Which questions do you want the candidates to answer?

[sleuth]

http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/

This site is asking 13-17 year olds and 18-35 year olds to vote for 10 of the top 20 questions that voters under the age of 35 want answered by the candidates.

Both Bush and Kerry have agreed in writing to answer the top 12 questions that have been previously unasked (or at least previously unhighlighted) by the media.

Deadline for picking your questions is tomorrow!

 

[vraiblonde]

2. 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.

Ahhhh.....

4. 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.

Double ahhhhh.....

And then there's this bit of retardation from the 18-35 set:

1. 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 without winning 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?

#2 on the 18-35 questions is stupid as well.

 

[sleuth]

Ahhhh.....

Double ahhhhh.....

And then there's this bit of retardation from the 18-35 set:



#2 on the 18-35 questions is stupid as well.

I fail to see why the question on election reform for the 18-35 set is stupid.

Election laws aren't something that I'm very informed on, but I happen to agree that the current system does have many short-comings. I'd like to see all special-interest money disallowed for political donations, and a cap on advertising expenses, the banning of these 527 groups, etc.

 

[Christy]

I think the vast majority of the questions (at a glimpse) are biased and worded to favor Kerry's ideology. :shrug:

 

[Christy]

I fail to see why the question on election reform for the 18-35 set is stupid.

Election laws aren't something that I'm very informed on, but I happen to agree that the current system does have many short-comings. I'd like to see all special-interest money disallowed for political donations, and a cap on advertising expenses, the banning of these 527 groups, etc.

I don't get why everyone is so against "special interest" money being donated to political campaigns. Don't we all have our special interests, and choose to donate, and fund whatever special interest group we feel represents how we want our politicians to vote? :shrug:

For instance, I donate to the NRA, some may donate to handgun control inc. both are special interest groups that lobby hard for the interests of those who send them their hard earned cash. What's wrong with that? :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

I'd like to see all special-interest money disallowed for political donations, and a cap on advertising expenses, the banning of these 527 groups, etc.

That's covered in our Constitution, First Amendment.

What caught my attention was the phrase "This hardly seems democratic." Good karma to the first person who posts why this is a stupid thing to say.

Plus, you can't legislate stupidity. People are free to vote for whoever they want - they can write in themselves if they want. What can Kerry or Bush do about people who don't look any further than their friends, neighbors and Hollywood celebrities to decide how to cast their vote?

 

[sleuth]

I don't get why everyone is so against "special interest" money being donated to political campaigns. Don't we all have our special interests, and choose to donate, and fund whatever special interest group we feel represents how we want our politicians to vote? :shrug:

For instance, I donate to the NRA, some may donate to handgun control inc. both are special interest groups that lobby hard for the interests of those who send them their hard earned cash. What's wrong with that? :shrug:

Theoretically... nothing is wrong with it.

In practice, I would venture a guess that a few heavy hitter donation folks control the special interest groups, and that special interest groups don't represent most Americans.

Hence, you have a relative handful of people getting candidates to cater to them in order to get votes and policy favoritism. Then they get the rest of the people to vote for them with what are in many cases empty promises.

 

[sleuth]

That's covered in our Constitution, First Amendment.

What caught my attention was the phrase "This hardly seems democratic." Good karma to the first person who posts why this is a stupid thing to say.

Plus, you can't legislate stupidity. People are free to vote for whoever they want - they can write in themselves if they want. What can Kerry or Bush do about people who don't look any further than their friends, neighbors and Hollywood celebrities to decide how to cast their vote?

Because we ain't a democracy??? Good karma for me.

 

[huntr1]

That's covered in our Constitution, First Amendment.

What caught my attention was the phrase "This hardly seems democratic." Good karma to the first person who posts why this is a stupid thing to say.

Plus, you can't legislate stupidity. People are free to vote for whoever they want - they can write in themselves if they want. What can Kerry or Bush do about people who don't look any further than their friends, neighbors and Hollywood celebrities to decide how to cast their vote?

Because we don't live in a "democracy", we live in a "representative democracy". We elect people to govern for us, thus abdication our direct voice/vote in politics to them.

 

[sleuth]

That's covered in our Constitution, First Amendment.

I thought it was decided by the courts that money does not equal expression.

I suppose the 527 attack ads can't be squelched. I guarantee though, if I were a candidate and there was an attack ad aimed at slandering and libeling my reputation with false claims, I'd be calling my lawyer.

Some of them probably have grains of truth to them. In fact, most of them probably do. But some, I would guess, are purely speculation that these groups pass off as fact.

 

[Christy]

In practice, I would venture a guess that a few heavy hitter donation folks control the special interest groups, and that special interest groups don't represent most Americans.

Hence, you have a relative handful of people getting candidates to cater to them in order to get votes and policy favoritism. Then they get the rest of the people to vote for them with what are in many cases empty promises.

I disagree, there are special interest groups that cater to both sides, pick a side and vote. :shrug: I don't have the entire list of special interest groups that donate to the Bush campaign, but NRA does, Right to life groups, special interest groups to put a cap on frivolous lawsuits do..... I'm all for those groups. Also these groups wouldn't exist if it weren't for the combined contributions of plain old every day folks. Where do you think the money comes from? That it magically apears in their coffers?

 

[SamSpade]

I thought it was decided by the courts that money does not equal expression.

1974 Buckley vs. Vallejo effectively makes it so, depending on who you ask.

 

[Ken King]

Because we don't live in a "democracy", we live in a "representative democracy". We elect people to govern for us, thus abdication our direct voice/vote in politics to them.

I always understood that we are a "republic" that uses a representative democracy to govern.

 

[SamSpade]

That's covered in our Constitution, First Amendment.

What caught my attention was the phrase "This hardly seems democratic." Good karma to the first person who posts why this is a stupid thing to say.

It's basically the "electoral college? No fair!" stupid argument of those who don't know the Constitution. I'm beginning to think the current generation has no sense of history - not only does the Electoral College always vote the President into office, flukes like 2000 have happened several times before. B!tching about who got the most votes in our system is like b!tching about who got the most money - that's not how it works.

Plus, we have never been a democracy as someone else pointed out.

 

[Ken King]

What caught my attention was the phrase "This hardly seems democratic." Good karma to the first person who posts why this is a stupid thing to say.

Isn't the "democratic" way to say that the government knows better then the people?

 

[SamSpade]

I always understood that we are a "republic" that uses a representative democracy to govern.

Exactly. Can you imagine some schmuck insisting that it's not our representives who actually vote, but the size of their constituency? On a close vote, they could claim that those who voted against something represent more people.

Well so what? That's how it works. I keep wondering what people learn in the schools any more.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Hence, you have a relative handful of people getting candidates to cater to them in order to get votes and policy favoritism. Then they get the rest of the people to vote for them with what are in many cases empty promises.

I have one question for you. Have you ever written to any of your representatives? If not, and you only vote, you are only minimally participating in our republic.

 

[FromTexas]

A constitutional representative republic to be nit-picky.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It's basically the "electoral college? No fair!" stupid argument of those who don't know the Constitution. I'm beginning to think the current generation has no sense of history - not only does the Electoral College always vote the President into office, flukes like 2000 have happened several times before. B!tching about who got the most votes in our system is like b!tching about who got the most money - that's not how it works.

Plus, we have never been a democracy as someone else pointed out.

Most people have no idea what the Constitution says. I would venture an opinion that most lawyers and judges have only read the Cliffs Notes and not the actual document. "Separation of church and state" - no such thing; "equal protection" - no such thing. It goes on and on.

The less informed don't realize that if it were not for the electoral college, people in most states would not have to vote - their vote would not matter.

 

[Bruzilla]

It's a whole lot easier to stir people up by saying their vote didn't count than to sit them down and explain why the Electoral College was, and is, so vital.