SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 24 2016, @04:17PM
If the submitter/editor had anyone bright enough to use Google (and even the history of articles here I think....) they could have had answers on the AGW issue and 19 other semi-science type questions from all four candidates. See ScienceDebate.org [sciencedebate.org]. :)
Most of the rest are answerable with high precision from available information. This is why you aren't moderating a debate I guess.
How would you work with a Congress which isn't aligned with the goals of your administration to actually get something accomplished?
Clinton will continue Obama's Executive Actions. We know this because a) she has said so, b) she has seen Obama get away with it and we can assume Congress will remain supine with another Affirmative Action hire. Trump has said he wants to do deals with Congress but obviously does not realize that isn't possible. What happens when he figures that out is anyone's guess. Johnson will be too lit up to care either way. Stein would be HRC + bonus crazy balanced by Congress more willing to push back.
Does money equal speech? If so/not so, why and how?
Clinton has stated she will repeal/amend the 1st Amendment to get rid of Citizens United if that is the only way. So it is safe to say she would be a NO on that one. She is of course wrong. Trump has less record but is not any threat (no Republican in Congress would go along with Trump while the Dems would be eager to do it for HRC) to repeal the 1st. Johnson would also be safe here, Stein a menace worse than Clinton.
How will you rein in our intelligence agencies that are unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens?
So when did you stop beating your wife? Talk about loaded questions..... But HRC was in Congress when those programs started, she exercised oversight. She was in the current administration. Pretty safe bet she has seen the benefits of the programs, both any actual benefit in stopping terrorism and the potential for squashing her enemies and she can't wait to wield the power. Trump? Not nearly as clear. If this is your issue, Johnson is probably your candidate. Stein? Who cares.
That last one is simply an insult no serious person should even respect the questioner for asking. There actually are stupid questions and that is one and stupid people who ask them.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:06PM
That last one is simply an insult no serious person should even respect the questioner for asking. There actually are stupid questions and that is one and stupid people who ask them.
Apparently, jmorris [soylentnews.org] has no sense of humor or, at least, lacks sense enough to know when an attempt at humor is being perpetrated.
Moreover, he (she?) appears to be unable come up with his (her?) own questions and, as such, has to focus on those of others.
Given what normally spews from this source, that's really not so surprising.
All the same, thanks for participating, jmorris [soylentnews.org]. Your input is always appreciated, even as negative examples.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:38PM
More like rejecting the premise.
Anyone who is still asking questions at this late stage probably hasn't been paying attention. We have decades of history on Mrs. Clinton and the monster who she has slunk in the wake of to get this close to the power she craves. She has not only taken positions (which mean little from a politician) she has a record of both attempting and in accomplishing her policy priorities. Naming one that isn't wicked or crassly corrupt is the hard part. There is literally nothing she could say at this point that would convince me she isn't evil and a menace to both our form of government and civilization in general.
Neither Johnson or Stein have the potential to receive a single Electoral Vote and can thus be excluded from discussion at this late stage. If you live in a 'safe' state it would be a good idea to vote for Johnson simply as a long term project to make the LP viable, on the assumption that when that day does come they will have better candidates step up. But again, there is no point delving into the details of Johnson's specific positions because he will not, and should not, ever be allowed near the levers of power.
The Republican Primary process included many debates, countless media interviews one on one with the candidates, etc. If you weren't paying attention, Youtube and Google can help you. The debates to come will be more of the same, sound and fury signifying little because the same media hacks are running them and the same short attention span theatre mindset governs them. If you are expecting serious policy in ninety second responses likely to be broken up with interruptions, you don't know what the word serious means. The debates are raw emotion, creating feelz, 'looking presidential.' Since Trump's largest remaining problem seems to be quieting the fears of the low info voters as to his 'presidential temperament' these defects in the system should actually work out this time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:51PM
More like completely missing the point.
There. FTFY.
I'll explain, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.
I found the NYT bit to be really stupid, as it didn't stimulate discussion and debate about what was important to voters. No one is expecting a discussion on SN to have any impact on the candidates or the election.
I thought it might be interesting to discuss what's important to SN users, with "questions for the candidates" as a means of pointing up policy issues which are of concern.
By attacking the submitter (me) and the editors rather than using this as an opportunity to highlight what's important to you, you're completely missing the point.
That said, your voice is just as free as anyone else's, so have at it. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @12:09AM
If you live in a 'safe' state it would be a good idea to vote for Johnson simply as a long term project to make the LP viable, on the assumption that when that day does come they will have better candidates step up.
I take issue with this. No matter what state you live in, you should never vote for evil. In fact, it's even better to vote third party if you're in a swing state, because it has a higher chance of terrifying the main parties, and our goal should be to wield the perception of the spoiler effect as a weapon against the massive harms a corrupt, authoritarian duopoly can inflict upon us over a long period of time. There is no excuse for voting for evil, regardless of the state in which you live.