The 2008 presidential election promises to be one of the most exciting races in American history. Together, we can ensure that Americans make an informed choice when selecting our leaders. By creating a new form of debate here on Gather, one that capitalizes on the unique characteristics of the Internet as a medium, we can go beyond the sound bites and rehearsed answers. We can invite the candidates to join in a more substantive debate, a true exchange that better informs our vote.
Please join us in asking the presidential candidates to engage in an ongoing conversation with America. The idea is simple: each week, starting December 10th, the candidates will answer one of your questions in depth. Every candidate is invited to participate and each is given unlimited time and space to respond. Candidates can post articles, images, videos and links to additional resources in their responses to us. And we can then compare, discuss, and challenge their answers.
Let’s create real debate here on Gather. Let’s ask our candidates to go beyond the sound bites to a place with no mediators, no time limits. Let’s ask for real answers to real questions on the issues that really make a difference in our lives.
Join us in asking the candidates to join in a real conversation with America.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 89
I am so glad I am living in this country at this time.
Good idea for debate - open ended.
this game is right up my alley!! COUNT ME IN fully to bounce ideas off said candidates
moving toward low/no carbon footprinting low/no greenhouse gas emissions, and safer
homes that are "buried" due to the fact that they are warmer in winter, cooler in summer, and "tornado belt" proof.
Robert Cohn
CEO: Quantum E3 Corporation
Intelligent Subterranean Green Building
Technology Transfer
1301 E Ave I suite #2 2 3
Lancaster Ca 93535-2127
(661)946-6581
Mon-Sat 9a ~ 4:30p
Pacific Standard Time
http://quantumcorporate11.googlepages.com/undergroundgreenhome
The only two that might answer honestly are Dennis K and Dr Paul.
1) What is causing the gap between the rich and poor to widen? Is this inevitable, and how far will it and should it be allowed to go? What can be done about it?
2) Do you think there should be a living wage? Social Security? Medicare? Nation health care? Should mental and dental be included in health care?
3) Why somehow do we condone slave level jobs as long as they are filled by illegal immigrants? Should any job be able to provide food, shelter, some retirement insurance, education, health care - the things needed to survive and prosper?
4) When we do create low wage jobs for illegal immigrants how does it affect American jobs? Does outsourcing and forcing Americans to compete economically with oppressed and poor people all over the world decrease American's political rights, or increase foreign people's human rights? Is that America's concern?
5) Should large concentrations of profit be taxed if it cannot be proven that they are being reinvested in the US to create jobs or solve problems? Example, Halliburton, Exxon, Insurance companies.
6) What do you think of the outsourcing of military functions that was initiated by Donald Rumsfelf? Does this contradict the Constitution effective allowing private armies to be created inside the country? What about the huge profits of the companies? Should military and wartime contractors have their profits regulated?
7) What is your opinion of the outcome of the experiment of engaging China economically in order to have a political influence on human rights there?
8) Since buisnesses are supposed to provide a value to the people who buy from them, please explain what value the health insurance companies provide to Americans?
9) Do corporations have too much control over the American consciousness by influencing the media? Can we have a democracy when the information people get is filtered through a small number of large media corporations?
There are lots more questions that we could get educated on about what our potential leader's worldviews are, and whether or not they are just making promises to get elected, or what they really think, and what they really think they can do about things to improve them.
I think that it's our job, then, to require good answers. We should comment when they fail to provide substance or detail. We should check their facts and, if we can't verify them, ask the candidates to cite sources. We should call out the differences in opinion between them and explore those differences together.
I haven't really contributed much to Gather. I haven't read many articles or added anny significant information. Still, I think it is a great idea but what makes Gather different than face book or my space? Also, the candidates can reach so many people with their own pages or with youtube.
For the above reason, I will state the following: Maybe the organizers of gather should offer the candidates representatives an opportunity to have a summary of questions sent to a certain email address. This summary could be a statistical compiling of question topics/ concerns. This would, of course, require someone in gather to develop an organized statistical method to accomplish this task. Is this possible in Gather? This may be more of a possibility in face book. I don't belong to face book either and don't have the programming knowledge to assist Gather. If done appropriately, this could draw the attention of candidates, news organizations, educators, etc…. In turn, it could lead to a new a unique form of communication between politicians and the populace.
The titles would have to be organized with "key words" to help facilitate such a difficult undertaking.
Come on! Is this all the doers and thinkers of the Internet can come up with to further our democratic process?
I have one suggestion, instead of wasting your time pandering to the presidential candidates who are just going to see this offer as an opportunity to cut and past their campaign material on to this site, why not apply Robert's Rules of Order to the "Gather.com" -- you know, some really useful deliberative groupware?
Now I know to many that may seem like an odd thing to suggest. But just look at all of these social networking websites coming online now days and all they accomplish is a sustained advertising platform and a lot of talk (to put it nicely). If we had some sort of a way to hold real, deliberative cyber meetings, we could actually get some things accomplished -- and still you sustain an advertising platform -- besides I need some good, effective deliberative groupware to feed the monkey on my back -- creating an Internet political 3rd party
ex animo
davidfarrar
They all know how to use Youtube, and we could all go there, those who have the stomach for it. I only visit R. Paul's, and today I held my nose and registered Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. I am now a Libertarian in a most horrible kind of drag.
We do what we gotta do to not vote for the lesser of evils. I will not vote for a D or for any other R.
We *should*, but how is that possible here, when some of the "candidates" selectively choose to approve comments or remove those they don't like or want to answer?
I just think the public ought to be made aware of what those
comments were, and why they were bypassed. Much of the
time there is good reason because the questions are so poor.
Sometimes there are dodges, and we should know that.
One thing I'd like to mention straight out of the Noam Chomsky
playbook is that the population is so stupid or uninterested
in politics "APPARENTLY" that they vote on qualities, not issues.
Qualities as in who is the better looking or the nicest. Most of
the issues are not even talked about, such as globalization and
job security, social issues. These issues will not be allowed to
come up ... so for once we need to demand that these things
be discussed, and not with a foregone conclusion attitude or
it will not happen. People need to learn to listen and learn
instead of foisting their idiosynchratic ideas on the government.
comments were, and why they were bypassed. Much of the time there is good reason because the questions are so poor. Sometimes there are dodges, and we should know that."
Absolutely. I'd have no problem if there were comment markers in the "conversation" where removed comments were, specifying whose comment was removed and when. Then, if I felt like it, I could look at it on the commenter's space. The problem with that as the system stands, assuming you know whose comment was removed, only a portion of the removed comment is viewable in their comments on their namespace. Lengthy removed comments are not viewable in their entirety unless the comment author republishes them elsewhere.
For screened comments, one has no way of knowing what those comments were or why they were bypassed. I try not to waste my time on any content that has comment screening. In fact, I wish Gather would designate them somehow (color code?) so I don't even waste my time clicking on it to open it.
No troublemaking intended. Just helping to create real debate here on Gather. :-)
Come on, look at Howard Dean who was out of politics on his ear for using the wrong intonation while trying to cheer his supporters up at a rally.
We, as a country and as a people are pathetic in that we do not recognize this, and realize that we have to somehow become more generic and less ruggedly individual or we never agree on anything or ever get a competent candidate, we'll just get some overproduced image.
In the current campaign I would have to say that the most competent and experienced people, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd are way behind because they do not have the image of Clinton or Obama. And Obama, sheesh, he is a first term Senator ... what buisness does he have running for president now. If he was a white guy people would be saying he was way too ambitious.
Of course the same is true on the other side. John McCain who is probably the most moderate and mainstream of the Republicans is being shunted aside for a haircut and a guy who keeps repeating 911 ... 911.
I'm just saying, let's not be so quick to blame the candidates, let's accept a little responsibllity for ourselves.
Decision by decision you've built a site where anything that upsets someone is automatically considered to be inappropriate, and is therefore not permitted. Faced with the inevitable conflicts between members, you've consistently pandered to those who whine the loudest and issue the most threats. While making Gather what it is today, short-term bottom-line money issues have always trumped other considerations--such as fairness, openness, diversity, equality and tolerance.
Now the most important presidential election in modern history looms large, and you want Gather to play a vital role in the process? In many ways, you've run this site with a reverence for security and forced harmony which places liberty and fairness in minor roles. This election is largely about putting a stop to the hoarding of power by those who think in that way.
I strongly recommend that we all speak out loudly and join in the public debate about what kind of country we want America to be. There are resources on the internet for this kind of civic involvement which have been built on a strong commitment to open public debate. They're run by people who have been willing to do things the hard way when necessary, in order to preserve the long-term character and reputations of their sites. That's where the real debate is happening, as it should be. I pray that people will move away from resources like Gather, which offer the illusion of involvement without the substance, when seeking meaningful civic engagement.
It's time to stop treating the determination of our common future as a form of play. Keeping a population haggling over details that don't matter is an ideal way to take a country away from its citizens. Refuse to be distracted by gift cards, everyone.
Can we see the day that Christian theology is removed from our courts and currency?
We live today, not two hundred - thirty years ago! Is there even one among you honest, open and willing enough to remove your own spiritual blinders and drop corporate/religious backing and deposit your coins on the side of evolved consciousness and true peace? Thank you.
I don't think we will be getting different answers here, as we have already heard their stance on issues, and how they answer. If someone tried to press them for better answers or the truth, they'll probably ignore it, or it will be deemed harassment. Good thing security can't use tassers on the internet ;-)
I am not sure it's a bad thing, however, if candidates have staff members working on their behalf to provide answers. There are nearly 2 million civil employees in the federal government. One of the most important things a President does is choose a team to run the country and delegate responsibility to that team. A candidate's ability to select a campaign staff, scale it quickly, and be sure that team represents their perspective is indicative of their ability to manage. We can, and should, hold candidates responsible for what their staff members say (if they send surrogates). It is often these people who will be leading our government if the candidate is elected.
Thanks for your answer, Tom. I'm not sure I'm pleased with believing I'd be addressing a candidate, when I'm not. I think I'll just sit on the sidelines and observe this debate.
Okay...so what would convince them to come HERE, of all places? Point them to the most discussed list, maybe? Show them how many cute kitty pictures we have? Ask them to name an issue that starts with a letter of the alphabet?
Get real, Tom. If any candidate did have the balls to accept such an invitation, surely (s)he would choose a site where there was a provably intelligent, informed membership, not one comprised primarily of those with a pre-K mentality.
Hahaha ... someone has a sense of humor on Gather.
>> was a provably intelligent, informed membership,
>> not one comprised primarily of those with a pre-K mentality.
Uhmm ... you mean like You-Tube? ;-)
Let's hear it for the Dame.
a chicken in every pot!
cheers,gayle in the sane WA
I think a good leader cleans his house and manages his or her budget without incurring debts, he is friendly with his neighbor and lends a hand when necessary. He respects others property has he does his own.
He is respected by all and his wisdom is often seeked in making decision that affect the community.
He educates himself in new ways to live and uses his resources wisely. He is not prone to gluttony or laziness and does his work well.
He is fair and ethical in his dealings.
Do you think any of the candidates has this qualities? Then vote for them.
It begin with a citizen, eventually the town, then a state, finally a nation.
Tom - It's a good idea. There is the possibility of bringing new ideas to light, and most importantly, to inspire more people to go out and vote. The voting rate in this country is disgraceful. I heard yesterday that in spite of all the political hoopla in Iowa, only 20% of Iowans actually vote. You can't sustain a Republic that way.
However s/he didn't provide any real solutions, s/he just said the resources are out there. So, where are they? Give me a link. You write intelligently, but it's all a lot of hot air if you haven't any substance yourself.
Also, Tom, I echo two other posts, first, what makes this different than other cybercommunities? What would entice all these candidates to spend time or have a staffer spend time (makes no difference to me) at Gather? How many members does Gather have?
And secondly, how would a candidate's answers be significantly different or an improvement on the content of their own website? It seems they'd just do a cut-n-paste response. What's their incentive to do this proposal of your's?
Jaded? You bet I am! But, here I am willing to particpate if for no other reason than to see what BS they'll throw at us and expect us to believe it. I could be surprised but I would almost bet you I won't be.
Are we to ask the questions here or somewhere else? Will a notice be sent when we are to ask questions or only when a candidate has answered a question?
If I sound confused, I am but not as much as I am about who will be the next resident in the White House.
What will you do to win back the trust of the world after the debacle of the Iraq War, the violation of the UN Charter and of the Geneva convention and the lies told to the world to justify these actions?
Oh and will the candidate compel the US Military and Agencies to abide by all of the provisions of the Geneva Convention Treaty.
And I would like to ask them their positions on H.R. 1555/S 1599 which is now residing in a committee on which Senator Obama sits. I would like to know why the government feels that this bill and other legislation that has been enacted and that is obviously aimed at controlling civil unrest within this country is necessary.
What is going on? Why did the House pass the above bill without debate when no one was looking? Why the stealth? And why was it unreported in the press?
If the answers are not known by the candidates, then I would like to know what their positions are on the bill and the way it was passed, as well as on other recent legislation aimed at American citizens.
And I'm still scratching my head wondering how Cindy T. could use the words "candidate," "honest" and "debate" in the same sentence without laughing herself sick first.