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 mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:30PM
I'd like the other three to be asked "What would you do about Aleppo?"
I think Johnson's answer disqualifies him. He answered "What's Aleppo?"
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by tibman on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:41PM
Asking questions shouldn't disqualify you.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:50PM
Not knowing about that city does.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:26PM
That's a terrible policy. About the same as saying people aren't allowed to learn from their mistakes because if they make a mistake they're fired. I prefer people who ask questions when they don't know something.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:12PM
It shows he never reads a newspaper or watches a news broadcast. It shows an abject ignorance of current events.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 24 2016, @08:13PM
No it doesn't. Wanting to have the American military involved in Syria, and especially doing so without a declaration of war from congress, disqualifies a person from being president. Not knowing about a city in Syria when your policy is "we shouldn't be getting involved in foreign wars" is not really a problem. The qualifications of the president is a matter of policy, not a trivia quiz.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:58PM
Why? If your main concern is nation building, I can see why it would be all-important to know about cities like Aleppo in third-world shitholes. Johnson seems more concerned with problems in the US, so this Jeopardy! trivia nonsense matters much less.
And if something like this disqualifies a candidate, countless other people who have actually been presidents would have been disqualified as well.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:03PM
It shows an appalling lack of knowledge of current events. And yes, many of history's bad presidents were as ignorant.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:05PM
I think it's more important that a candidate stops going to war with other countries unnecessarily. I don't really care that he didn't know the name of some third world hellhole.
If we're talking about candidates being disqualified, maybe advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government (as Clinton and Trump do when they advocate for mass surveillance and other unconstitutional policies) should be something that disqualifies a candidate, and it's astronomically more important as well.
And yes, many of history's bad presidents were as ignorant.
I can't think of a single good president. The only way a president could be good is by respecting people's liberties, which none of them did or do.