Presidential Youth Debate Answers and Details Now Online

Last month, Slashdot readers contributed their own inquiries to the pool of questions for the Walden University Presidential Youth Debate. Two of those questions made the cut, and you can watch either the individual video responses to each of the questions presented to John McCain and Barack Obama (by scrolling down the just-linked debate home page), or the whole debate straight through. For something meatier, if you are weary of predictably slippery campaign-style answers, Ethan Rowe of End Point has a very interesting blog post about the technology background of the debate.

Comments

Transcript

[Cookie3]

Are transcripts of the video responses available anywhere? I checked quickly, but there doesn't appear to be one on the main site. It's a shame that such a 'high-tech' 'debate' can't deliver information to those unable to hear the responses.

Two From Slashdot?

[Golddess]

Out of curiosity, which two questions came from /.?

Re:Two From Slashdot?

[Paradoks]

I'd have to assume that the first part of question 6, "Electronic voting machines have been shown to be inaccurate, with some not leaving a verifiable paper trail, making a recount impossible." came from Slashdot.

That said, I watched the responses to that question, and neither of the candidates even pretended to address the issue.

Of course, they also didn't answer the second part of the question, "Many Americans object to the continued existence of The Electoral College in The Information Age, and to the exclusion of third-party candidates in the Presidential Debates sponsored by the CPD.".

And, to finish off the question, "What will you do to ensure that the Election process is democratic and that my vote will be counted in this election, or the next?", did seem to be somewhat answered, but not with anything I haven't already heard from twenty other articles.

I suppose it's nice to know that the issues that matter to the Slashdot crowd are so unimportant to the rest of society that they're not worth bothering to answer. Sure, that's cynical, but at least we know what the mountain we're climbing looks like.

The question we failed to ask

[Toffins]

Why are Federal taxpayers forced to pay $6 billion to Goldman Sachs for a bailout to save it from failure and bankruptcy and at the same time Goldman Sachs is ready to pay its senior staff $7 billion in bonuses for Christmas??? We have failed to ask the one question that goes to the heart of what's going on. Stop this nonsense, NOW!

Re:The question we failed to ask

[Foobar of Borg]

Why are Federal taxpayers forced to pay $6 billion to Goldman Sachs for a bailout to save it from failure and bankruptcy and at the same time Goldman Sachs is ready to pay its senior staff $7 billion in bonuses for Christmas??? We have failed to ask the one question that goes to the heart of what's going on. Stop this nonsense, NOW!

Well, there is at least a partial answer here.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[Tony Hoyle]

Quoting the Daily Fail is never a good idea..

That's 1.5bn christmas bonus shared between 10,000 staff and 5.5bn in salary that they'd have to pay anyway.

Yes it's a big figure, but it's nowhere *near* as bad as the headline would suggest.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[Toffins]

I think that's not good enough. The people surely have the right to know the presidential candidates' answers to this vital question before we decide which one to elect. If we can't or won't even try putting the question to them directly now, we might as well just stop pretending the whole thing is anything but a fancy charade. This is the only time we the people can hope to put the candidates under significant pressure, which is the threat of not being elected.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[Toffins]

So, let me get this straight. Taxpayers are paying $7bn to rescue Goldman, just so Goldman can pay "only" $1.5bn in bonuses as a reward for the incompetence and greed that caused the failure. Whether the bonuses total 1.5bn or whatever, the whole thing stinks of rewarding the incompetents with a taxpayer handout - socialism at its finest.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[gnud]

Giving money away to private corporations has nothing at all to do with socialism.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[travbrad]

Exactly, because with true socialism both the profits and losses would be shared. What we have here is no-risk "capitalism". Sort of the worst parts of capitalism combined with the worst parts of socialism.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[Nazlfrag]

From the article:

The news comes after it was revealed that even bankers working for collapsed Wall Street giant, Lehman Brothers, could receive huge payouts.

Its 10,000 U.S. staff are expected to share a £1.5billion bonus pool. The payouts were agreed as part of the rescue takeover of Lehman's American arm by Barclays last month.

That's the Lehman Brothers. The 7 billion pounds or roughly 11.5 billion USD bonus is for Goldman Sachs.

Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

Re:The question we failed to ask

[laddiebuck]

Why is this modded troll? All but the last flamebait sentence is perfectly true and cuts to the heart of the matter. And I say this as a socialist.

CPD question not even answered

[sethawoolley]

They didn't even comment on the Commission on Presidential Debates which is Dems and Reps trying to limit the debates to just their parties, despite question number six asking about it.

Just another opportunity for the candidates to 1) not even answer the questions and 2) we didn't even see Barr/Nader/Baldwin/McKinney asked any of these questions on an equal level.

Why even bother asking about the commission on presidential debates when the debate itself excludes minor party candidates that have enough ballot access to potentially win the election?

Re:CPD question not even answered

[garote]

Actually, the answers were of a higher quality than most I've seen them give.

McCain's response regarding the No Child Left Behind program was actually well in touch with the reasons why that program faltered. It was surprising, and more than I expected from him. However the solutions he endorsed, in his response and elsewhere in his policy, do not actually address the problems as he described them here. Obama's response to the same question was, by contrast, boilerplate about reform, including rhetoric about increasing the funding for schools and the pay grade for teachers. Neither point makes sense - we already toss quite a lot of money into schools, relative to other countries, and district performance varies WILDLY even among similar funding levels. The issue is just more complicated than a matter of funding.

On the other hand, I was greatly irritated at McCain's response to the question about women's health care. He was practically schizophrenic, talking about helping "challenged" women on the one hand, and then declaring that life begins at conception and all life is sacred on the other. He even trotted out that tired old pony of "partial-birth abortion". He also stood in OBVIOUS contrast to Obama, who described a holistic approach point-by-point and then made it quite clear that he would defend Roe vs. Wade and abortion rights in general. The candidates are markedly different here and your choice between them will have a serious impact.

They both also clearly differed on how seriously they took the idea of workplace discrimination and harassment,
Also, Obama offered more detail on how he would create oversight for the bank bailout program, and McCain offered more detail on how he might implement VA reform. You can tell where their strengths lie - if not as character traits, then at least in terms of what they believe their voting bloc is. That information is actually of use.

Neither of them touched the prison population question with a ten-foot pole, which I found irritating. Neither of them wanted to get into the briar patch of drug law I assume. On the other hand, it was quite refreshing to hear an entire sequence of debate responses where neither candidate mentioned Iraq or terrorism.

Also, I find the complaints about the exclusivity of the debate a little disingenuous - they're mostly directed at the Democratic and Republican parties. What's up with that? The roster of participants was chosen by Walden University. Go harangue them.

tooting my own horn.

[DragonTHC]

all of those questions are typical shit political questions. They don't force any real answers.

my question http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=978947&cid=25190311
I asked that and it should have been put forth. Whomever chose the questions is a nitwit.

Re:tooting my own horn.

[garote]

Uh huh. Well, it's certainly a question tailored to drive up mod ratings in Slashdot. But go ahead, ask that of a presidential candidate:

"Do you believe in legislating protections for failed business models, or do you believe the free market should determine success?"

Their answer?

"No, and yes. Next question."

Honestly, what sort of answer do you expect?

Re:Damned bastard, up to the same old tricks.

[decoy256]

Except for the fact that being on a precious metal standard (see below) restricted government's ability to run up outrageous debt like we have now. Granted, there was debt, but with a fiat money system the deficit spending is able to go on for decades until our entire economy is controlled by this debt.

On the term "Gold Standard"... I REALLY hate it when people keep saying "Gold Standard", which is never what it was intended to be... it was supposed to be Gold AND Silver, measured against each other... this adds an immense amount of flexibility and stability to the market, but I guess that doesn't fit with the Keynesian interpretation of Hard Money. Keynesian economists like to paint Hard Money as this antiquated, ridiculously quaint system that would never work in our modern "advanced" economic system. Utterly stupid.

How about the exchange rates?

[jimdread]

Here's a serious question. Why did the US dollar suddenly shoot up against all the other currencies when this global financial crisis started? The USA is where the gigantic financial crisis happened. So why is the US dollar suddenly so much higher than it was before? Any economists out there?

Here are some graphs: http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/graph120.html http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/GBP/graph120.html http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/BRL/graph120.html

WHY???

Re:Damned bastard, up to the same old tricks.

[SETIGuy]

I REALLY hate it when people keep saying "Gold Standard", which is never what it was intended to be... it was supposed to be Gold AND Silver, measured against each other

I think you are referring to bimetalism, which is a different beast than the gold standard. Bimetalism didn't show up as a significant force in U.S. monetary policy until the late 19th century. Bimetalism is seriously unstable because it is susceptible to changes in the supply of or demand for either metal. Both silver and gold have significant industrial use that would be greatly impacted by fixing the ratio

For example, if the standard ratio of gold to silver is 20:1 (as bimetalism is usually formulated) and the silver supply expands, that extra silver won't go to other use because it is overpriced relative to supply.

For example the current ratio of gold to silver price is about 75:1. Lets say we went back to a 20:1 bimetalic standard tomorrow. That means gold is overpriced and silver is underpriced. In other words, gold is worth more outside of the monetary realm than it is within it. So gold will get withdrawn from circulation and used for other things. Silver, on the other hand, is worth more as money than it is being put to other uses. Industries will stop using so much silver and turn it into coinage. In the end, the bimetalic standard will disappear because all of the gold will be out of circulation and we will end up on a silver standard. Which is in essence what happened in the 19th century until McKinley was elected in 1896, whereupon we returned to the gold standard.

The problem with a gold standard is that the value of gold does fluctuate according to supply and demand which results in a currency that fluctuates in a manner that is difficult to control. The end result is that governments end up having to hoard gold in an attempt to stabilize their currency which would drive up worldwide gold demand, deflate the currency, and cause economic stagnation.

Pick the one without traction

[SuperKendall]

If you think they are both equal, then you should vote for McCain.

If Obama wins, along with a large number of other Democrats he can do what he likes.

If McCain wins, he'll be fighting a very partisan House and Senate unwilling to let him do anything (even anything they want to do, for fear of him getting credit).

Choose the evil that will make no progress. All other choices are madness.

Abortion

[Artista42]

I love how McCain says "We will show compassion, and we will show courage" in regards to an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Who is "we"? The people who are blocking the poor woman from making a choice in order to deal with something she views as a problem? It must be so easy for them to be courageous in a situation that doesn't affect them. If women are forced to have children they don't want, we'll end up with more and more orphans, and who will pay for them? Surely there aren't enough people to adopt all those unwanted children.

Re:Abortion

[Iamthecheese]

Actually, there aren't enough people with the money and time to break through piles of red tape. Thats the real problem. It costs thousands of dollars to adopt. There are many people who want to adopt, but can't.

Bah, the most important question got left out

[omuls are tasty]

emacs or vi?