TX, OK, CO, NY and CA into each of ND, SD, WY, MT, ID and UT.

      You will note that this is NOT that many people, when all is said and done. If somebody with a lot of money made it their objective, it could be done. Most of the migrants should come from Texas , Oklahoma, and Colorado, where their current residency just serves to increase the number of electors appointed by the Republicans in those states.

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  2. 18-35 #2 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM by Roblimo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since we are living in an age where technology is becoming more and more advanced and people are getting more comfortable with the existence of computers, does any political party (democrat, republican, independent, or other) have any intention of trying to expand voting online? Assuming the rights of the voters are protected, I would gladly cast my vote online.

  3. 18-35 #4 AIDS: by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every day, 10,000 people die of AIDS, not only in Africa, but also in the U.S. and every country in the world. Many people say AIDS is the worst disaster the world has ever seen because it is killing millions of young people, and robbing the world of its future. While the U.S. is spending more to fight AIDS than ever before, we're still not nearing the minimal goals the UN has set for total global AIDS funding ($12 billion by 2005 and $20 billion for 2007). As President of the richest and most powerful country, what proportion of this $20 billion price tag are you prepared to meet? Also, regarding the $15 billion we've pledged to go toward HIV/AIDS programs in 15 of the world's hardest hit nations over the next 5 years, what will the U.S.'s role be in the other nations that are suffering from the AIDS crisis, and what can Americans do to ensure that the entire $15 billion of support pledged by our government goes towards fighting HIV/AIDS worldwide, regardless of who wins this Election?

    1. Re:18-35 #4 AIDS: by bofkentucky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's an intersting idea, quarantine! It damn near worked for TB (until immunocompromised patients reappeared due to AIDS

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  4. 18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the next four years we will see the appointment of possibly (2) new Supreme Court justices. My question to the candidates is this: I understand that your decision could justifiably change tomorrow, but, if you had to appoint someone to the Supreme Court today - on this very day - who, specifically, would that person be and why?

  5. 18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. that are attributable to alcohol overdose. In addition, alcohol intoxication is associated with violent behavior. Yet alcohol remains widely available. Another common drug, marijuana, cannot kill by overdose, and does not cause violent behavior. In light of these facts, how will your administration rationalize the continued prohibition of marijuana, which is a less harmful drug?

    1. Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by ktulu1115 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What do you conclude from the experience of Holland--a country where drugs fall under the jurisdiction of health agencies, not law enforcement--which has seen a decline in chronic use of hard drugs and casual use of soft drugs since de-criminalization?

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    2. Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      VERY insightful addition. Though they may take the angle "use wasn't as widespread, therefore it wasn't as big a deal as alcohol." Of course, that puts one in the position of marginalizing minorities...hmm.

      --
      Your brain is not a computer.
    3. Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Outlawing Alcohol didn't require an amendment

      Arguably it did. These days the Congress, with Supreme Court backing, tends to view the Constitution as a proscriptive document and assume that they're allowed to pass laws on any subject just so long as they're not specifically forbidden to do so.

      However, a plain-English reading of Article I Sections 8 and 9 suggests otherwise. Section 8 enumerates Congress' powers; Section 9 places specific limits on those powers. Nowhere in either of these sections do we find Congress authorized to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, or any other intoxicating substance. They might prohibit their import or transportation across State lines, but that's it. The 18th Amendment was therefore necessary if alcohol was to be prohibited everywhere.

      Perhaps Congress could have simply passed a law against it. But you could probably bet that any judge that law came before would use anything, even an "antiquated" view of Constitutional law, to strike it down if it would keep him from his Cognac nightcap.

      Although the 18th Amendment was foolish, it wasn't an abuse. The Constitution was amended in that case fair and square. I don't know enough about the issue to evaulate the objections to the legality of the 16th Amdendment, but if they're true then it's a serious abuse indeed. (It's also possible the 17th Amendment is invalid by the "equal suffrage" clause of Article V.)

      It also wasn't Constitutional amendment through drastic re-interpretation, as some activist jugdes are wont to perform. That, to the extent it actually happens, is also a serious abuse.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  6. 18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the name of America's youth, billions of dollars have been spent on the War on Drugs. While we have seen our economy dwindle, and educational and social spending on the chopping block, our prison population continues to grow, mostly for nonviolent drug offenses. 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?

    1. Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY by DaveInAustin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a good question, except that the economy hasn't dwindled during the past 30 years, it's actually grown quite a bit. I'd like to ask them "Would either of you acknowledge that the war on drugs has a cost way beyond the dollars spent on law enforcement and incarceration and the lost tax dollars that could be captured from sales taxes on currently illegal drugs. Would you acknowledge that we arent going to stop people from doing drugs (we arent even stopping people from doing drugs in prison) and that trying to do through law enforcement gives thugs a monopoly (anyone not a thug will be ratted-out by an accomplice, or ripped-off) on the drug trade, therefore enriching thugs (and terrorists). Its not a question of if drug legalization will increase the amount of drug abuse, because it very well may. Its the question of do you think the distortion in the economy (the creation of a job market for people with the skills of violence), are worth it. Wouldnt it be better to tax the drugs and use the money for treatment (and for law enforcement of crimes with victims).

      --
      --- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
  7. 18-35 #8 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With 80 percent of U.S. citizens agreeing that it should be provided, nine - and soon to be more - states accepting it, several organizations including American Nurse's Assn. and Texas Medical Association have resolutions supporting it, and even the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," why is it that medical marijuana is still illegal by federal standards and not the decision of the states or the individuals it affects?

  8. 18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a question about the HEA drug provision. This provision disqualifies students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid. Black students and lower to middle class students are unfairly targeted, as wealthier students can afford tuition and need not apply for financial aid. Do you feel it is necessary to deny financial aid to a student who already paid for their crime? Are you aware that students with a rape or murder conviction are not exempt from receiving financial aid?

  9. 18-35 #10 DRAFT by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel and Ernest Hollings have been pushing to reinstate and change the draft, Senate 89 and House 163. The two bills call for the drafting of women, and don't allow exemptions for college or only children. The Congressmen are pushing the bill under the claim that too many minorities are fighting for our country (CNN.com, February, 2003). What are the chances of either of you supporting such a drastic change in our drafting process?

  10. 18-35 #11 DRAFT by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Under what circumstances would you institute a draft to fight the war on terrorism, or institute any other national service (such as the Universal National Service Act) to fight any other war?

  11. 18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the 1960s, a concerted effort was made, at the behest of Pres. Kennedy, to reach the moon within 10 years, an incredibly ambitious goal that was ultimately achieved. Do you think that, if a similar effort were made to develop alternative fuels, we would be similarly successful, and would you be willing to make this effort? Also, what benefits do you see alternative fuels bringing our nation, with respect to education, environment, security, and foreign policy?

  12. 18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED) by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant. What is your opinion on sex education in the classroom and what resources (information, condoms, etc) should be used? Do you believe that teaching abstinence alone is enough to save our children from teen pregnancy and spreading disease?

  13. 18-35 #16 EDUCATION (SEX ED) by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you were reelected/elected president, what would you do to protect the rights of home-schooled in America? In what ways would you help the growing home-school community?

  14. 18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The U.S. has been accused of cultural and economic imperialism in the past, and now with the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are being accused by people around the world of imposing our will on others with force. How do you respond to that, and what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world?

    1. Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More people protested bush then any other person in the history of mankind. GW may very well be the most hated person in the world right now. I seriously doubt that our nation's reputation can be saved as long as he is office. If he is re-elected then the world will just presume that Americans support his vision of a world living under our domination.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  15. 18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What do you see as the biggest difference between your approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the approach of your opponent? What are some specific problems with your opponent's approach?

  16. 18-35 #19 FAMILY VALUES by Roblimo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Presently, divorce rates and juvenile delinquency are at all time highs. Issues like these are contributing to one of the most ominous threats on the horizon of this young nation - the disintegration of the family unit. As President, what will you do to slow the steady erosion of traditional family values?

  17. 18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whoever sits in the White House on January 21, 2005, will preside over an America that has seen almost 30 years since the passage of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act. In those three decades, delayed enforcement and waivers have stunted the effect of this act on adopting SI as a common standard for Americans. This negatively impacts the U.S.'s competitive stance in the global economy. As President, what would you do to achieve the goals of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act?

    1. Re:18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The metric system is so easy to learn, that most Americans doing high school science know both systems. There is no reason to switch.

  18. 18-35 #21 GLBT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why won't the candidates address the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? Do they recognize the significance that this demarcation holds as a stand against discrimination? Do they realize how their unwillingness to address this issue impacts every aspect of GLBT's (and their families') lives? Are they aware that when political issues call civil rights into question that hate crimes raise exponentially?

    1. Re:18-35 #21 GLBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Here's my version, as un-loaded as possible (albeit a small church-state bias is apparent.) If the question is too long, the last paragraph is sufficient. That being said, I think this question should be lumped up to something like "Should the government interfere with people's private lives?"

      Sirs, since marriage is currently commonly defined as a union of two persons before the eyes of the Law and the eyes of God, it is dualistic by nature. We grant that it is the right of every religion to establish the rules of their unions. However, since the United States is a heterogenous country with respect to religions, it should also be established that one religion does not dominate all others (or those of no faith). Indeed, the most common antithesis for same-sex marriage is usually on religious grounds: I daresay most of the opponents do not protest to the gay household itself (at least to a comparable degree) but specifically designating that household to be one through marriage.

      Therefore the most logical solution would be to separate a marriage in two parts; the religious and the legal.

      How do you view, sirs, the viability of a proposition to completely remove the term 'marriage' (and any derived terminology) from the Law and replace it with 'civil union' (for both homo- and heterosexual unions) while at the same time granting any religious organizations an express permission to, upon their choosing, not perform or honor marriages on couples depending on their sexual orientation?
  19. 18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My husband works for a small business, about 20 people maximum, and the insurance the company offers not only would cost over 1/3 of his monthly income, but it would not cover our son due to his 'pre existing condition' (asthma). My question to you is, do either of you plan to make the limitations for assistance higher? Eliminate 'pre-existing conditions,' such as asthma? Make it to where agencies that provide assistance not just look at a monthly income, but look at the monthly outgoing?

    1. Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE by canadian_right · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How come Americans don't mind government funded programs to build roads, schools, fund education, and many other worthwhile things, but don't think the government should be involved with healthcare?

      The USA is the only rich country without government funded healthcare. Wouldn't it make more sense to have toll roads and public hospitals?

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  20. 18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION by Roblimo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Our immigration policies on family unification of permanent residents are far from adequate and causing a lot of pain due to family separation. There are several bills introduced that are pending consideration in this election year. Will these bills (ex: HR 3701, HR 3918, etc) be addressed soon?

    1. Re:18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better question: when will we deploy troops to our porous borders, for the sake of national security? For crying out loud, I'd think that after 9/11 this would be "important". Silly me.

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  21. 18-35 #25 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am in the military and I want to know if the war in Iraq is going to have a long-term affect on stateside military funding under your control?

  22. 18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make it harder to declare war on, say, Iran or North Korea if the need exists?

    1. Re:18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by strangel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course it would make it harder.
      A better question would be, "Under what circumstances, if any, would you deem it necessary to declare war on a rising nuclear power such as Iran or North Korea?"

  23. 18-35 #28 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dear Sirs, what specifically are your plans to ensure both Iran and North Korea do not obtain nuclear missile capabilities and additionally, and what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?

  24. 18-35 #29 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the light of 9/11, Palestinian militant groups were designated as terrorist groups. This action has precluded communications and these groups involvement in peace negations. How do you propose to break the deadlock in this peace process, and what is your vision for how this peace will look (statehood, disarmament, settlements, etc)? Will this action be taken by individual nations (the road map which was supported by the U.S., Russia, etc) or through the UN (Security Council resolution)?

  25. 18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In light of a number of recent publicized legal cases, including the suing of illegal file sharers by the RIAA [Recording Industry Assoc. Amer.], it seems that our legal system is slanted to benefit those with money. Large companies and rich individuals can afford lengthy legal proceedings with multiple lawyers, while non-upper class individuals often do not have the same access. This forces many individuals to settle cases, even if they believe they have done nothing wrong. What can be done to fix this injustice?

    1. Re:18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM by hype7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes! but what about changing tack slightly; how about

      "do you think there is a relationship between the amount an organisation/corporation donates to a political candidate/party and the benefit that organisation/corporation in turn receives from politicians after the donation is made? Do you think this is how a democracy should work, with those making the largest donations getting the most attention from politicians? If not, what do you propose to do about it? "

      How about that?

      -- james

  26. 18-35 #31 LEGAL REFORM by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dear Mr. President and Senator, as a local nurse, I am interested in how you plan to help ease the stress many OB/GYN physicians and OB/GYN nurses have due to the ocean of malpractice lawsuits. How can you help us, as healthcare providers to NOT live in fear of undue lawsuits?

  27. 18-35 #33 MEDICAL by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Though the U.S. is the undisputed world leader, we fall last in line behind all other industrialized countries when it comes to post-partum maternity benefits. With all the proven advantages of a mother staying home with her child during the first year of life, what do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?

  28. 18-35 #34 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who is doing your respective jobs while you are campaigning? And if your job allows for the additional work that is put into campaigning, then what do you believe you could have accomplished if this were not a campaign year (assuming that you put this additional campaign work into your respective jobs)?

  29. 18-35 #35 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What was the biggest mistake you made in the last four years? What were the negative repercussions of that mistake and what have you done to fix it?

    1. Re:18-35 #35 PERSONAL by dragunsflame · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ha ha ha! Bush will never admit a mistake.

  30. 18-35 #36 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

  31. 18-35 #40 OTHER by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is your take on so-called "intellectual property"? Would you veto any attempt to extend the duration of copyrights yet again? Would you attempt to reign in the range of software patents to prevent patents on ideas and trivialities to stifle innovation?

  32. 13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the reality of the rise in teenage pregnancies, what is your position on the availability of contraceptives, medical care, education and coverage for these health services for teens? Does your position realistically deal with the consequences of teenage pregnancy and teen parents, the resulting poverty, and the rise in back-alley abortions and abandoned newborns? What will you do as president to address this issue, and why?

  33. 13 - 17 #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am 15 and learning disabled because of a serious heart condition. I am having a difficult time in school. I face increased pressure with the "no child left behind" rules. I get pushed and I cannot keep up. My sister is autistic. I need to know where she will go when she is older. Her school may have to close because they are not getting funding. Why is no one stepping forward to support the growing need for special education?

  34. 13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?

  35. 13 - 17 #6 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What has influenced you to run for office? What do you hope to contribute that the other candidates are not able or willing to contribute to the government and the people?

  36. 13 - 17 #8 ENVIRONMENT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am concerned about our growing population in the U.S. and all over the world. The traffic, overbuilding and suburban sprawl is not slowing, and I worry, that by the time I am an adult and have a family, that my quality of life is really going to suffer. I would like to hear the presidential candidates address their views on over population, how to control it, its effect on the environment, energy consumption, land use, etc., and on how to stop the overcrowding of both America and the world.

  37. 13 - 17 #9 IMMIGRATION/JOBS by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why, as an American citizen, will I have to compete for jobs and college financial assistance with people who are here illegally from other countries? My immigrant parents followed the rules and waited their turn.

  38. Iraqi Deaths by notcreative · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How many civilian Iraqis have died since "the end of major hostilities" in Iraq?

  39. Questions for both candidates by mhollis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do you oppose and feel are inappropriate for implimentation.

    What specific steps will you take (are you taking) to find Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Exactly what resources ought our military and intelligence services be given to finish the job of capturing these known perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the United States?

    Exactly how will Social Security benefits be paid for by your policies after 2020?

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  40. The Big, Unanswerable Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Instead of choosing our President from amongst the best and the brightest, why are we continually forced to choose the lesser of two evils?

  41. Re:13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Also, how would your beliefs on this matter influence who you chose for cabinet-level appointees who may or may not have the same beliefs on religion and separation of church and state?

  42. Mod up? by mveloso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree, it'll be interesting to see the answer. This would be a great question for most job interviews as well.

  43. Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by killjoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MOD PARENT UP.

    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?

    --
    evil is as evil does
  44. Re:18-35 #37 PERSONAL by TheMCP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bush was asked similar questions several times over the last four years, and is on record as saying the only thinker he cares about is Jesus and he doesn't read anything but the Bible. Kerry could be asked about this at some other venue, and not waste time with such trivia at the debate.

  45. Assessment of questions... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alright, rather than just "mod", here's my take on all of them:

    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 ... there are checks and balances to this system.

    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/Lesbian

    1. Re:Assessment of questions... by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Look, the point of this is to ask questions that the candidates haven't been asked before, or aren't likely to be asked at some future point. A lot of the questions are pretty standard, or close to standard, but this one is so far off the track of what's traditionally asked that you expect both candidates to be baffled by it. To me that means it is an ideal question, because no one else is actually asking it of them, and I don't think it's at all likely anyone else (who actually gets to ask them questions) will either. This question should be asked.

      Hell, even Michael Badnarik who is far more likely to have a few clues on such issues provided a sheer load of waffle in answer to this question when asked by Slashdot. I expect David Cobb to do much the same (as I presume it will be included with his questions). Who cares if we don't get a coherent answer, the fact that we don't should be a very good sign that we ought to keep asking this question, ever more pointedly, until we do get some real answers.

      Admittedly the question would be better if they dropped the first sentence and just asked specifically about views on extending copyright, and reforming patent law. That would make for a pretty specific question where any waffling would be obvious.

      Jedidiah.

      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
  46. Blaim Feminism's double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few quick comments:

    1) Good feminists have abortions.

    2) This desire NOT to work is the main reason women are rumoured to earn 0.70 on the dollar.

    3) We have ~8 billion (with a B) people in the world, I am not encouraging you to have anymore.

    4) As a small buisness owner, pass this and I'll think long and hard before hiring a women of child bearing age. Of course, I'll officially turn you down for some other reason. (give me credit for knowing how to play the game.)
    I already have a women that takes 1 maternity leave per year for the last 3 years (3 kids). The energy expended in finding her a temp. replacement and reorganizing her duties has me trying to find ways to permently replace her with minimum legal risk.

    5) Maybe the US is the "undisputed world leader" (a claim I beat I could dispute) beacuse it doesn't spend money on issues like this.

    6) I thought women wanted equality. How is giving the mother time off equal treatment to the men who don't get time off? Oh, I forgot. It is the National Organization of WOMEN, not the National Organization for EQUALITY. Men are just sperm donors with wallets to them. If you rapist, murdering men would just give us your DNA and money and we'll live 10-15 years longer than you.

    BTW, if you want equal treatment, men should be able to disown (i.e no child support) a kid during the man amount of time a women has the legal right to unilaterally decide on an abortion.

    Of course, I could be wrong. Or maybe I am right, just not politically correct.

  47. Re:13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION by aggieben · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Also, America is based on the separation of church and state. Not only is it apparent that the question's author hasn't read the Bill of Rights, but any credible history book either. America wasn't based on this idea at all. The idea itself was actually only a protection to keep the government from creating an "official" church like the Church of England, not a total separation of Church and State. Of course, there is much more to be said on this subject, but I think it's sufficient to say that the question was incredibly uninformed.

    --
    Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
  48. Gateway Drugs? Tobacco and Alcohol. by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Gateway Drugs" are such a tired bogus line. If you want a statistically significant "gateway drug", try tobacco and alcohol. Almost anybody who's tried illegal drugs has also tried both first (imagine a heroin user saying "Booze? No, that's bad for you, I'd never try that!"), and while some kids may find it easier to _buy_ illegal drugs than to buy booze in a store, it's still easy for them to find enough alcohol and tobacco to decide if they like it. Some kids try booze and like getting wasted, and look for more wastage drugs; some kids try tobacco and like looking cool, feeling edgy but calm and getting really cranky when you need more, and annoying people around them with their behavior, and go looking for speed and coke.

    For one of my friends, though, marijuana was a gateway drug. After the first time he got stoned, he said "Wow! They really LIED to me about pot! I wonder what ELSE they lied to me about?" and headed off to try all the other things they'd told him were Bad, many of which he also liked, though a few of them he decided really _were_ bad.

    And while we're at it, what message would it send to our kids? We might send the message that when _adults_ are wrong about things, they admit it and change their minds, or we might send the message that when adults are wrong, we tell kids that they have to do what we say Because We Said It and we'll make up whatever bogus lies will scare them into believing us, just like we do about so many other things.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  49. Re:18-35 #3 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm 26 and last year I made $26,000. I recieved a $300 check from the US government, in addition to a $500 refund.

    The year before I owed $125.

    My filing status didn't change.. and I used the same tax software (and haven't gotten audited.. hehe)

    So what's with this tax cut for the wealthiest 1% bullshit people keep spewing?

  50. Re:Posion pill legislation... by TGK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking as a military historian however, the pull back form Germany and other NATO commitments is a very bad idea for several reasons.

    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.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  51. Re:13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY by sockonafish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The true ignorance in this statement is that the writer thinks that that the candidates are out on some vengeful, hateful quest against eachother, and sling all the mud that they do because of their hatred.

    In reality, it's because the American public responds more to mud-slinging than it does to honest political discourse.

  52. A question from outside the US by howman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would love to hear what they answer to "What did the people of the United States ever do to you that they deserve to be treated in the way they have over the last 4 years?"
    Granted that would be directed at Bush, but one could ask Kerry something along the same lines, "What are you going to do to prove you don't despise the people who vote you into power?"

    --
    flinging poop since 1969
  53. Questions for Bush by Lightning+Hopkins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This question will never make it to the President, but I'd like to know how he responds to the arguments against the Iraq invasion presented by Brent Scowcroft in 2002 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h tml?id=110002133)
    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.asp ) He also said "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way." (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bus h.htm)
    Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/che ney.htm)in which he said that "I think the proposition of going to Baghdad is fallacious," that invading would get the U.S. "bogged down in a quagmire," and that "Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated."
    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.

    --
    Eh?
  54. Crack Addiction vs. Tobacco and Alcohol Addiction by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to a speech President Bush #1 in ~1990, 7/8 of cocaine users aren't addicts, just occasional users - compare this to tobacco, where ~95% of users are addicts. (He didn't realize that was what his figures meant, but that's what they meant.) Somehow America survived when 1/2 of the adult population used to be tobacco addicts and are still caffeine addicts today. More like 10% are alcoholics, but in spite of alcohol being universally available, most of your friends aren't homeless winos, even if they're alcoholics. Crack is a bit more addictive than snorting regular coke, but one of the main reasons people use it is that it's a cheaper high and regular coke is hard to get in some communities. Heroin addiction is about as dangerous as tobacco addiction, and cocaine addiction is 3-4 times safer, though if it's going to kill you it usually gets you young and quickly rather then slowly and painfully when you're old.

    According to Bush#1's Office of National Drug Control Policy strategy report, if cocaine and heroin were legal, you could be a cokehead for less than the price of a pack a day of cigarettes or a pint of cheap booze, and a junkie for under $1/day. So all this crime and violence associated with Drug Prohibition are because there's some compelling moral difference between being a junkie and being a drunkard, so important that we should criminalize users and let sellers attack each other on the streets with illegal assault weapons and let terrorists fund their organizations with opium-growing profits.

    But it's going to take a lot of social change before America relaxes enough to legalize cocaine and heroin - think about Marijuana legalization first. Sure, the first month it's legal a lot of us are going to go on a few weekend benders and get it out of our systems (:-), just like the first few weekends after The Noble Experiment of alcohol Prohibition was repealed. And too many stoned drivers will get in car accidents for a while, but mostly people will stay home and order pizza. And the first six months or a year's worth of demand will mostly be satisfied by former criminals who were professionally growing it, until the tobacco farmers take over and people start growing their own in their back yards. (Marijuana's already the largest agricultural cash crop in the tobacco-growing states, as well as in the West Coast lumber-growing regions, but that's mainly because the street price is as expensive per ounce as gold rather than as cheap per pound as tomatoes.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  55. Skull and Bones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are BOTH distantly related to British Royalty.

    You BOTH from a secret sociaty (skull and bones) founded on drug money, taking in only 15 candidates every year which puts its tie to the brotherhood above 'anything else'.

    Is this blinding bind not a threat to national security?

  56. Popular Vote vs. Electoral (Random) by incog8723 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a novel idea. Reduce the pandering to the electoral college AND the voters, simply by randomizing how the election will be decided. I.E., Popular vote one year, electoral vote the next.. electoral vote the next.. no one knows BEFOREHAND.

    Does anyone not see the utter brilliance in this idea?

  57. Dear Sirs... by dnnrly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    as the President, your actions will decide the price of the food I buy at the store, what treatments I might be able to recieve in hospital, our relationship with neighbouring countries and ultimately whether I (or my children) will need to be drafted.

    By the way, I'm British. I can't vote for you and have never even been to the US, so my question is this: why should I try to persuade my American friends to vote for you.

  58. Re:Um, that's how the founders did it by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You're not offtopic at all. IMO, you cut to the heart of the problem.

    The electors are appointed by the political parties to vote for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In some states they're legally bound to vote for that candidate, but in others they're not. (Some Southern Democrats refused to vote for a Roman Catholic in the 1960 election and cast their ballots for a different Democrat. Imagine if enough of them had done this to throw the election to Nixon.) You don't know who they are because, in a very real sense, who they are makes no difference at all. Nothing is done as the system was envisioned to work.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  59. Re:18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the other hand, with a private account, if you die before you retire, the money is still there - you've been saving your whole life and can still give that benefit to your adult children, or make your grandchildren beneficiaries.

    So while the average lifespan increases, so does the retirement age, and so does the chances that you and your family will see much less of what you've actually invested.

    To detractors of privatization, I can only say this - while the stock market has it's ups and downs, wise and diverse investing averages more than a 10% return. As people approach retirement age, more should be turned into bonds and less risky investment. Nobody following the plan, over the course of an adult life (say 25 to 70) ends up losing money. The only problem is that you can't trust people to take personal responibility for themselves - the so called "safety net" is for people, for whatever reason, who won't take care of their finances on their own.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  60. 18-35 #NEXTVAL balance for negativity by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting


    For both candidates: you campaign has placed a lot of focus on your opponent's shortcomings, and of characteristics and behaviors not directly related to political competence.

    In contrast to that, what qualities and acts from your opponent's political career do you admire and respect most?