Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
10 Questions for the Candidates from You
10questions.com — Submit and/or Vote on video taped questions for presidential candidates. Round 1 (ends Nov 14, 07): You ask a video question to the presidential candidate (post online). You vote on the best questions. Round 2 (11/17/07 to 12/31/07): Candidates post video answer. You decide if they actually answered...
art42- 332 diggs
- digg it
- heaintheavy, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Excellent idea, but the questions are a bit strained. Hopefully people keep submitting good questions...
- jobenly, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Most of the questions on there right now are so combative that there would be no upside for half of the candidates in answering them.
- darnit, on 10/23/2007, -3/+6Why do they have to be video questions? Its slow and pointless.
- JustinHorne, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4A one way dialogue with no recourse for calling out the *****?
Nice try, but it won't work the way you want it to.- macweirdo42, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1You're obviously new to politics. You NEVER get to call out the *****. If we did start calling out the ***** on politicians, Washington would shut down because there'd be none left.
- mlsif, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Actually, the way the site works, first users will vote up/down the questions...then the top ten will be sent to the candidates (with the help of the NYTimes)...THEN as the candidates post their answers, we the users get to vote up/down on whether they actually answered the questions. Not perfect but it's a start, no?
- macweirdo42, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1You're obviously new to politics. You NEVER get to call out the *****. If we did start calling out the ***** on politicians, Washington would shut down because there'd be none left.
- eatspie, on 10/24/2007, -5/+0They are making me ask 10 questions? TEN?
Buried.- Bdog2g2, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5it saddens me that you may be eligible to vote.
- mlsif, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0We're not making you do anything eatspie. You can submit a question (or more than one)...or just vote up/down on whether you like each question.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5it saddens me that you may be eligible to vote.
- nullcodes, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4i would like someone to ask this question: "If you have no absolute proof of a suspects guilt or knowledge about an impending threat, is it ok to severely torture that individual. even though he may be innocent .. for the chance at overall safety of the public?"
Ok, the answer to me .. a no brainer - is that you should never ever severly torture under any circumstance ... since I rather not sacrifcice my soul .. but there are a lot of people who are ok with making the "sacrifice" as long as it's not them or their own loved one being tortured.
For public safety It's ok to inconvenience temporarily .. yes .. but there is a limit, we humans are fallible.- saahmed, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2You should never torture. If the U.S. tortures someone, then it gives the message to any other country that it is okay to torture an American. Plus, a person being tortured will tell you anything just for the torture to stop. You will never get the answer you need. All of this will be extremely amplified if you are wrong to torture the person.
- seanherman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I can answer that for you nullcodes, since they've answered this question in previous debates. While they refuse to mention specific techniques (or even the distinction between enhanced interrogation techniques and official torture, if any) the Democrats would all say no, the GOP candidates would all say absolutely (with the exception of McCain and I guess probably Ron Paul) yes. Romney would seem bizarrely enthusiastic to convey his wiliness to torture, Giuliani would hedge a bit more, but land on the side of torture.
We need new questions, and more importantly, specific questions. These vague questions allow candidates to easily dodge around issues.
Ask a question like "Do you think the US should torture", and you'll get everyone saying no, but leave enough wiggle room to allow their answer to commit to nothing. This issue ties into Extraordinary Rendition. A more fitting question would ask whether the US would condone the use of torture, oversee or order the use of torture, or ignore an ally's use or reliance on torture in interrogation.
- badwithcomputer, on 10/24/2007, -4/+4here's a question i have for every single candidate besides ron paul and steven colbert: suck my dick.
- lukeev, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Now see that's a good yes or no question, but Rudy would still talk about 9-11.
- chrysrobyn, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3@badwithcomputer:
So, it seems as though your devotions are split pretty evenly between the most conservative federally elected official (RP), and a sarcastic liberal humorist (Colbert). You do realize that they're diametrically opposed, right?- seanherman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is like a beauty accessory for most. He's the stylish choice that seems intellectual, thoughtful and revolutionary. Most people who support Ron Paul don't understand what the true implications of a Ron Paul presidency would be. Surely there are plenty that have considered all of his positions carefully, and still support him, but I think the poster above would fall into the former category, based off his statements.
It sounds pretty cool to say you support Ron Paul, but when you actually consider the realities of the FDA, FCC, TSA, Dept of Education literally vanishing overnight, a Paul presidency looks pretty dismal. I, for one, don't trust private corporations to oversee the wireless spectrums, internet standards (consider net neutrality), drug screening and testing (gone under a Paul administration), public radio (they couldn't afford to compete), PBS (ditto -- sorry Ken Burns), etc.- Jobarra, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0Because somehow States are more inept at handling these issues locally? Love how everyone forgets where those powers SHOULD lie and what Ron Paul supports.
- art42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Talk about bureaucracy: 50 FCCs, 50 FDAs,... Should D.C. get states rights? If so make that 51 of each agency.
- art42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Talk about bureaucracy: 50 FCCs, 50 FDAs,... Should D.C. get states rights? If so make that 51 of each agency.
- Jobarra, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0Because somehow States are more inept at handling these issues locally? Love how everyone forgets where those powers SHOULD lie and what Ron Paul supports.
- seanherman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is like a beauty accessory for most. He's the stylish choice that seems intellectual, thoughtful and revolutionary. Most people who support Ron Paul don't understand what the true implications of a Ron Paul presidency would be. Surely there are plenty that have considered all of his positions carefully, and still support him, but I think the poster above would fall into the former category, based off his statements.
- Frostman3D, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I wish this story was discussed in the media, where's the outrage about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghf1ILZQ2Ls&eurl=ht ...- art42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Des Moines Register article: Error: Invalid story key
So?
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRel ...
""Muslims feel proud about the unanimous bipartisan support of the Halal Food Act, and see it as an historical manifestation of the public and political recognition of the Muslim community in Illinois, which numbers around 450,000," said Dr. Sabri Samirah, president of United Muslim Americans Association.
Senate Bill 750 was sponsored in by Senators Christine Radogno, R-La Grange, Laurence Walsh, D-Elwood, Barack Obama, D-Chicago, Louis Viverito, D-Burbank, and Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago and Representatives Tom Dart, D-Chicago, Eileen Lyons, R-Western Springs, Gwenn Klinger, R-Springfield, and Anne Zickus, R-Palos Hills. ""
Look up bipartisan. What is there to be outraged about? Do you fraudulently sell food products claiming they're prepared according to Islamic law?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/obamas_p...ts_co ...
The page cannot be found.
Google Pastor Wright Obama islam
RED HERRING.
Afraid? Bigot?- art42, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1My comment above was in response to a wingnut troll (the rude and deluded 'person' that gets banned within hours of opening their account) that responded to Frostman3D...
- art42, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Des Moines Register article: Error: Invalid story key
- Syntaxis, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Here's a question: Will you prosecute G. W. Bush when he's no longer functioning as President of the United States?
- waynemr, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I would go further and ask, "Once President, will you extradite Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et. al. to Europe to face an international war-crimes tribunal?" Please explain why or why not you would do this.
- jobenly, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Is any other American turned off by the fact that they have an Englishwoman doing the introduction/explanation videos? I have nothing against our friends across the pond, but this is an American election...
...and it does bother me that the media like to cast a Brit whenever they need someone in an intelligent role. It only reinforces the stereotype that the English are smarter than people from former colonies.- seanherman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3You know, she may have immigrated here ages ago, or married a US citizen. She may be American born, raised in the UK, and now back in the US. It's a little silly to judge someone by their accent, especially when it's completely irrelevant.
- Nathaner, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1It's Joanne Colan of Rocketboom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_colan
- Nathaner, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1It's Joanne Colan of Rocketboom.
- seanherman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3You know, she may have immigrated here ages ago, or married a US citizen. She may be American born, raised in the UK, and now back in the US. It's a little silly to judge someone by their accent, especially when it's completely irrelevant.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by