• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Questions I'd like to ask political candidates.


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 06 November 2008 - 08:43 AM


Well another election cycle is over, America has the most leftleaning President since Jimmy Carter in the White House, and the world is at the fever pitch of excitement that a protectionist has been handed the keys to the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

As usual the media coverage was predictably horrendous and consisted almost entirely about rumination on Obamas skincolor and sporting event style strategic analysis.

In all the analysis I saw, discussion of the quality of Obama and Mccain's respective campaign strategies outweighed discussion of their suitability for office by a factor of at least 20-1.

Why?

It got me thinking... What questions would I ask a presidential (or prime ministerial one for that matter) candidate if I had the chance? I guess the qualities I'd like to see evidence of are an independence of thought, a capacity to think outside the tug of war parameters of established political discourse, and intellectual depth.

Here are my questions...

1) Name one issue on which you disagree with the majority of your fellow Republicans/Democrats.

2) Name one social problem you consider to be overrated in importance by the media.

3) Name one social problem you consider to be insufficiently discussed by the media.

4) Name three issues on which you have changed your mind since you entered politics.

5) Name three problems which you feel lie outside the scope of the office and which you therefore won't be solving during your term.

6) What do you think are the two most effective/positive pieces of policy or legislation brought in during the last fifty years?

7) What do you think have been the two most disastrous pieces of policy or legislation of the last fifty years?

8) Which current foreign leader is closest to yourself in political outlook?

9) What is your least popular opinion?

I would consider an inability to answer more than one of these questions in a thoughtful and serious manner evidence of that candidates unsuitability for office.

Thoughts?

#2 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:18 PM

Good questions that sadly would not get passed the partisan vetting of the questions prior to a debate. However I do think many of them actually have answers out there but they were buried in the midst of other responses.

Don't forget that the media is not the only force that treats the people like mushrooms, the campaign organization on both sides of the duopoly make farming the public mushroom official policy.

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:47 PM

BTW the Rightwing media has tried to make out that Obama is a *Manchurian* socialist and when compared to Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II it is not hard to be to the left, since they moved the center pretty far right. However when compared to Clinton there is really not that much economic difference at all, they even share many of the same advisers. In fact perhaps even more than was suggested about Hillary, by getting Obama we are really getting back another Clinton in economic terms. Obama is closer to Clinton on most policy than he is to Carter at any rate and Carter was not as left wing economically as the cliches about him.

Carter actually inherited Nixon's economic policies and while most of you do not remember, it was Nixon that froze wages and prices, as well as creating runaway inflation rates of over 15% a year. Unemployment went ballistic under Nixon and Ford could do very little about it in his two years in office. Carter's first test was the impact of OPEC manipulating domestic Peak Oil and in fact many of his policies were practical and effective but tremendously unpopular. They also resulted in slowing inflation but only created what came to be called, *stagflation* as the numbers didn't get worse, but they also didn't get better.

The biggest problem Carter inherited was in defense. He came into office in the post Vietnam War period of chaos within the military and actually was responsible for many of the reforms that Reagan would later use to his advantage. It was Carter that actually began the Star Wars research, created the RDF, a unified defense force command structure, and the stealth fighter and bomber programs.

In fact the now ever popular Raptor program also dates back to his administration on paper. It was even Carter that began the move from DARPA.net to a public internet but most critics of his policies do not look beyond his failure to retrieve the Iran hostages in a timely manner but the part they forget is that almost all of them were finally returned to this nation alive.

Carter signed off on creating the Shuttle program and ironically it was Reagan that used the creation of the Shuttle program as a pretext to end most other manned space programs though Apollo was canceled early under Carter due to the economic issues of the day. However Reagan began diverting the NASA budget into the early Star Wars program and ended the development of all manned deep space vessels. Even Hubble owes its mandate to Carter and none of this was popular with either the left or the right in a time of economic crisis, yet he was proven correct by history as to the important dividends these programs would yield in terms of science.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:43 PM

Questions the right want answered,

President Obama;


What plans do envision for Bill Ayres in your administration?

Do you feel Rev Wright has been vindicated now that God has in fact Damned America?

Who will you appoint to be in charge of the reeducation camp program?

How do you plan to coordinate the redistribution of wealth from American to the UN?

How will you proceed with repealing the 2ND amendment?

How do you plan to seal the borders to prevent escape.

Will you allow safe passage of illegal aliens back to their home country's.

If America's enemy's fail to appreciate your Marxist Union and decide to destroy America anyway with Iranian suitcase nukes, what part of Moscow do think has the best property values?


Questions the left wants answered.

President Obama;


Where do people sign up for the unlimited free gas cards?

Will the free automobiles the government gives us be American made, or will they come from China, or Russia?

How do we acquire the free mortgage payment booklets?

Will it be legal to abort baby's up to 12 years of age?

How do you envision most people spending their time now that nobody has to work?

Now that nobody works, when people take vacation will that mean they actually go to work?

Will ugly people be allowed to make porn movies under an Obama aadministration?

Will Republicans be required to watch them?

#5 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:06 PM

and the world is at the fever pitch of excitement that a protectionist has been handed the keys to the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

Obama's running China now? :)

#6 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:11 PM

Will it be legal to abort baby's up to 12 years of age?


Only under Nebraska's new child abandonment law. At least until they get all the loopholes in knee jerk legislation like this fixed.

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:12 PM

Will ugly people be allowed to make porn movies under an Obama aadministration?


No, This violates human rights treaties already in effect

Will Republicans be required to watch them?


Yes but they have never even needed an invitation.

:)

#8 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 01:12 AM

I believe the questions are good, and thought-provoking, but I think part of the reasons such questions cannot be asked is because Americans will not like the answers. Americans (and all people across the globe, really) have a tough time being told that things are demanded of them--sacrifices, difficult times, etc. The idea of raised taxes is unacceptable. The idea of changing our culture and attitude towards oil is generally unacceptable. The idea of more modest lifestyles is generally unacceptable (of all the countries I have visited in the world, none compare to America in its attitude towards consumption and creature comforts). Etc. Whenever politicians have attempted to answer some of the questions you've listed, they get crushed for it.

So really, in many ways, we the citizens are to blame--more than the candidates, the political parties or the media. We, the citizens, don't want to hear the truth. We want to hear things that'll make us happy, even if it isn't good for the nation or for ourselves, in the long run. Short term thinking--it has been the problem of both politics and corporations (I think the desire to satisfy stock holders each quarter, rather than pursue intelligent long term policies, is part of what has gotten us into this current financial crisis).

And Lazarus, you've made some excellent points once again, especially about the movement of the center to the right. Some of the staunch Republican Presidents of yesteryear would be considered flaming liberals by today's standards. Hell, Barry Goldwater would be considered a commie by today's standards of what is the left and the right.

And thanks for the history lesson on Carter. Some of they I knew, some of that I didn't know--it was pretty informative. I'd add to the list that Carter started and federally supported a serious effort towards energy independence in the form of solar and wind, which Reagan subsequently dismantled after reaching deals with tin-pot dictators in the Middle East. Once again, a case of short-term thinking (and supporting very undemocratic forces) for the popular vote.

#9 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 01:28 AM

What I find interesting is also some of the exit polls I've seen: Those under 50k seemed to go McCain's way, but those over 200k went Obama's way. The post-graduates, those with the highest education, also went Obama's way. Both groups in large numbers, especially the post-grads.

It was sort of reflected in a caller to NYC public radio today: She said that her and her husband, combined, made over 250k and knew they would be taxed higher under Obama, but believed that because of their economic success, they had a larger sacrifice to make for the nation's well-being.

It flies right in the face of the looped argument: Don't tax the rich more when the economy is doing well, because you might spoil the winning formula and don't tax the rich more when the economy is doing poorly, because they need that extra wealth to build more wealth...which will eventually trickle down to the rest of the nation. I believe this ideology was sold to the American people--a way to ensure it is never politically correct to tax the rich--by corporate pundits. I do think, this election, people began to realize that sacrifices will need to be made.

#10 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:13 AM

I do think, this election, people began to realize that sacrifices will need to be made.


I totally disagree with this notion. MOST of the unwashed masses think president Obama is going to get the government to provide for them at the expense of greedy rich people.

Free health care.
Free college
Lower taxes
Higher minimum wages
More unemployment benefits
More subsidized housing
More sky opening up
More sun shinning down.
More birds singing in the trees
Peace and love through out the world
Christmas every other Friday
Cake for dinner every night

Notice none of this sounds like sacrifice.



On the other hand what I think we're going to see is,

World wide and prolonged stock market crash, accelerating as we speak.
High unemployment, already started
Higher taxes for everyone, coming soon
Extremely high energy prices
Shortages of everything, gas, electricity, food, housing, jobs.
Much higher interest rates
More world wide terrorism
Possibly world war III
Government cheese for dinner


This is the kind of sacrifice I think we're in for. I'm not saying Obama wants this to happen, but he's going to help it with his ill advised policy's. Our country's enemy's will do the rest.

#11 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:25 AM

I do think, this election, people began to realize that sacrifices will need to be made.


I totally disagree with this notion. MOST of the unwashed masses think president Obama is going to get the government to provide for them at the expense of greedy rich people.

Free health care.
Free college
Lower taxes
Higher minimum wages
More unemployment benefits
More subsidized housing
More sky opening up
More sun shinning down.
More birds singing in the trees
Peace and love through out the world
Christmas every other Friday
Cake for dinner every night

Notice none of this sounds like sacrifice.



On the other hand what I think we're going to see is,

World wide and prolonged stock market crash, accelerating as we speak.
High unemployment, already started
Higher taxes for everyone, coming soon
Extremely high energy prices
Shortages of everything, gas, electricity, food, housing, jobs.
Much higher interest rates
More world wide terrorism
Possibly world war III
Government cheese for dinner


This is the kind of sacrifice I think we're in for. I'm not saying Obama wants this to happen, but he's going to help it with his ill advised policy's. Our country's enemy's will do the rest.


There are a lot of indications that Obama is picking people with a ton of experience, for his team, and that they are considering very moderate approaches. That said, he has the toughest situation a sitting president has had in decades--two wars, a massively troubled economy, genuine energy concerns, etc. If you look, historically, at the time it has taken Presidents to deal with situations of this magnitude--Lincoln, FDR, etc--people will need to be patient and be willing to make sacrifices.

Interestingly enough, Obama isn't the only one who has pushed the idea of higher taxes--the epitome of capitalism, Michael Bloomberg--has also done the same and so is Gov Schwarzenegger.

I agree that there are people who think it'll just be a free ride. But I think you have small percentages of people who believe that in any group or faction: Much like you had people in the McCain camp who thought Obama was going to start race riots as soon as he won the election, etc. I mean, radical thought is out there in all corners. I'd like to think that the majority of the people realized, when they voted for Obama, that voting for him does not mean 'instant solutions', but rather it is the beginning of a long, hard road that will demand much from its citizens towards what is hopefully a bright future.

McCain ran on the idea of "Country First" and I hope many of the McCain supporters genuinely believe in that motto--that in this time of trouble--they will put their country first above their personal desires or needs.

#12 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:16 AM

There are a lot of indications that Obama is picking people with a ton of experience, for his team, and that they are considering very moderate approaches. That said, he has the toughest situation a sitting president has had in decades--two wars, a massively troubled economy, genuine energy concerns, etc. If you look, historically, at the time it has taken Presidents to deal with situations of this magnitude--Lincoln, FDR, etc--people will need to be patient and be willing to make sacrifices.



The situation reminds me of Carter's. Economically Carter was a disaster. If anything, economic conditions are probably worse right now for the start of Obama's administration. Carter started out about like we are now, then it went all downhill from there. Carters military operations were an national embarrassment. Carter at least didn't have to face the kind of enemy's we face today, but even so they made a monkey of of him. It's been my observation that Democrats don't know how to use military force very effectively. This is based on Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The situation we have in the world now makes Carters look like Sunday school class.




I agree that there are people who think it'll just be a free ride. But I think you have small percentages of people who believe that in any group or faction: Much like you had people in the McCain camp who thought Obama was going to start race riots as soon as he won the election, etc. I mean, radical thought is out there in all corners. I'd like to think that the majority of the people realized, when they voted for Obama, that voting for him does not mean 'instant solutions', but rather it is the beginning of a long, hard road that will demand much from its citizens towards what is hopefully a bright future.


Maybe so, but after all the deep thought everyone put into electing president Obama it doesn't look to good for it. The vast majority of supporters voted based on emotions, and little else. There was practically no vetting what so ever. Now days many people, especially young Obama supporters want it, and they want it NOW. I don't think they'll have as much patience as even Carter's supporters had. At least Obama has the MSM on his side. It's going to be very hard for president Obama to meet the expectations all the citizens of the world have for him, under these conditions. Good luck to us.

#13 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:56 AM

There are a lot of indications that Obama is picking people with a ton of experience, for his team, and that they are considering very moderate approaches. That said, he has the toughest situation a sitting president has had in decades--two wars, a massively troubled economy, genuine energy concerns, etc. If you look, historically, at the time it has taken Presidents to deal with situations of this magnitude--Lincoln, FDR, etc--people will need to be patient and be willing to make sacrifices.



The situation reminds me of Carter's. Economically Carter was a disaster. If anything, economic conditions are probably worse right now for the start of Obama's administration. Carter started out about like we are now, then it went all downhill from there. Carters military operations were an national embarrassment. Carter at least didn't have to face the kind of enemy's we face today, but even so they made a monkey of of him. It's been my observation that Democrats don't know how to use military force very effectively. This is based on Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The situation we have in the world now makes Carters look like Sunday school class.




I agree that there are people who think it'll just be a free ride. But I think you have small percentages of people who believe that in any group or faction: Much like you had people in the McCain camp who thought Obama was going to start race riots as soon as he won the election, etc. I mean, radical thought is out there in all corners. I'd like to think that the majority of the people realized, when they voted for Obama, that voting for him does not mean 'instant solutions', but rather it is the beginning of a long, hard road that will demand much from its citizens towards what is hopefully a bright future.


Maybe so, but after all the deep thought everyone put into electing president Obama it doesn't look to good for it. The vast majority of supporters voted based on emotions, and little else. There was practically no vetting what so ever. Now days many people, especially young Obama supporters want it, and they want it NOW. I don't think they'll have as much patience as even Carter's supporters had. At least Obama has the MSM on his side. It's going to be very hard for president Obama to meet the expectations all the citizens of the world have for him, under these conditions. Good luck to us.



I am not sure you can fault Carter for the Iran hostage situation--he handled it via Special Forces, as the military commanders advised him to do. The accolades go to the victor--if the operation had been a success, he'd have been lauded as a hero and I think would have gone on to be re-elected (though the economic situation might have still hampered him). One could say Reagan was a bad, militarily, because of Beruit. Once again, something somewhat out of his own power. Reagan's solution to the Iran hostage situation was, in essence, to pay off a dictatorship--not the best of things--and to support another, opposing dictatorship (Iraq) which would end up becoming our enemy. I am not entirely confident that Democrats are worse than Republicans on military--FDR was, in my opinion, pretty damn strong, but I do understand that it is the current opinion of the Democrats, probably because of Carter. But one also has to remember that Carter was living with the ghost of Vietnam, which was all too recent, and which had bled powerfully into the American psyche. I think he chose what he thought was the best course--and what the military advised--at the time. If a few things had gone a little differently in the situation, the hostages may have come home, triumphantly.

As for our current thinking--yes, we want it and we want it now. That, in some ways, is why we are in this mess--somehow we've lost our ability to be patient, to look at the long-term gain of the nation. For instance, I think our tax policy is a short term gain; we are burying our children in ridiculous levels of debt by tax cuts we cannot afford, among other problems we're saddling the next generation with. People have forgotten that we must build a nation that can withstand the next 4 decades, not the next 4 years until re-election. Maybe people will not be patient, maybe you are right. I think, a lot of it, will depend on the President and how he conveys his message to the people and whether he can make them understand what the nation needs and how we, as citizens, can help that. He must, in some ways, be like Reagan, the Great Communicator, and help the Republic understand how it can, collectively, forge a better future.

#14 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:58 AM

As for our current thinking--yes, we want it and we want it now. That, in some ways, is why we are in this mess--somehow we've lost our ability to be patient, to look at the long-term gain of the nation. For instance, I think our tax policy is a short term gain; we are burying our children in ridiculous levels of debt by tax cuts we cannot afford, among other problems we're saddling the next generation with. People have forgotten that we must build a nation that can withstand the next 4 decades, not the next 4 years until re-election. Maybe people will not be patient, maybe you are right. I think, a lot of it, will depend on the President and how he conveys his message to the people and whether he can make them understand what the nation needs and how we, as citizens, can help that. He must, in some ways, be like Reagan, the Great Communicator, and help the Republic understand how it can, collectively, forge a better future.


Good point, but good luck with that the way young people are nowdays. I might have been as bad come to think of it.

#15 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 06:24 AM

As for our current thinking--yes, we want it and we want it now. That, in some ways, is why we are in this mess--somehow we've lost our ability to be patient, to look at the long-term gain of the nation. For instance, I think our tax policy is a short term gain; we are burying our children in ridiculous levels of debt by tax cuts we cannot afford, among other problems we're saddling the next generation with. People have forgotten that we must build a nation that can withstand the next 4 decades, not the next 4 years until re-election. Maybe people will not be patient, maybe you are right. I think, a lot of it, will depend on the President and how he conveys his message to the people and whether he can make them understand what the nation needs and how we, as citizens, can help that. He must, in some ways, be like Reagan, the Great Communicator, and help the Republic understand how it can, collectively, forge a better future.


Good point, but good luck with that the way young people are nowdays. I might have been as bad come to think of it.


If we were that smart Obama would never have got elected in the first place.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users