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: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:03AM
How soon should I expect my Basic Income?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:56PM
Wow, the FSA is up early today. Shouldn't you guys be sleeping in on a Saturday?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:17PM
We are here to haul off all the bullshit you so generously provide for free.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:21AM
"Will you, as president, direct your Attorney General to vigorously prosecute the rich and powerful who commit serious crimes, such as ordering torture of prisoners or banking fraud on unimaginably huge scales?"
That's one of the bigger problems facing the country today, and as best as I can tell neither Trump nor Clinton nor Johnson plan on doing a darn thing about it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:33AM
The answer to that is simple... NO!
The reason is also simple... because "the rich and powerful who commit serious crimes, such as ordering torture of prisoners or banking fraud" are also the very same bureaucrats working for government that are responsible to the president's administration.
You may as well ask "Will you, as president, shoot yourself in the foot?"
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:17PM
s/foot/head/
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:17PM
That's a softball question and you can imagine the answers you'll get. That's like asking a job candidate "what if you're trying to close a multimillion dollar sale, and a representative on the customer side asks you to do something illegal?"
What counts is performance.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:40PM
I can imagine the answers I'd get, but I also have to imagine they'll piss off some donors in the backrooms when they give those answers, and will at the very least be on the record as supporting that move. Of course that's entirely a different matter from actually following through, but right now they aren't even being forced to squirm and lie about it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:50AM
ftfy
Instead of focusing so much on "anthropogenic climate change", which is just an abstracted long-term copout to justify spending more taxpayer dollars on Solyndra wannabe's, how about instead we focus on a tangible and immediate problem that is causing suffering and environmental degradation and which if tackled would also likely help fight the longer term climate consequences?
Pollutants such as NOx and SOx can be measured at their sources and tackled directly, and would have immediate health benefits to surrounding human populations and the environment.
As president, will you stop subsidizing coal and set stricter EPA limits (and actually enforce them)?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:16PM
> "anthropogenic climate change", which is just an abstracted long-term copout to justify spending more taxpayer dollars
begging the question, you are doing it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:33PM
...and extra credit for your correct use of begging the question. [wikipedia.org]
Now, you could have taken the argument a bit further and mentioned the overlapping data sets [wikipedia.org] which all support the same conclusion.
You might have also mentioned that the people whose profession is analyzing climate have reviewed the analysis and have not come up with another explanation which is better than the currently-accepted explanation (human-caused increases of greenhouse gases have lead to an early version of the conditions which exist on Venus AKA a runaway greenhouse effect where the surface of the planet is hot enough to melt lead).
You might also have mentioned the evidence of which most living humans have personal experience:
The hottest $Specific_Month_Name in recorded history was the most recent $Specific_Month_Name.
...and to find the second-hottest, go back to the $Specific_Month_Name before that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:00PM
Duh. There's no money in trying to change the mindset of the masses. Most research is driven by whatever gets the biggest budget.
If there was so much confidence among the scientific community in what you say about temperatures consistently increasing, "climate change" would still be "global warming" like it used to be.
The scientific method doesn't permit extrapolation. That's the job of the media, politics and armchair experts like yourself.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @02:51AM
If there was so much confidence among the scientific community in what you say about temperatures consistently increasing, "climate change" would still be "global warming" like it used to be.
The term "climate change" was cooked up by a republican strategist [theguardian.com] in order to make "global warming" seem less scary.
Its funny how, well over a decade later, you are still hewing to the party line described in that memo. Its really great how you can't think for yourself, not even one little bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @12:35PM
funny that you jump to politics when science doesn't support your view
i'm not a republican. i'm not even american. but nice try
at least you've confirmed my suspicions about your political motives though
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:48PM
I thought Nox and SOx were already reduced in order to combat acid rain.
CO2 is much more persistent in the atmosphere.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:46PM
Indeed, compared to the filthy air that had not only those oxides but lead when I was a kid, the air is sparkling clean these days.
What about the mass extinction [wikipedia.org] that we seem to be on the brink of causing? [earthsky.org]
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quintessence on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:13PM
The problem with either of the major candidates is the answer you get going in will most likely bear no relation to the answer once in office.
Neither is strongly principled, so in many respects they will mirror the disappointment of Obama (or Bush for that matter): even the best of intentions going in will waver with how the wind blows.
The character of each is pretty well established at this point, and expediency and aggrandizement will rule the day. If there is an angle to be played, any sense of staying the course goes out the window.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:26PM
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 ;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:49PM
What I want to know is if there is anyone worth voting for so we don't have to choose between evil green alien Kang and evil green alien Kodos here.
Of course, I am aware there are technically a couple of names, but when the conspiring media gives almost absolutely zero mention of these people, how is anybody supposed to know who they are or why we should vote for them?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:16PM
Look up Stein [ontheissues.org]/Johnson [ontheissues.org]/Istvan [ontheissues.org] using a simple Google search. If you can't figure out who to vote for after looking at each ontheissues page for 60 seconds, you should just write in Mickey Mouse or leave that space blank. Go research your state's ballot initiatives [ballotpedia.org] and your state/local races. If none of that interests you, stay home.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday September 24 2016, @04:34PM
I agree with your basic voting strategy. I'm probably voting for a dead revolutionary this year. I was thinking about swallowing the Johnson, but there's something really pathetic about a libertarian who supports the TPP.
I really just wanted to add that ontheissues doesn't sum up Zoltan Istvan very well. His entire platform needs to be seen as a set of compromises that he thinks will result in immortality (or something like it). He's basically a utilitarian who is trying to maximize lifespan instead of happiness. He's the obvious choice for a die-hard transhumanist, if you agree with his assumptions about what is likely to bring about access to longevity treatments and you are willing to sacrifice freedom for life. Source: this interview [youtube.com] with Zoltan Istvan by the white supremacist conspiracy theorist anarchist crazy people Red Ice Radio. Despite being something of a transhumanist conspiracy theorist anarchist crazy person, I don't support either Istvan or Red Ice Radio. I want to be super clear about that. Also, IIRC Istvan isn't a white supremacist despite appearing on that podcast. It's been a couple years since I've listened to (part of) that interview, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:00PM
I agree with your basic voting strategy. I'm probably voting for a dead revolutionary this year
Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? Vladimir Lenin? Josip Tito?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:35PM
Fidel Castro?
Shh, we can't let the proletariat class know that Comrade Castro is dead! Comrade Castro will never die.
I've written in Ernesto Guevara before, but only for local offices. For President I might put down Daniel Shays, Emma Goldman, or somebody else entirely. I've never written in a vote for president before. If there was an actual balls-to-the-wall libertarian option I'd probably vote for them, I hesitantly voted Libertarian last time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:35PM
a libertarian who supports the TPP
Earlier this month, you and I were involved in a related discussion. [soylentnews.org]
...to which I responded with a link to an infographic about Dr. Stein. [blogspot.com]
If your goal is simply *less* gov't, maybe she isn't your cup of tea.
If what you want is **better** gov't, I think she is a viable choice.
.
My question to a candidate would be:
What are a few names of individuals from whom you will seek advice on $Topic?
In Jill's case, a pretty good indicator of that is her Green Shadow Cabinet. [greenshadowcabinet.us]
Note: That list is in alphabetical order by surname, so "President" (Stein) is way down the page.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday September 24 2016, @09:08PM
If your goal is simply *less* gov't, maybe she isn't your cup of tea.
If what you want is **better** gov't, I think she is a viable choice.
Federally, no government. I'd vote for considerably less as a nudge in the right direction.
Locally, better government. As you already know I'd vote Stein for Mayor in a heartbeat, though of course I have disagreements with her on some local policy issues. I agree with her on many things at a local level, and I think she means well and could be reasoned with.
My question to a candidate would be:
What are a few names of individuals from whom you will seek advice on $Topic?
Good question. I don't think that Johnson's fuck-up on Aleppo is nearly as damning as the amount of time that Trump stalled before naming any foreign policy advisors. Being able to humbly accept advice is much more important than knowing any specific piece of information, though of course knowing things is ideal. It seems vastly preferable to admit ignorance than to feign knowledge, as some politicians did when asked for their opinions on the ethnic cleansing in Freedonia. I'd want to ask a question that would really make them squirm:
"You're allowed to use your phone or any other computer you or your aides have with you for this question, but you can only use search engines and reference websites, and you have to turn so that the cameras can clearly see your screens. The capitol of Seychelles has a set of coordinates in degrees minutes format. If we take only the numeric characters from these coordinates and run them together into one number, that number will not be prime. What is the next largest number that is prime? Whoever is ready first can feel free to answer. Tick, tock, tick, tock..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @10:36PM
In my book, getting/keeping the economy healthy is a big part of the Chief Executive gig, regardless of governmental level.
Unemployment is dominant in that.
The only time USA has pulled out of one of its numerous depressions[1] in under a decade was when FDR put folks on the public payroll.
Jill has a similar idea (a Green New Deal) which I would like to see discussed in nationally-aired debates.
[1] Depression is now an obsolete word, only referring to The Idle Rich who are already wealthy enough to speculate on the stock market (while PRODUCING nothing)--while completely ignoring The Working Class.
I have previously mentioned the Maracora Law, which Italy enacted in 1985.
It allows (10 or more) people who are eligible for unemployment insurance payments to pool their due in a lump sum and start a worker cooperative.
It's been very successful for them and I'd like to see that tried here.
Bernie has mentioned co-ops in passing, but never acted on that.
To my knowledge, Jill has never even used the "C" word ("Capitalism"), so one would logically assume she hasn't given any thought to boosterism WRT co-ops.
Aleppo
Aleppo is one of the worst examples of ongoing human rights abuses.
70 percent of the casualties there are non-combatants.
Aleppo represents a huge USA foreign policy failure.
I would expect a guy running for the top job to be aware of all of that.
It pains me that among the 4 who could get 270 electoral votes (according to their ballot access), only Hillary has any experience in foreign affairs--and her solution to everything is "Let's bomb them".
Jill at least has a demonstrated level of empathy: physician, mom, activist (arrested several times at protests).
I would trust her instincts and her ability to associate with like-minded people who have related accomplishments.
really make them squirm [...]
What is the next largest number that is prime?
8-D I like your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 24 2016, @04:50PM
Look up Stein/Johnson/Istvan using a simple Google search. If you can't figure out who to vote for after looking at each ontheissues page for 60 seconds, you should just write in Mickey Mouse or leave that space blank. Go research your state's ballot initiatives and your state/local races. If none of that interests you, stay home.
Don't forget the equestrian candidate! [wikipedia.org]
#IWantAPonyVS2016
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:50PM
Mod parent informative.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(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.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday September 25 2016, @05:14AM
I always thought Kodos was a little off-green. But then again, I'm more of a moderate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Sunday September 25 2016, @05:20AM
What I want to know is if there is anyone worth voting for so we don't have to choose between evil green alien Kang and evil green alien Kodos here.
You're being disingenuous here. Our choices are not between Kang and Kodos as in previous years, but visibly between the evil green *female* alien Kodosi, and an off-orange alien -- I'd say more a "Kang-erine" colored one. Thank goodness this election will finally bring us some much-needed change.
(Score: 2) by SunTzuWarmaster on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:57PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:16PM
Are you asking the two candidates to chip in from their personal wealth to help pay down the national debt? I like it.
(Score: 2) by SunTzuWarmaster on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:31PM
Heh. It is the most upsetting thing to me int he current political landscape. Both major candidates have decided that "debt is bad" int heir personal lives. The Fiscal Times indicates:
"The gross national debt as a share of the overall economy is expected to remain relatively flat over the coming 10 years, with a slight uptick from 104 percent of GDP this year to 105 percent by 2026, according to the study. However, if Clinton’s policies were enacted by Congress, the gross debt would rise to 107 percent of GDP by 2026. Under Trump’s plan, by comparison, it would rise to 143 percent of GDP."
Somewhere in this discussion is that NEITHER candidate will spend less than taxes bring in. There is not a (federally) fiscally responsible party to vote for, despite the fact both major candidates ARE (at least somewhat) fiscally responsible with their own money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:22PM
> Both major candidates have decided that "debt is bad" int heir personal lives.
If what's good for individuals must be good for the country, then the reverse should also be true, right?
Therefore people should also have the right to print money, to judge others guilty of crimes and incarcerate them, declare eminent domain over their neighbor's property and to declare war and attack other countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:58PM
Then we should've elected Mitt.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday September 24 2016, @04:59PM
Trump has used bankruptcy courts to restructure debts and is worth $4.5B
...according to Forbes. Bloomberg says $3B. Trump usually claims at least $10B, but his valuations of his own wealth have fluctuated by at least $3.3B in a single day. He once said, "my net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings—even my own feelings."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:39PM
Once he releases his tax returns, we can know for sure what he's worth.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
A significant portion of Trump's "wealth" comes from licensing his name.
He had 4 casinos with his name on them and all of those declared bankruptcy.
IOW, he couldn't make money owning casinos.
It's been said by several money-smart guys that had Trump simply put his inheritance into an index fund, he would have more money today.
...and, after his bankruptcies, he can't get any bank to give him a loan.
We're back to trading on his name alone.
I won't be the first to indicate that his presidential run started as an effort to improve his brand and that his success at hornswaggling the voters, to the extent he has, came as a total surprise to him.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @08:29PM
That is like asking someone who owns a home and a car with a bit of cash in the bank and a small amount of debt what they are worth.
My personal value value fluctuates by nearly +/-3000 dollars PER day. I have enough assets for it do something like that. Non liquid assets. Liquid assets tend to be much more stable and do not fluctuate as much in value. DT and HRC both are in the same boat. As the market moves around them their value can change.
Take for example an empty warehouse. It has been on the market for 10 years. No one will buy it. Is it worth anything? Probably not much. But suddenly one day a company opens a new factory in the town and they need every scrap of warehouse space in town. Suddenly your property is worth a lot more.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @08:30PM
Trump spent over a million dollars to lose a libel lawsuit against a business reporter who claimed Trump was only worth ~$200M. [washingtonpost.com]
The thing about Trump is that he might have assets valued in the billions. But that guy's got debt. Maybe more than half billion in debt. [politico.com] He's added $50M in debt just to finance his campaign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:14PM
1. Do you think we should ramp up our efforts to stop undocumented immigrants from entering our country? And what should we do with those that are already here?
2. Do you favor continuation of guest worker immigration programs such as H1B and H2B? Should there be additional restrictions?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:25PM
Trump will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear. There is not much point in asking that guy anything. Clinton's positions on pretty much everything are on her website. Watching a debate is like watching NASCAR. The only questions worth asking as the ones that might induce the candidates to commit an unforced error and crash into the barriers around the racetrack,
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:57PM
If only there were more than 2 candidates running...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:15PM
There are more than two candidates running in the race.
But there are only two candidates who can finish the race.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Sulla on Saturday September 24 2016, @10:53PM
The plans on her website do not match up with her voting record. So it is really hard to trust anything she says.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @01:22PM
> The plans on her website do not match up with her voting record.
Which ones?
Specifically.
I'm not fucking joking. You write like you actually bothered to read them. So let us in on what you discovered.
Oh, you didn't? You were just playing "She's a bitch!" with nicer words? That's what I thought.
I'm so damn tired of you low-information posters stroking yourselves in public.
(Score: 3, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:49PM
How will you minimize the domestic threat of home-grown terrorists?
Presumes we have some problem with home grown terrorists.
What should be done to strengthen the Social Security system so it can keep supporting retirees now and in the future?
Presumes we can and should keep social security.
The racial divide on policing and politics seems wider than ever. How could the next president help turn this around?
Presumes there is a racial divide, not a cultural divide.
What evidence-backed measures should be taken to improve the public school experience for every child?
Presumes the feds should be involved in public schooling.
It is widely accepted scientific fact that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. What specific action will you take in the next four years?
Presumes....well they just said it didn't they. Some people have noticed that the climate catastrophists have never gotten anything right.
There are 43 million people living in poverty in this country. What will you do about this?
Presumes that the standard of American poverty is somehow actually poverty (it isn't), and assumes government should be involved in the solution (which has never worked).
Health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs are rising rapidly. What would you do to control them?
Presumes the feds should be involved in medicine....
Sanctions and global condemnation haven’t deterred North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. What would you do?
Presumes this is an issue for the president rather than congress. We did used to have a constitution.
How do you plan to get money out of politics?
Presumes that money should be removed from politics. In America, the defined solution to "bad speech" was always more speech, not restrictions. See first amendment.
What specific actions or tactics will you use to fight the Islamic State that the Obama administration hasn’t already tried?
Trump has gone on record saying he won't broadcast his "tactics". This question is an obvious jab at Trump, NY times isn't even trying to hide it.
What would your administration do to reduce gun violence and mass shootings?
"Gun violence". Using that term makes you an idiot. It makes an arbitrary distinction of violence, like somehow it is worse to be killed with a gun than killed with a gang beating in the subway.
What are three important initiatives you could accomplish despite Congressional gridlock?
Presumes the president should act on his own despite no approval from congress.
What would you do to reduce the extreme income inequality in this country?
Presumes that income inequality is a problem. It isn't. One man's gain is not another man's loss.
Where would you set the limits of surveillance by the U.S. government?
It's not "surveillance". It is tresspassing and theft in violation of the 4th amendment.
Where has American policy on Syria failed? Should something be done militarily to stop the slaughter?
LOL. "Should something be done to stop the slaughter". A question intended to make it seem like they aren't trying as hard as they can to support Hillary. Expect to see "See? we mentioned Syria, so we're not biased" in the news.
This is why no one cares what the NY Times has to say. They are dying, no one wants to read their DNC blog. Trying to say "well our viewers chose these questions" is an incredibly weak attempt to hide their use of their position as moderators to cheerlead for Hillary. Are they really this scared of Hillary facing Trump in a debate?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:38PM
Presumes. You apparently presume that the government should not have anything to do with medicine, so I presume you know little history and even less of other countries' experiences. Why do you presume the "free market" should have anything to do with medicine when there's no way healthcare can possibly be?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:44PM
Medicine is not a scarce resource. Nothing prevents it from being free market besides public policy.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:07PM
"...besides public policy."
Bingo! It's not a free market because you have no choices. After an eye operation I was prescribed antibiotic eyedrops, so I called around to find the best price. Their list prices varied from $65 to well over a hundred, but no matter the actual cost of the drug, my co-pay was twenty five bucks.
Its retail price in Canada is twenty four.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday September 25 2016, @05:15AM
Short of the government directly hiring and employing doctors, like it was in USSR, the government can only add overhead to the costs. High barriers of entry stop new practitioners; demand for zero errors causes expensive trials and even more expensive malpractice insurance; patents stop others from making live-saving drugs available. Is some or all of that necessary? Perhaps; or maybe not. It's nice to have a doctor who makes no mistakes; but it is not so nice that you cannot afford him, and you die from the disease anyway. High cost of healthcare is not simply invented, it is based on expenses that providers are burdened with. The fact that the doctor drives the latest car is in the noise if you consider how much he pays to the insurance company and to manufacturers of his equipment. But if you ask the manufacturers, they will gladly point you at the tomes of government rules that dictate how medical equipment must be designed and produced. A single X-ray sensor that dentists shove into your mouth costs $5K [lionsdentalsupply.com] - and you need more than one. But, at least, at this price it may not shock you - but even a $10K unit is just a USB device, so in the end all that lies between your soft body and the 120V AC is the cheapest Chinese PC power supply that the money can buy. The sensor may be encased in plastic, but don't bite on that cable.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:00PM
Look to Europe and Canada. Their health care costs are far lower than ours, and their medical outcomes are far better. There should be no health insurance. It only adds another layer of unproductive money drain; companies must earn profits, governments are under no such restraints. Governments make the best insurers.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(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.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:28PM
"The Nation" also has a list of questions:
https://www.thenation.com/article/19-questions-from-nation-writers-that-trump-and-clinton-should-answer-at-the-presidential-debate/ [thenation.com]
Another interesting read (same site):
https://www.thenation.com/article/ask-the-candidates-if-they-are-ready-to-legalize-marijuana-and-if-not-why/ [thenation.com]
Mas cerveza por favor.