×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube to Host Presidential Debate

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the bringing-dancing-cats-to-the-world-of-politics dept.

Media 180

skotte writes "Wired is reporting that July 23 at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, Anderson Cooper will host presidential debates in which debaters are asked 20-30 questions culled from a specially designated section of YouTube, where the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I (assuming you're American, probably) can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret. Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

180 comments

fantastic idea (5, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523225)

0b4m4, u r like totally teh r0x0r! U r in my computerz stealing my votez!!

Re:fantastic idea (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524401)

Got it backwards there, buddy. It's the republicans who steal all the votes in the computers.

Been done before (5, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523247)

Ok, video is new, but this has been done before with more traditional formats. We've seen questions from the audience - sometimes even live - to presidential candidates before. The problem has always been not the questions, but the answers. Ask any question you want, but there is no way to compel the candidate to really answer it. Most don't.

What they do is speak about the topic with prepared mini-speeches...

Voter: Sir, does the right to free speech mean I can burn a flag?

Candidated: Let me tell you, I stand second to none in my love for the flag or this great country that it stands for. That flag represents all the people who have risked their lives and died to save her...

And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no. But for some reason, most people do not seem to notice the fact.

What we need is not a new way of asking questions, but a new way of getting answers.

I personally favor the rack.

Just a nit or two... (5, Insightful)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523389)

It absolutely annoys me in the mainstream (Democratic and Republican) debates that all of the candidates don't get to answer the same question.

During the Rep. debate that just occurred, but was also annoying was that the candidates were not self-policing their own timers, as well as talking over the moderator who wanted to interrupt them. This makes both the moderator and the candidates look like amateurs. Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Please people, get your point across, and do it in a timely manner.

Re:Just a nit or two... (3, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524447)

Well, it seems to me that there are too many candidates on the stage (for both parties.) There were 10? at the last republican debate... 8 IIRC at the democratic debate. The moderator uses up 35-40% of the official time of 90 minutes asking questions .. all of the candidates are in a frenzy to make their trademark soundbites before the buzzer.. it's a fucking gameshow.

Luckily it's still early but some of these guys like Gravel, Tancredo, Thompson have all gotta go, just get them off the stage.

Re:Just a nit or two... (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524549)

Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Electrical shocks. Send them steadily more powerful electrical shocks until they shut up. At the very least, it will make the debates more entertaining.

Re:Just a nit or two... (2, Insightful)

moogle001 (563970) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524587)

Heaven forbid we expect that discussing solutions for our problems in Iraq, with immigration, health care, and so on might take more than one minute. Those really complex issues might even take a whole ten minutes! Good thing we have the media to ensure our attention span remains short and we focus on those soundbites which take 10 seconds.

Re:Been done before (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523425)

I personally favor the rack.
So you're voting for Hillary?

Re:Been done before (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523447)

Exactly what I was thinking. Even the rotweiller interviewers on the BBC's NewsNight team frequently can't even get a yes or no answer from their political interviewees to simple direct questions. Is it embarassing for the politicians? Yes, but no where near as damaging for most of them as opening their mouths to demonstrate just how incompetent they are. Most politicians are accomplished media actors these days and highly adept at taking 5 mins and 6 thousand words to say absolutely nothing of any meaning or relevance to the question they were actually asked.

Re:Been done before (5, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523577)

It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on. Furthermore, if you don't answer the question directly, you don't run the risk of alienating some people who might vote for you.

This is one reason I like Ron Paul. He and I don't agree on everything, but he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He's authentic, and I think that is why people are gravitating toward him. They know that no one wants to abolish the Depts. of Education, Homeland Security, etc. because he thinks it's going to get him votes. He does so because that is what he truly believes.

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

Re:Been done before (1)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524231)

I don't want a President who walks the party line, but I've also had enough of a President that does whatever the hell they want without regard to other's opinions. I want to see a President who has things he or she wants to get done, but who doesn't just talk about them to the press. I want a President who actively encourages legislators from both sides of the aisle to know one another as people, rather than opponents.

Re:Been done before (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524395)

So basically, the kind of person who wouldn't want to be involved in politics?

Re:Been done before (0)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524249)

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

I'll take the poll switchers over the true believers any day.

Re:Been done before (1)

G27 Radio (78394) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524269)

That's what it really boils down to for me too. The rest are just going say what they think we want to hear, then do what their funding sources want them to do. I just finished a little rant about this. It went something like this:

Don't wait for the mainstream media to pick your presidential candidates for you otherwise you'll be voting for the lesser of two sell-outs. Voting in November 2008 alone is not going to get us out of this mess. If you want a change you need to start doing your research now so you can vote in the primaries. There are good candidates that aren't hard to find if you look. Remember, the candidates with the most funding are the candidates that will get the most air-time. And, the candidates that are getting the most funding now aren't being funded by organizations with America's citizens' best interests at heart. Just some food for thought.

Re:Been done before (2, Insightful)

shma (863063) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524431)

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

I think 8 years of 'true believer' government is quite enough. I'd rather go with a politically savvy candidate willing to change his mind than someone who will hold fast to the wrong ideas even as he witnesses their disasterous results.

Re:Been done before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524627)


I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.


So when are you planning on moving to Iran? They're full-up on true believers over there.

Re:Been done before (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524875)

It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on.
Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? I mean, isn't the president supposed to lean more towards the side of the Math.floor(50%+1)?

Re:Been done before (1)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 6 years ago | (#19525053)

Maybe the questions should be also 5 mins long? Don't stop asking such long questions until he gives a short, accurate answer. For each manipulation there is a defence or reaction.

Re:Been done before (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523501)

The moderator person should ask "Was that a yes or no on the previous question.".

The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.

Re:Been done before (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523699)

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.

I think yes, no, or refuse to answer should be the opening of their answer, and be Required to be so, but I still want to hear the justification for their position.

Re:Been done before (4, Funny)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523729)

You are letting them off too easily. The candidate should have 3 choices:
1) yes
2) no
3) Oh, God, nooo!!! Please don't turn that crank again!! I'll answer the question!

Re:Been done before (5, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523783)

American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position.

Re:Been done before (0, Troll)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524555)

American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position.
You can tell a lot about a society when they're willing to kill living tissue that _will_ one day become a human being, simply because of a minor inconvenience. "It's the womans body, she has the right to do with it what she wants"--> nevermind a). using a condom.

Re:Been done before (4, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523797)

The canadate should have 4 choices:
yes
no
refuse to answer
leave

But it must be exactly on of those, nothing else.


Um, that wouldn't be very good no one would ever show up for a "debate" if they only allowed 4 canned answers. A debate should be a bit more indepth than yes, no, i don't know, or I don't really have a position on that subject.

Re:Been done before (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524971)

Exactly one of those? How exactly would one leave and not have also chosen one of the other three?

Re:Been done before (2, Insightful)

Mr. Bad Example (31092) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523543)

> And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no.

This is one of the reasons I started to support Howard Dean back in 2004. He was being interviewed on TV, and he was asked a question--I don't remember what it was, and it's not important now--and without even pausing, he answered "No, and I'll tell you why."

A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.

Re:Been done before (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524005)

A straight answer from a presidential candidate. The sound of my jaw dropping could be heard for several blocks.

Yeah, and we all saw what the media did to him. The reason we don't have have straight-answer-type pols is because the media's decided they're silly. Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go.

Re:Been done before (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524295)

Sort out the media, and you'll be good to go.
Sure... right after I shave my pterodactyl.

Sorting out the media is impossible; the media is bigger than any of us because it answers to the LCD of the population. It's a vehicle for selling products to the gullible and little else. Get the media to stop chasing ratings, and hence advertising dollars? Good luck with that.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do if we want better leaders is to prohibit visual likenesses of them in the two years leading up to the campaign. No video, no photography. Spoken and written word only.

Re:Been done before (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524931)

because it answers to the LCD of the population

That's an assumption, and a faulty one at that. Who's to say people get sex & violence because they like it, not because that's all they get?

You might be onto something there... (1)

StressGuy (472374) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523995)

"I personally favor the rack"

Yup, bring out an intern with a nice enough rack and he might just tell her anything she wants to know

or is that yet another non-sequitor?

Too late (1)

the_kanzure (1100087) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524275)

Any question to which we do not want the prefabricated response might have to be asked before the major debates. Of course, I have little idea as to how to be kept up-to-date with all potential candidates as we find them, so this is really challenging for those of us only with internet connection and not Washington presence. How do we find the superheroes out of the set of possible political candidates?

It would be interesting to see politicians citing references and other guys to go talk with, rather than dodging bullets in questions. It would show that they are in fact connected and maybe slightly informed.

Re:Been done before (1)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524365)


Ask any question you want, but there is no way to compel the candidate to really answer it. Most don't.


When most questions asked are of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety, I don't really blame them for not answering.

We need better answers and better questions.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:Been done before (2, Insightful)

theuedimaster (996047) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524617)

"And after ten minutes of posturing and spouting non-sequiturs, he still will not have said yes or no. But for some reason, most people do not seem to notice the fact."

Actually, quite a lot of people do. We've just all given up on trying to get anything better.

Re:Been done before (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524885)

What they need is some kind of a lottery that gives out seats on an ejection panel. There will be a different one for each question asked. Maybe 100 people on each panel. When the candidates give their answers the panel votes on if they gave a complete answer (though theoretically not if the voter approves of the answer) and then for each candidate that fails three times they're dropped through a hole in the floor. What's in the hole will increase in painfulness in each successive debate. So the first debate it'll just be another floor, second it'll be like a 12 foot drop to a regular floor that someone might twist an ankle falling onto, and so on. I propose that the final debate have a 50 foot drop onto spikes in a pool of water filled with leeches and piranha. But not just regular piranha, these ones will have head-mounted lasers.

Of course there will need to be some research done into how to get fair and accurate panels. Most likely it'd require educated and informed voters, which is the one thing we lack most in the United States.

A question for Hillary (5, Funny)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523255)


You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?

Re:A question for Hillary (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523313)

If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?
That's easy ... just get me elected as the leader of some other country and they can deal with a leader who isn't actually intelligent. ;-)

Re:A question for Hillary (0, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523337)

You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?

I believe that question has already been asked during the CNN sponsored debates.

A question for sfjoe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523367)

Were you born a stupid cock-sucker, or are you a product of your environment?

Re:A question for Hillary (2, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523563)

Yeah, that was in one of my letters to her that her staff never bothered to send me even a form letter response for.

"You say you were mislead about the war. I wasn't mislead. How come you were? A significant part of your job is to research these things yourself and keep yourself better informed than I am. What were you doing instead?"

Re:A question for Hillary (2, Funny)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523875)

Careful, you might get labeled as part of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by daring to ask her a question that, y'know, isn't approved by her staff first.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, how is she going to debate anyone on the Republican side? Bush isn't running again, so it's not like she's going to get served up a moron. She says far too many stupid things -- like John Kerry did. And when you lose a race -- basically because you say stupid things -- to George W. Bush that's the first sign you say too many stupid things.

It's like losing an ass kicking contest with a one legged man. People just stare in awe and wonder, How did he fuck that up? It was a sure thing!

A Question for the Voters (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524213)

You voted for that idiot. Twice. How can we be sure you're qualified to determine which (if any) of the candidates is actually competent to lead this country? I mean shit, several thousand of you could not even figure out how to use a fucking ballot the first time around!

It'll just get reposted (4, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523259)

It'll just end up getting reposted with some god awful hip-hop soundtrack and clips from Halo.

Re:It'll just get reposted (3, Insightful)

mastropiero (258677) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523339)

And the questions will be spammed out into oblivion with posts like: "In 1923 a little girl called mary was found dead with the word yram in her back. You have been cursed now. Now your daddy will get clamydia unless you repost this in 74 more videos"

Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523279)

I mean, couldn't they get anyone else?

Anybody at all?

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper? (4, Interesting)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523515)

Stephen Colbert would make an interesting host

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524271)

I'd rather have an impartial host.

Re:Sounds interesting, but Anderson Cooper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524929)

I'd rather have an impartial host.

Yeah, but they're using Cooper anyway.

I hope they ... (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523291)

... edit the video so it has one of those cats that falls off the TV or a jackass doing a Jackass stunt or a fake video blogger faking their video blog or something. I mean please, they have to do something to make it interesting. If they don't it'll just seem like the same answers & message over and over and over ... kind of like watching the Weather Channel on TiVo or listening to your wife remind you what a schmuck you are.

Sorry that you can't be entertained 24 hrs a day. (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524691)

In case it wasn't obvious, the Presidential Debates aren't there for your amusement and entertainment. They're supposed to give you an idea of where the candidates stand on important issues and what they're going to do if they're elected to the office. I'm sorry you find that boring; I don't.

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but people with attitudes like the one expressed here frustrate me. Because of their constant demand for entertainment over information, we have a media that caters to the sensational and a woefully uneducated electorate. You're the reason we only get these horrid "sound bite" candidates and office-holders instead of people of real substance. And believe it or not, when a candidate does give "the same answers & message over and over and over," well, even that is a good thing and serves a purpose. It shows you how important they feel that thing is, or depending on what those answers and that message is, how shallow they are.

So if you're being sarcastic, ha ha, you pegged the typical politically ignorant American pretty nicely. If you're not, you need to sit your but down and watch the debates in spite of (gasp!) having to suffer through a few dull moments now and then. You've seen what happens to a country when all of its voters are watching Jackass instead of making well-informed choices at the polls.

Ron Paul (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523305)

I hope they don't allow Ron Paul on this. Ron Paul would be a disaster for socialism, internationalism, and government sponsored murder and tyranny in this nation and around the world. We cannot allow this man to speak. He is a terrorist.

Re:Ron Paul (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523433)

Also, Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani appears to be an ignorant, bafoon ready to rush headfirst in to the next quagmire that even looks like it would "fight terror" next to him.

I mean here we have Ron Paul, a long shot candidate that is clearly more in touch with reality than any of the front runners. Then we have Rudy Giuliani who seems like he would be better suited to a roll as a "news" reporter for Faux News than as a President, but is considered a top tier candidate.

It's almost like the Republican party is for proudly ignorant fascists with their collective head in the ground. Oh wait. It is. Nevermind. Ban Ron Paul.

Re:Ron Paul (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523827)

Aww..that's so cute, a Ron Paul fan lashing out because Rudy OWNED his sorry ass last month.

Ron Paul should be banned because nobody is going to vote for him, simple as that.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

Copid (137416) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523935)

Aww..that's so cute, a Ron Paul fan lashing out because Rudy OWNED his sorry ass last month.
Yes, just like in Internet debate, there's nothing more impressive in a Presidential debate than responding to a well thought out critique with, "You're stupid!" Rudy is such a manly man.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523989)

Oh you mean this [youtube.com]? It looks like Rudy got owned to me. Ron Paul even won the instant message poll on Fox News. For some reason the Faux News commentators didn't see it the same way. Heh. Seriously, watch the linked video above to watch Ron Paul wipe the floor with Rudy Giuliani and Republican style ignorance.

Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth about Iraq. The other Presidential candidates are lying to our faces, and anyone whith half a brain can plainly see it. It's both funny and tragic i guess.

Ron Paul should be banned because nobody is going to vote for him, simple as that.

Ahh, Repubican style "democracy". Can't you just smell the fascism?

Re:Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524139)

Paul is getting owned at the polls, simple as that. Funny how the only guy telling the truth can't draw flies. An elephant shitting in a parade as a bigger following than Ron Paul.

Ahh, Repubican style "democracy".

Well yes, because a guy polling at 1 percent [pollingreport.com] is little more than white noise in the debate.

Re:Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524459)

It's a year before the election, and the debates should be a big part of what people base their decisions on support on. Not who has enough money for TV or the candidate who is conformist enough to end up on TV alot.

If it wasn't for the fact that I happened to be channel surfing during the Republican debate I would have thought that Ron Paul was just another also ran. Now I know there is a Republican candidate who will fight for freedom, uphold the constitution, and not kill thousands of people in yet another undeclared war.

I know that the Republican leadership would like to keep as few people as possible from being exposed to a real conservative, but banning Ron Paul from any debate where there is any candidate polling lower than 5% is clearly undemocratic. The Republicans already tried to get him removed after the linked debate, but had do abandon their plan in the face of public opposition.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524003)

November 2008 headline:
Rudy Giuliani Wins US Presidential Race in what Experts call the biggest Mercy F@#$ in History."

Hmmm (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523307)

Wouldn't be fun if people from all over the world could vote in the american elections? After all, the whole world is affected by the USA president (read, wars, bombs, prissions, naval bases, etc). So let me elect the next bomberman.

Maybe a good question... (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523379)

"Mr. or Mrs. presidential hopeful, from which tube do you think this video question came?"
Potential answers:

The tube connected to your house (R).
The tube down which our country has gone (D).
Why, YouTube, of course (I)!

Presidential Debate it's very boring (1)

aurgo (1115949) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523399)

I think anybody wasn't see the Presidential Debate, it's very boring, YouTube don't have a lot of traffic because of this

Anonymity? (4, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523405)

the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I... can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret.
So the questions will be presented in video format....

Can I ask mine while wearying a Guy Fawkes mask [amazon.com]?

Re:Anonymity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523545)

Doing so would only prove that the movie butchered the graphic novel.

Re:Anonymity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524057)

It happens. It was still a good movie. Get over it.

Commission on Presidential Debates (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523453)

Do a Google search on "Commission on Presidential Debates"; you might be interested in what you find. Or you might not. :-/

uh oh (1)

resignator (670173) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523465)

"Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary." _________________________________________________ Seriously, reading user comments at youtube makes me physically ill. It is beyond depressing.

Not looking forward to this (4, Insightful)

Guanine (883175) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523499)

Has anyone read the comments on YouTube? I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy. Why does anyone expect the questions for the candidates from the community to be any better in quality than the comments?

Re:Not looking forward to this (4, Funny)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523659)

I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy.
I guess you haven't watched a presidential debate before. You sir are in a real treat.

Re:Not looking forward to this (1)

WrongMonkey (1027334) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523761)

I've never seen a more putrid cesspool of thoughtless idiocy.
Sounds like a good match for the candidates. Have you watched the debates?

you're American, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523619)

Yeah, that is what the people at the passport office have been telling me for the last two months. But it doesn't help out much with the trip for my vacation.

Scary for Whom ? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523651)

Scary ? Doesn't scare me a bit. If it scares the candidates, good. If we're lucky some of the bozos will crash and burn. (I remember well that Reagan couldn't field questions from a bunch of high school academic acheivers; pity they didn't run the 1980 debates.)

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19523687)

insisted that too many rules and and easy - only The facts and

Here's an idea (2, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523959)

Whenever a candidate starts complaining about net neutrality and saying the market should regulate itself, we start dropping packages. After all, "his speech is cloggin' the tubes"...

Al Gore's chance to win! (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 6 years ago | (#19523993)

Al Gore should respond by posting a video of himself using a fart fire to light a candle - excellent way to get the write-in vote without even running!

It's Too Early to Say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524243)

Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked

For those wondering how they're supposed to answer a question if they don't know which one they're being asked - don't worry, most of their answers are so vague that they could use them for just about any question that's put to them!

Interesting... (2, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524345)

Someone is going to get their 15 minutes of fame out of this by asking some poignant and unanswered question that people are going to view over and over. What WILL be answered are "blah" questions offered by clean-cut "respectable"-looking folks, half of which I could easily believe are plants. Crazy people/conspiracy theorists/tattooed whackos/Green Party folks won't get airtime.

My question for Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19524347)

Is this the first time you've been asked a debate question from a libertarian wearing no pants?

Frightening? (1)

DefenderThree (920248) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524381)

The only thing frightening here is that this debate might encourage YouTube users to get politically involved. I mean really, seriously politically involved.

Picture this scenario: The fate of the US presidential election, and perhaps the free world, rests in the hands of the YouTube community.

Re:Frightening? (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524561)

I don't know about you, but I would trust the fate of the world with youtube people before I would trust it to the people who's hands it currently rests in.

At least the youtube folks are entertaining without causing anger that rivals the size of a whale penis.

What is "how to reach disenfrancished voters",Alex (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524599)

Seriously I've seen Obama reaching out to youTube and I've heard all the others reaching out to the internet, but seriously who believes it? Do you really think Obama even looks at youTube for anything other than the stupid funny moment of the night? I know I don't and I have more time than him.

In America we have a problem, the voters are realizing that puppet number one or jackass number two isn't going to really change the country. Many of us are losing interest in politics, and those who are still interested only care about a few key issues. This "outreach to the youth generation" is just a political maneuver. Did Bill Clinton actually care about kids when he went on MTV? No he cared about votes, he won the election and became the same style of bureaucrat (admittedly a more charismatic version than others).

I'm not saying "boo" but I'm at least reminding people that meaningless political maneuvers that will only last until the person gets voted in shouldn't sway you to vote for X candidate, actually learn who the candidates are and more importantly who they represent, if you're instead.

BTW, if you aren't convinced yet this is yet another political farce, the line "video selection process will remain a complete secret." should have tipped you off.

Answers (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524745)

This is cool, but how can we force them to actually answer the hard questions they'll get? They're so used to scripted responses that I don't think they'll know how.

Bait and switch (4, Interesting)

guspasho (941623) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524909)

The Politico, a right-wing news site, ran this same scam ahead of one of the GOP debates a few months back. They held a contest to have the most popular question submitted be asked during the debate they were sponsoring.

This questions topped the heap at the end of the contest.

* Should the President have power to imprison U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime and without providing them a judicial forum in which they can contest the accusations against them, as the Bush administration did to American Jose Padilla?

* Do you think the process of waterboarding -- where the U.S. takes prisoners, straps them to a chair, and pours water on their face so they are in terror of drowning to death -- is a practice consistent with America's moral credibility in the world?

* A recent worldwide poll showed that under the Bush presidency, America has become the third most unpopular country in the world -- right behind Iran and just ahead of North Korea. Why do you believe that has that happened?

The winner never got asked, nor any of the other top vote-getting questions. Instead we had them asking inane questions about whether the candidates believed in evolution and a bunch of cheap shots at Bill Clinton.

am i the only one tired of ass-quality video (1)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 6 years ago | (#19524977)

Now that a significant number of people in the country have HDTV and high resolution monitors, why are we seeing an explosion of videos that are embarrassingly low quality?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...