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...
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Would the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make it harder to declare war on, say, Iran or North Korea if the need exists?
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Feed the plentiful ones to the endangered ones.
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.
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.
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.
I would love to see each of them answer...:
What is your biggest weakness. What is your opponent's biggest strength?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Assuming the moon was made of green cheese, I would eat it.
Assuming the rights of the customers are protected, I would gladly buy books online.
Oh wait! They are, and I do!
I agree, it'll be interesting to see the answer. This would be a great question for most job interviews as well.
How do you spell your last name?
How old are you?
What is your favorite color?
? #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.)
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.
If we switched to Metric dollars, the conversion rate would erase the national debt in nothing flat.
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.
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?
Senator Kerry, we all know that George W. Bush (43) looks just like George H. W. Bush (41) for obvious reasons, but can you explain your own peculiar resemblance to Andrew Jackson ?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
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.
As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
Alright, rather than just "mod", here's my take on all of them:
... there are checks and balances to this system.
1) Electoral Reform - Oh brother. The electoral system is not broken. You should understand that the fact that a minority-vote-getter can become president actually proves that "Majority rules, minority rights" does exist in this country. Besides, electoral voting actually strengthens the individual vote (Miami-Dade county would not even exist if it wasn't for the 2000 vote).
2) Online Voting - my opinion, but I think there's more pressing issues than just the opportunity to vote online (besides, you don't get the obligatory "I voted" sticker).
3) Judiciary Appointment - this process was made to prevent stupid Joes from appointing judges. You can call it corruption, but Bush has had a *ton* of court appointments denied by Congress
4) AIDS - not unique. This question always appears in the debates, and they always have canned answers. "Blah blah, money for research, blah blah, I don't have AIDS, so I don't care, blah blah." Move on.
5) Supreme Court Justices - PICK THIS. Every president wants some "echo" of their power to last throughout the ages, and this dates all the way back to John Adams and the appointment of Federalist John Marshall. Ask this question, and you get a good mirror image of the policies you can expect from candidates themselves.
6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.
7) Drug Fight - Don't ask -- you'll get another canned answer from the politicans. "DARE this, Community involvement that, but you gotta love the alcohol commercials!"
8) Medical Marijuana - Another canned response "Needs more research - need to make sure there's a way that it doesn't get abused." Not worth the breath, hippie. Go pack your bags and move to Holland.
9) Drug Provision for Financial Aid - Definately the way to Go. My gosh, this is a good question, and one I never thought about before. Poster definately has a point that those who have paid their time still deserve an education.
10 and 11) Draft - They'll all deny it, and everyone knows that. They may plan it, but they'll never admit to it. So don't bother to ask.
12) Focused goal on Alt. Fuels - Worth Asking, especially with the spin on the "10 year mission to the Moon" emphasis. It just goes to prove that things can get done if you really put your mind to it.
13) Child Abuse - Sad to say it, but skip it. What you need to stop this is GrassRoots - neighbor to neighbor, family to family, friend to friend, and teacher to student is the only way to fix abuse. Jail does not deter hate.
14) Animal Rights - Eat more meat. Death to PETA. Next.
15) Sex Ed - Thought Provoking - it's a good domestic question, because teenage pregnancy has always been a problem.
16) Home Schooling - Last I checked, Bush was supporting it with "No Child Left Behind." If he wasn't, he'll just plug it as another alternative to failing schools.
17) USA, the World Bully - Fine ask it, but the same question will be asked in the debates, and the answers will only be the same as what is said in the television commericals.
18) Isreal vs. Palestine - Don't ask, don't tell - it's been the policy for the last 50 years regarding the actions of Isreal. No US leader that I know will change that right now.
19) Integrate Family Values - Of course, the president has always been responsible for raising the children of the US-of-A. Need family values? Find a family that you can value.
20) Metric Conversion in the USA - thanks. I needed a laugh. Metric in the USA? That's hilarious.
21) Civil Marriage for Gay/Lesbian
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?
Having trouble finding the actual questions amongst all the replies?
CLICK THIS LINK for the proper Slashdot sorting to find the questions.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
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).
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.
This is one of the best questions in this forum.
To find out who your electors are, you need to ask the Secretary of State (it's probabably on their webpage).
Each state handles the Electoral College differently. Some states do list the names of the Electors on your ballot.
I believe this is the information you are looking for:
The U. S. Electoral College.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
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
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."
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
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)
p )
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)
e 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."
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.as
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/ch
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.
Eh?
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.
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
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.
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.
You're right, tobacco doesnt cause changes the same way pot does. It causes changes the way nicotine does. Those changes happen to be very addictive, unlike marijuana. Marijuana does not cause permanent changes in brain chemistry and cannot cause brain damage like alcohol can. Additionally, it has positive medical uses and can replace some drugs that have harmful side effects.
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?
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)
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?
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?
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.
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/.
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?
I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?
... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that
Eh?
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.
"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.
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!
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).
Found this though it would be good for a laugh. http://discourse.net/archives/2004/09/hey_florida_ have_you_got_the_hint_yet.html
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.
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.
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?