Presidential Debate Questions That Need Answering

lotuseclat79 · 04-Jul-2008, 09:52 AM #1

14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer.

What are the chances:
1) The League of Women Voters will sponsor any Presidential debates, let alone each candidate would support their sponsorship where questions would not be known ahead of time, i.e. scripted (lame)? My guess is: 0-none.
2) that the media broadcasting the debates would pick up on these or other relevant questions on the minds of voters? My guess is: 0-none.

-- Tom

BanditFlyer · 04-Jul-2008, 03:04 PM #2

Why should the next president answer even one science question?

The vast majority of the voting populace is completely ignorant of science. It would be a waste of time, money, energy, and press coverage(since most Americans generally find science boring) to devote one iota of effort in that direction.

Question number four points out why this is essentially a chicken-and-egg debate. Our science/math education sucks because we don't care about science/math. Which is why we wouldn't vote on a candidate based on that .... which is why the ratings of any station that covered such a debate would be through the floor .... which is why we don't care about science/math ... which is ....

lotuseclat79 · 04-Jul-2008, 10:43 PM #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Why should the next president answer even one science question?

The vast majority of the voting populace is completely ignorant of science. It would be a waste of time, money, energy, and press coverage(since most Americans generally find science boring) to devote one iota of effort in that direction.

Question number four points out why this is essentially a chicken-and-egg debate. Our science/math education sucks because we don't care about science/math. Which is why we wouldn't vote on a candidate based on that .... which is why the ratings of any station that covered such a debate would be through the floor .... which is why we don't care about science/math ... which is ....

Hi BF,

As our current el'presidente said, "I'm the decider!" Because the buck stops with the POTUS, he/she gets the final say on any policy decision in the Federal government.

Looks like you haven't been keeping up with the latest news - Americans do want more $$$ to be spent on Science.

Answering these kind of questions before we vote is important - maybe not to you, because you do not seem to give a "hoot'nannie", but then again, it is your choice to be ignorant if you want to be, and you have every right to be - if that is how you want to define your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in ignorance)!

-- Tom

Fidelista · 04-Jul-2008, 11:17 PM #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi BF,

As our current el'presidente said, "I'm the decider!" Because the buck stops with the POTUS, he/she gets the final say on any policy decision in the Federal government.

Looks like you haven't been keeping up with the latest news - Americans do want more $$$ to be spent on Science.

Answering these kind of questions before we vote is important - maybe not to you, because you do not seem to give a "hoot'nannie", but then again, it is your choice to be ignorant if you want to be, and you have every right to be - if that is how you want to define your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in ignorance)!

-- Tom

BF is probably at least , somewhat right , look at our leadership , and those who chose them

.
On the other hand , there are some , although a minority probably , that really want to hear ideas about important issues such as science , how these men view things, very important for our future.
I try to remain optimistic - have too -- I live here , and my family.
If I held BF's position , I would be playing with my passport . >f

BanditFlyer · 04-Jul-2008, 11:37 PM #5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidelista

BF is probably at least , somewhat right , look at our leadership , and those who chose them

.
On the other hand , there are some , although a minority probably , that really want to hear ideas about important issues such as science , how these men view things, very important for our future.
I try to remain optimistic - have too -- I live here , and my family.
If I held BF's position , I would be playing with my passport . >f

Oh come on! Tom's second post in this thread is basically the equivalent of the word "bump".

Other than his misinterpretation of what I said as if it were about me, rather than being about we, he basically didn't say anything of substance at all. My point was that the electorate doesn't care about such things.

I don't own a TV, so I don't watch the news. You won't see that in most of the electorate. A large portion of the electorate were actually stupid enough to vote for Clinton. TWICE! These are not the types of people who would tune in to a debate between two senators about science. They do watch a lot of television though.

"TV" and "Science" go together like "Senator" and "Honesty".

Now if you could televise a debate in which the two presidential candidates wrestle an aligator, that might get you some ratings.

Edit: And what do you mean about playing with your passport?

I'm basically an optimistic person, but I'm optimistic because I can take action to change my conditions. Not because I depend on the government to fix stuff that might be wrong with my life. I'm optimistic because I know that , in America today, few people outside yourself have the power to hold you down.

**bassetman** · 05-Jul-2008, 01:48 AM #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi BF,

As our current el'presidente said, "I'm the decider!" Because the buck stops with the POTUS, he/she gets the final say on any policy decision in the Federal government.

Looks like you haven't been keeping up with the latest news - Americans do want more $$$ to be spent on Science.

Answering these kind of questions before we vote is important - maybe not to you, because you do not seem to give a "hoot'nannie", but then again, it is your choice to be ignorant if you want to be, and you have every right to be - if that is how you want to define your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in ignorance)!

-- Tom

D W wants us to go to Mars, and I think he should go!

lotuseclat79 · 05-Jul-2008, 12:15 PM #7

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Oh come on! Tom's second post in this thread is basically the equivalent of the word "bump".

Other than his misinterpretation of what I said as if it were about me, rather than being about we, he basically didn't say anything of substance at all. My point was that the electorate doesn't care about such things.

I don't own a TV, so I don't watch the news. You won't see that in most of the electorate. A large portion of the electorate were actually stupid enough to vote for Clinton. TWICE! These are not the types of people who would tune in to a debate between two senators about science. They do watch a lot of television though.

"TV" and "Science" go together like "Senator" and "Honesty".

Now if you could televise a debate in which the two presidential candidates wrestle an aligator, that might get you some ratings.

Edit: And what do you mean about playing with your passport?

I'm basically an optimistic person, but I'm optimistic because I can take action to change my conditions. Not because I depend on the government to fix stuff that might be wrong with my life. I'm optimistic because I know that , in America today, few people outside yourself have the power to hold you down.

Hi BF,

This is a BUMP!

-- Tom

P.S. Substance - you want substance - then stop posting your blathering opinions. The electorate does indeed care about such things as I've posted.

Seems your ignorance knows no bounds and you wouldn't be able to recgonize the truth if it slapped you silly in the face.

You could start by educating yourself with more than just conspiracy theories and reaching unfounded conclusions.

So, take your own advice and stop holding yourself down!

win2kpro · 06-Jul-2008, 06:57 AM #8

In my opinion both the Democratic and Republican debates were all a bunch of BS and the American public gained nothing in getting to know the candidates positions on the issues important to the public.

#1-The moderators should not be the ones choosing the questions to be asked. The public should have been allowed to submit the questions, and then the moderators could have chosen the best questions from the questions submitted to be answered by ALL the candidates in that debate.

In the Democratic debates the focus was on Clinton, Edwards and Obama. In the Republican debates the focus was on Giuliani, McCain and Romney. There was no way ALL the candidates were given equal time to respond to the same question.

What I would like to have seen was the moderator ask a submitted question and each candidate be given 30 seconds or a minute for a response from each and every candidate for the same question. At the end of the allotted time frame, cut off their microphones and let the next candidate respond to the same question. You simply cannot judge the quality or qualifications of a candidate by asking one candiate a question germane to apples, and asking another candidate a question germane to oranges.

TooBad · 06-Jul-2008, 08:14 AM #9

Normally, I say that we get what we deserve (as unfortunate as that is), but Win2kPro is correct and this time we get to choose between those that were pre-selected for us by media manipulation.

And Bandit is mostly correct as way too many people believe that Al Gore has a clue as to what he is talking about, when his only game is to scam people into making him richer as he is in the business of selling carbon credits. He lives in a mansion that uses 20 times the average home utilities for Christ's sake! He is a snake oil salesman, first class and half of those that voted in 2000 voted for this creep. Is it any wonder W won against this loser?

Wino · 06-Jul-2008, 08:53 AM **#10**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooBad

Normally, I say that we get what we deserve (as unfortunate as that is), but Win2kPro is correct and this time we get to choose between those that were pre-selected for us by media manipulation.

And Bandit is mostly correct as way too many people believe that Al Gore has a clue as to what he is talking about, when his only game is to scam people into making him richer as he is in the business of selling carbon credits. He lives in a mansion that uses 20 times the average home utilities for Christ's sake! He is a snake oil salesman, first class and half of those that voted in 2000 voted for this creep. Is it any wonder W won against this loser?

While I mostly agree about Gore, he isn't on the ballot and I expect he won't be. So do you feel the same about Tony Robbins, Joel Osteen, Falwell (now dead), Oral Roberts et al?? They all live in mansions and have been scamming people much longer than Gore.

On topic, I agree with win2k, the debates really suxed. The format he suggest would be a much better approach. I would also add that the campaign should not be allowed to start at all until March 1st the year of the election...........18-24 months of this BS is way too much. End the campaign and primaries 30 days before the conventions. This would spare everyone headaches from all the lies and promises from both sides.

TooBad · 06-Jul-2008, 10:02 AM **#11**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wino

While I mostly agree about Gore, he isn't on the ballot and I expect he won't be. So do you feel the same about Tony Robbins, Joel Osteen, Falwell (now dead), Oral Roberts et al?? They all live in mansions and have been scamming people much longer than Gore.

On topic, I agree with win2k, the debates really suxed. The format he suggest would be a much better approach. I would also add that the campaign should not be allowed to start at all until March 1st the year of the election...........18-24 months of this BS is way too much. End the campaign and primaries 30 days before the conventions. This would spare everyone headaches from all the lies and promises from both sides.

Actually, yes and no. As at least Tony Robbins did not pretend to be altruistic, but a capitalist and if he is successful, he can live in a mansion if he so desires. I don't know who Osteen is, but yes I fault Falwell as he was a scam artist too. Oral Roberts, I am ambivilent about as I think he believed he was doing right but became the head of an organization out of his control and it led to abuses. I do not envy everyone that lives in a mansion, only those that are total hypocrits and scam artists. Al Gore may not be running, but he is still a large player in the DNC platform. I think John Edwards is a bigger scam artist than Gore, but hopefully, he is on the sidelines politically. Now he can go back to scamming juries with bogus science. He really helped the people of NC when he ran all the Obstetricians out of the state, didn't he?