The Democratic U-Tube debates on CNN.

[Technosoul]

This could be one of the most important formats for Q&A debates in determining the nominations of our next President.

People from all walks of life have submitted questions at U-Tube mostly with visual aid. The canadates will be drilled with an assortment of questions about a vast range of topcis. And a few very unexpected questions as well. The canadate will watch the U-Tube clip and then respond.

Here is a taste of some of the questions that are at the top of the list of U-Tube submissons.

1. What should the government do to insure everyone can afford to go to collage. (and other eductational questions).

2. What would you do to make sure health care is affordable to everyone or to fix the health care system.

3. What would you do to deal with Global Warming and other environmental problems.

4. What would you do to regain gobal respect for the image of America.

5, What would you do to protect our Consitution and the rights it has granted us and still maintain our security from terrorism.

6. What will you do after the war in Irag to help them recover from the war we imposed upon their people.

7. What are your views about religion relative to politics.

8. What would you do about outsourcing jobs and other trade problems that theaten our economy.

9. Other interantional problems will be asked about (other then Irag).

I do not know if any questions were asked about medical hemp.

But here is how some of the questions by T-Tube members and how they were worded.

"As an Antheist I want to know how you will insure me that you will use logic and reason instead of religious beliefs when it comes to policy making"?

Imagine a canadate trying to answer that one.

"has Bill Clinton been faithful since the last famous indcident"?

Such questions would not be asked in a debate other then through a U-Tube media.

The debate will air Monday evening (eastern time) on CNN. I think it will be a two hour program and all Democratic canadates will field the questions.

Be sure to drop in this forum board and air your remarks about the debate. The canadates will have to be on their toes because they are dealing with un-scripted questions from the real voters.

[Technosoul]

Reminder - Monday night at 7 o clock (evening - Eastern time).

They might show the one where Frosty the Snowman asks about Global Warming.

[Technosoul]

I just watched the U-Tube debate between the Democrats. The questions were better then the answers.

I did not think one canadate had the best answers for all questions but found that each canadate "sparkled" best on particular questions, I did not hear anything radically new that we here are not already aware of as a plan for this or that problem.

Out of all of them Mrs Clinton sounded and presented her self as the most presidential one, and her answers were more realistic then what others advocated. As well as the less radical one.

Does anyone know how to say 'hail the Cheif" when the chief is a woman?

Obama did not seem to grasp the concepts concerning global warming, or much else, in my opinon. His lack of experience stuck out like his ears, sorry, he was depending on braging rights for support but his ideas lacked knowledgable research.

Kenney could not seperate his self clearly form this religious beliefs. Two canadates on he far left and far right of the stage had some of the most interesting things to say.

[Scribbler1]

Outside of Gravel looking and sounding like a cranky, slightly addled old man, it was same-old same-old.

[bishop]

agreed. it was completely uninspiring - and sad to realize that millions of people are eventually going to vote for one of these people... that is the only thing worse than the candidates themselves imo.

[xyzer]

When I read your list of the questions which were suggested Techno,I was struck by the how selfish and juvenile they were? e.g.
There are a handful of homosexuals, in a nation of some 300 million, who want to overturn tradition in this country why is this issue of same sex marriage important? Change the law because a small group want to impose its variant of behavior on the rest of society.
What possible reality is there in a small segment of the 'Black" population in this country wanting compensation for the enslavement of their anscestors? Hey big brother take care of me I dont want to work!

This and the whole format of these so called debates is the usual entertaiment driven laugh show that we get every night on the tube, or possibly the campaign ads that already lace that powerful campaign adjunct!

What happens to the important issues like immigration, taxation, the international threat of terrorism, social security reform? It seems we are caught up in entertaining trivia that is designed to get laughs and demonstrations of ones abiltiy to shoot the bull? And of course the Iraqi occupation poblem heads the list of great strawmen.

These are not true debates. They are a freak show designed to grab the attention of the uninformed. Designed to entertain an audience of gullible uninformed peopl, most of whom don''t vote anyway!

I did not think one canadate had the best answers for all questions but found that each canadate "sparkled" best on particular questions, I did not hear anything radically new that we here are not already aware of as a plan for this or that problem.

How does one define the "best" answers to such socialistic trivia and self aggrandizing nonsense?

[Scribbler1]

And it looks like we'll be treated to the Republicans doing the very same thing soon.

[saif]

Like many of you I thought the premise of the cnn/youtube debate was a great idea! However after watching the debate, I remain disappointed...
Where were the questions on Immigration and Border Patrol? What about Homeland Security?Why did Anderson Cooper allow the candidates veer from answering many of the questions? Many of the candidates totally skipped the question they were asked as they do in most debates! It was funny to hear them say "well anderson, The question is really asking... blah blah blah.." instead of answering the question that they were asked. I cannot wait to see the questions that they ask the republican candidates...

Sen. Joe biden was by far the winner of the debate with respect to honesty in the answers he gave.

[Jack]

Does anyone know how to say 'hail the Cheif" when the chief is a woman?

"Chief" is neither masculine or feminine. It's a position of authority. "Hail to the Chief" would be appropriate regardless of the chief's gender.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think all the Democratic canidates did a fine job in showing why we shouldn't vote for them. They are largely clueless (yes, I laughed when Biden scolded Richardson for not understanding the timeline REQUIRED to pull out U.S. troops), and the only messenger on the stage who was for true change (other than Kucinich, who is living in socialist utopia in his mind, which Cooper chided at the end of the night with the last question) was Mike Gravel, who of course, was denied equal time or a fair shake by the hosts of the debate.

I couldn't vote democrat, but if I was forced to (fat chance) I would vote for Gravel, as VP under Ron Paul.

I think the questions, were a mixed bag. I liked the format idea, but it was clear the questions were still picked by the "sponsors" and CNN.
There were many good questions, but much wasted time on bad questions, unrelated follow-ups, and still a large amount of "answer" dodging.

The fact is, these people have made lying such a huge part of American politics, you could have them debate for 16 hours a day 4 days a week from now until the election, and you still wouldn't see much truth getting out of their lips. (with exception to Gravel, who thoroughly embarassed Obama on his "contributions", regardless of who wrote the bill to put that information out there).

Schams, Scheisters and Sell-Outs..... another great bi-partisan election framed by big-media and the bi-partisan monopoly.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: xyzer When I read your list of the questions which were suggested Techno,I was struck by the how selfish and juvenile they were? e.g. There are a handful of homosexuals, in a nation of some 300 million, who want to overturn tradition in this country why is this issue of same sex marriage important? Change the law because a small group want to impose its variant of behavior on the rest of society. What possible reality is there in a small segment of the 'Black" population in this country wanting compensation for the enslavement of their anscestors? Hey big brother take care of me I dont want to work! This and the whole format of these so called debates is the usual entertaiment driven laugh show that we get every night on the tube, or possibly the campaign ads that already lace that powerful campaign adjunct! What happens to the important issues like immigration, taxation, the international threat of terrorism, social security reform? It seems we are caught up in entertaining trivia that is designed to get laughs and demonstrations of ones abiltiy to shoot the bull? And of course the Iraqi occupation poblem heads the list of great strawmen. These are not true debates. They are a freak show designed to grab the attention of the uninformed. Designed to entertain an audience of gullible uninformed peopl, most of whom don''t vote anyway! How does one define the "best" answers to such socialistic trivia and self aggrandizing nonsense?

First none of the question were mine, all are from u tube members, most of whom are under 30 years of age. These kinds of questions are about topics that are of concern to individuals rather then the mainstream news media. In America equality is about safeguarding the rights of even the smallest minority (in case you forgot).

I thought the "gun control" question was a bit unfair (showing that nut with an large assult weapon and calling it his "baby"). As most gun people are not like that ( I hope?).

The cost of education and health care were the two most asked questions submitted at u-tube (an internet site where you log on).

Global Warming was the next most asked about question. And the canadates were not allowed to answer that question in depth. The CNN staff was more concerned about jamming in at least 50 questions then they were about allowing for complete or in-depth answers.

They did ask a question about taxes and the pull out from Iraq and about the encomony. But no "balance the budget" questions (thank goodness), Hey, taxpayers spent over 5 billion dollars on the war in Iraq and Afganistan already and so I might have been asked "what budget"? No questions about impeachment.

The CNN staff were the ones who picked out which of the questions would be used in the debate from the thousands submitted at U-Tube.

You can submit you own question now if you wish at u-tube for the Republican canadates.

Here are some questions you all can ask the Republicans.

1. Have you ever cheated on your wife?

2. Do you support stem cell research?

3. What lobby group do you like the best?

4. Should Creationism be taught in the public schools.

5. How would you discribe Domestic Terrorism?

6. Give me one reason I should not become an Independant.

7. How would you bring peace to the Middle East?

8. Is your necktie made in America?

9. How are you different then George Bush Jr, policy wise?

10. What would you do to insure that the middle class Americans can preserve their economic status.

11. Are fat people the reason we have such a costly health care system?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood "Chief" is neither masculine or feminine. It's a position of authority. "Hail to the Chief" would be appropriate regardless of the chief's gender.

Thanks.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think all the Democratic canidates did a fine job in showing why we shouldn't vote for them. They are largely clueless (yes, I laughed when Biden scolded Richardson for not understanding the timeline REQUIRED to pull out U.S. troops), and the only messenger on the stage who was for true change (other than Kucinich, who is living in socialist utopia in his mind, which Cooper chided at the end of the night with the last question) was Mike Gravel, who of course, was denied equal time or a fair shake by the hosts of the debate. I couldn't vote democrat, but if I was forced to (fat chance) I would vote for Gravel, as VP under Ron Paul. I think the questions, were a mixed bag. I liked the format idea, but it was clear the questions were still picked by the "sponsors" and CNN. There were many good questions, but much wasted time on bad questions, unrelated follow-ups, and still a large amount of "answer" dodging. The fact is, these people have made lying such a huge part of American politics, you could have them debate for 16 hours a day 4 days a week from now until the election, and you still wouldn't see much truth getting out of their lips. (with exception to Gravel, who thoroughly embarassed Obama on his "contributions", regardless of who wrote the bill to put that information out there). Schams, Scheisters and Sell-Outs..... another great bi-partisan election framed by big-media and the bi-partisan monopoly.

I was also dissapointed in the questions but they were better then most of the answers. When they were promoting the debate CNN aired some of the kinds of video questions that had been submitted and those were more interesting then the ones presented. And I did not hear any answers about how to reduce collage funds for poorer or middle class people, which was the number one question on the minds of U-Tube members. None the less, the Democrats must win in order to bring change and to bring closure to all the bad stuff Bush did under the Repubican banner. ( Assuming that a 3rd party has as much a chance of winning as a snowman surviving Global Warming).

[Praxius]

Quote by: bishop agreed. it was completely uninspiring - and sad to realize that millions of people are eventually going to vote for one of these people... that is the only thing worse than the candidates themselves imo.

I watched it as well.... the YouTube videos were of course not as unplanned as they would like you to imagine.... they selected the ones they wanted to throw up there for them to answer, and many were very good questions which helped put a human face to those concerns of the US people..... but these candidates responded and commented just like they all have done in the past.... pre-planned.

The YouTube questions deadline was on Sunday and the debate was on Monday.... for the time it takes to pick them and then prep them for the show, there was plenty of time to show them what questions we're coming their way.... they were already prepared for the questions before the thing began.... none of them got stuck, none of them were all that uncomfortible with the questions, and they responded with the same rhetoric as always..... all kinds of ideas and solutions that the people want to hear, with no actual plans to follow them through.

I will admit, Clinton did have the upper hand for most of the debate, imo.... and she knew how to answer the questions rather then just feeding what the public wanted to hear unlike the rest.

It was a nice transition to something better then before for a debate.... we here have brought in a few questions from the public on occasion with our poloticians, but I can't come close to admitting for a fact that it isn't already pre-arranged either..... that's politics I suppose.

[Praxius]

Quote by: xyzer There are a handful of homosexuals, in a nation of some 300 million, who want to overturn tradition in this country why is this issue of same sex marriage important? Change the law because a small group want to impose its variant of behavior on the rest of society.

I imagine if you were in that minority, you would change your tone on this, but since you're in the "Normal" category, it doesn't affect you, so why should you care..... Canada passed the same laws and allowed same sex marragies just a few years ago..... the world hasn't ended yet..... churches each have their own choice whether they will marry homosexuals or not... they are not forced to marry same sex couples.... it's just now permitted and legal.... the only problem now for homosexuals is to find a church who will marry them.... and there are some out there, but I don't think this giant "Overturning of Tradition" will impose any variant behavior on society as you mentioned..... This won't make more people gay anymore then gay people turning people gay in the past (which they don't)

What possible reality is there in a small segment of the 'Black" population in this country wanting compensation for the enslavement of their anscestors? Hey big brother take care of me I dont want to work!

That I can agree with you on.... the suffering was of their ancestors, not them.... the only reason why their lives suck now is either by their own faults, or possibly the system in place.... I don't know, because there isn't a detailed situation here provided as an example.

This and the whole format of these so called debates is the usual entertaiment driven laugh show that we get every night on the tube, or possibly the campaign ads that already lace that powerful campaign adjunct!

Agreed.... it was basically ment to make the government appear as though this time they are listening to the people... to bring in more interest to the younger voters, but it was such a transparent attempt. They made it out to be something big, but I knew they would have had it pre-planned for the most part and not leave the debaters looking stumbled or caught off gaurd by a question.....

Heck they were being pretty anal about how they were all standing, who was fidgiting, etc.... I guess to show the traits of a solid leader or what not (Just makes them seem like the better public speaker that's all) they sure as heck wouldn't want them all screwed up by really hard questions..... everything I seen was obvious questions most were already asking to be answered.

These are not true debates. They are a freak show designed to grab the attention of the uninformed. Designed to entertain an audience of gullible uninformed peopl, most of whom don''t vote anyway!

True.... if they don't vote, usually that means that they considder their vote won't make a difference anyways. If they feel both sides of the vote will screw them over in the end, then why vote and put your name down as voting for that person and being partly responsible for them getting into power? (Most would throw it back into their faces if they complained anyways, saying things like "Well you voted them in") To me... it's a protest..... not a very good method of a protest, but it's just as effective as voting for the lesser of two evils and getting screwed anyways.

How does one define the "best" answers to such socialistic trivia and self aggrandizing nonsense?

The answer which the majority agreed with.

[bishop]

Quote by: praxius I will admit, Clinton did have the upper hand for most of the debate, imo.... and she knew how to answer the questions rather then just feeding what the public wanted to hear unlike the rest.

that's another thing that annoys me... all of this "upper hand" racetrack symbolism... all they ought to do is answer the questions DIRECTLY based on their own opinions/beliefs. what we were served were carefully practiced lines that really don't provide any sense of their true position, nor reason to trust them with our votes.

[Osborn F Enready]

Their voting records tell no lies.

That is why I don't think a democrat can win on a policy of change, for people seeking ACTUAL change that aren't simply voting "how their union tells them to" or "how their party tells them to", or how their traditional partisanship leanings tell them to.

[saif]

where is ross perot when you really need him... DARP!

[Jason]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Their voting records tell no lies. That is why I don't think a democrat can win on a policy of change, for people seeking ACTUAL change that aren't simply voting "how their union tells them to" or "how their party tells them to", or how their traditional partisanship leanings tell them to.

A senator's voting record may very much reflect his constituents' opinions as much or moreso than his own. For a congressman, this is even more true. Once a candidate is running for president, he is no longer as accountable to the same constituency and has far greater flexibility in determining his own policy direction. And then, of course, once elected he can do whatever he wants.

Voting records tell no lies about what's been voted for. But it's hardly a steadfast predictor of a candidate's opinion or an amazing indicator of future advocacies.

[Osborn F Enready]

Jason said: A senator's voting record may very much reflect his constituents' opinions as much or moreso than his own. For a congressman, this is even more true. Once a candidate is running for president, he is no longer as accountable to the same constituency and has far greater flexibility in determining his own policy direction. And then, of course, once elected he can do whatever he wants. Voting records tell no lies about what's been voted for. But it's hardly a steadfast predictor of a candidate's opinion or an amazing indicator of future advocacies.

It may not be a steadfast predictor of a canidates "opinion", or an amazing indicator of their future advocasies, but it surely shows just how much, and for how long they have been trying to change the system, and in what directions. Their recorded speeches, their time in front of their fellow elected officials and the opining of a greater America based on their "supposed" direction speaks volumes of their depth in the game behind the scenes in Washington with lobbyists and special intrest groups, mainly corporate.

Mike Gravel is the only one I saw up there who has the record of change, the record of truth to power, and the ability to do so without being a full socialist, which is rare in the Democratic party over the last 40 years. (hence I don't value Kucinich much, since he as far left as I have seen, though some of his ideas and facts are correct or promising.)

I think Mike Gravel would make a great "2nd fiddle" to Ron Pauls lead, based solely on voting records and consistency to strive for change back to Constitutional Law.