Slashdot Mirror
YouTube to Host Presidential Debate
skotte writes "Wired is reporting that July 23 at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, Anderson Cooper will host presidential debates in which debaters are asked 20-30 questions culled from a specially designated section of YouTube, where the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I (assuming you're American, probably) can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret. Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary."
And the questions will be spammed out into oblivion with posts like: "In 1923 a little girl called mary was found dead with the word yram in her back. You have been cursed now. Now your daddy will get clamydia unless you repost this in 74 more videos"
During the Rep. debate that just occurred, but was also annoying was that the candidates were not self-policing their own timers, as well as talking over the moderator who wanted to interrupt them. This makes both the moderator and the candidates look like amateurs. Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.
Please people, get your point across, and do it in a timely manner.
Has anyone read the comments on YouTube? I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy. Why does anyone expect the questions for the candidates from the community to be any better in quality than the comments?
The moderator person should ask "Was that a yes or no on the previous question.".
The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave
But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no.
This is one of the reasons I started to support Howard Dean back in 2004. He was being interviewed on TV, and he was asked a question--I don't remember what it was, and it's not important now--and without even pausing, he answered "No, and I'll tell you why."
A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.
Yeah, that was in one of my letters to her that her staff never bothered to send me even a form letter response for.
"You say you were mislead about the war. I wasn't mislead. How come you were? A significant part of your job is to research these things yourself and keep yourself better informed than I am. What were you doing instead?"
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on. Furthermore, if you don't answer the question directly, you don't run the risk of alienating some people who might vote for you.
This is one reason I like Ron Paul. He and I don't agree on everything, but he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He's authentic, and I think that is why people are gravitating toward him. They know that no one wants to abolish the Depts. of Education, Homeland Security, etc. because he thinks it's going to get him votes. He does so because that is what he truly believes.
I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.
American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave
But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.
Um, that wouldn't be very good no one would ever show up for a "debate" if they only allowed 4 canned answers. A debate should be a bit more indepth than yes, no, i don't know, or I don't really have a position on that subject.
Whenever a candidate starts complaining about net neutrality and saying the market should regulate itself, we start dropping packages. After all, "his speech is cloggin' the tubes"...
how long until
A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.
Yeah, and we all saw what the media did to him. The reason we don't have have straight-answer-type pols is because the media's decided they're silly. Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Someone is going to get their 15 minutes of fame out of this by asking some poignant and unanswered question that people are going to view over and over. What WILL be answered are "blah" questions offered by clean-cut "respectable"-looking folks, half of which I could easily believe are plants. Crazy people/conspiracy theorists/tattooed whackos/Green Party folks won't get airtime.
I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.
I think 8 years of 'true believer' government is quite enough. I'd rather go with a politically savvy candidate willing to change his mind than someone who will hold fast to the wrong ideas even as he witnesses their disasterous results.
I came here for a good argument
I don't know about you, but I would trust the fate of the world with youtube people before I would trust it to the people who's hands it currently rests in.
At least the youtube folks are entertaining without causing anger that rivals the size of a whale penis.
Living With a Nerd
"And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no. But for some reason, most people do not seem to notice the fact."
Actually, quite a lot of people do. We've just all given up on trying to get anything better.
1. Allow all candidates to watch a short debate of experts -- with a fraud or two thrown in -- and ask them to evaluate what they just heard and why they reached the conclusion they did.
i on/2007/05/how_to_improve_.html
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolut
I personally like this.