Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the riddle-me-this-batman dept.

The New York Times has an article asking readers to select (from their list) what questions they'd like to ask the 2016 presidential candidates.

It's clear that both candidates haven't given specific answers to questions about issues which directly affect us. What questions would Soylentils ask the candidates (your choices, not mine as in the NYT article) to identify their positions on issues which matter to you?

Some of the questions I'd like to see answered are:
How would you work with a Congress which isn't aligned with the goals of your administration to actually get something accomplished?
Does money equal speech? If so/not so, why and how?
How will you rein in our intelligence agencies that are unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens?
What specific steps would you take (if any) to combat anthropogenic climate change?
Would you allow non-American foods to be cooked in the White House kitchen? If not, what steps will you take to reduce the obesity problem that will inevitably ensue?

What about the rest of you? What questions would you like to see answered by the candidates?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:26PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:26PM (#405935)

    well this is the main problem with out current system - you can say anything and there is no legally binding mechanism to hold you to your promise.

    Of course, this might also explain why there is such vitriol - neither side can make any rosier promise than "we'll improve everything" that doesn't sound the same after going through the media rinse cycle.

    Hence, the bottom ( so far), is "my opponent is not fit to stand!! Because -". Let's just have a single candidate, which is essentially what both (major) parties are saying!!!

    In this modern hyper-connected era, we need a different political system that encapsulates what the founders of the US really wanted - policy discussion not dogma.

    For example, if we had policies laid out as are done in business (with firm milestones), it would be possible to have experts from *wherever* contribute to solutions, and the parties would be able to field candidates to administer the policy. Not the current situation where your "beliefs" somehow make you qualified to be $PARTY_MEMBER and hold the office of $SOMETHING_I_HAVE_NO_SKILL_IN.

    Then again, perhaps the Golafrincham Ship B is prescient piece of writing ;-)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3