Instead of debates, rallies, interviews, etc...

a reply to: japhrimu

Senators and Representatives would be the primary examiners, I think... PRIMARY... NOT exclusive.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

First off, thanks for responding, but I would specifically like YOUR clarified opinion, as you are a moderator...

I'll restate/paraphrase MY opinion to make your response easier:
INSTEAD of the "so-called debates" or empty campaigning, wouldn't it be BETTER to use our legal courts as the moderators, filters-of-disinformation/misinformation, and to hold those who we elect to their word, under oath? Everything would hopefully be based on and supported by provable facts and the constitution, and would be subjected to logical scrutiny? If something can't pass the muster, it would be exposed.

I believe this idea would be in the best interests of individual freedom and our country.

What say you? Agree? Disagree? Not feasible? If so, Why not?
Or maybe you don't think it's important (enough)?

I suppose I would settle for a sincere "You're right. You win. Thread Closed."

If I am wrong, I like to be told so... I haven't been sufficiently satisfied yet...

a reply to: japhrimu

The word debate carries a certain connotation with civility and professionalism. Politics doesn't. I don't see the point in any debates personally, they don't change anyones minds, it's just an excuse to show off a candidate on someone elses dime.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
How about we have real debates?

Right now what we "get" is a glorified question & answer session with some arguing on the side.

Being asked questions and answering them, then arguing over those answers is NOT A DEBATE by definition.

So many young people today in America think that just arguing back and forth is some kind of debate. It's not. A real debate has structure, rules, and is judged.

Simply answering questions and then squabbling over the answers isn't a debate.

It's free advertising and low-brow entertainment.

and here i thought nobody else clocked on to this.

a reply to: Aazadan

Last star I'm giving JUST for participation.

I disagree. Debates change minds. I used to feel like a democrat. Then I felt like a republican. I know I became more Libertarian presently, partly because I've watched debates, and agreed with the arguments presented.

Nonetheless, the "Supreme Court," or courts in general, SCREAM civility and professionalism. More so than a debate. You can debate IN a court proceeding.

I agree our current process is a dog and pony show, as it stands now.

So to sum it up, wouldn't you agree with the OP, then?

a reply to: japhrimu

To be successful in a court proceeding you also need to be a lawyer. Would giving lawyers even more advantages in the political system really be beneficial?

Oh, and I don't care about stars.

a reply to: japhrimu

What a fun idea!

They'd never go for it, of course, but it's a fun idea.

a reply to: japhrimu

How they behaved in the past is fair game. It is evidence of character.

Career politicians usually have an agenda they keep coming with. Should be easy to bare that to the light. None more career oriented than Hillary.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why do you need to be a lawyer to be successful? I understand your intended implication, but I still disagree. Except if there're any LAWS that say otherwise... Which I would disagree with to... Who would take the freedom of speech (an opinion to be debated) away? Not a just person. (As always, in my opinion.)

How do they have more advantages, other than knowledge, which should be available to all?


I personally believe that we should ALL understand the law more, so we can agree or disagree with it, and act accordingly...

The Stars comment was just because I'm happy to have people join in... Nothing meant by it, if you thought opposite. Just fun and being cordial... ergo the wink face.

a reply to: Byrd

Trying to fix something that's important but broken IS a fun idea, isn't it?!

Who is "they?" TPTB? Doesn't mean we, the People have to go along with it... THEN we'd just be the cliche, "Sheeple."

Thanks for the compliment.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree. I'll take that as "you agree," too.

a reply to: combatmaster

So, you agree with the OP, too, then?

a reply to: Dumbass

While I appreciate the humor, and I understand what you mean, I think, care to join in serious conversation?

If you were serious, I take it back, and I'll give a serious answer: That would be A solution... Just not the right one... Just a couple reasons are: The crowd is too disruptive, and it's not under oath.

If all parties consent to fisticuffs, we could book that, and use the proceeds for social services, infrastructure, etc... It'd be better than involuntary taxes.
But might don't always make right, so even if my side lost, if I believed strong enough in my belief, I'd have to keep on the good fight.

a reply to: japhrimu

The issue is that the more formal, more structured, and more logical/less emotional you make things, the more details you need to include. It's not the job of a leader to structure the details of a plan, it's their job to pick a direction and follow it. Even members of Congress don't write the legalese and details that define a law, they come up with a concept and then pass it off to lawyers (usually lobbyists) to write the details of. What they're concerned with is high level concepts and not low level implementation.

The more detailed a debate gets the more details a politician needs to know, and no one is qualified for that. People are usually at best experts on one subject and often times not even that much. It would be a very bad thing to get leaders more involved in a process they barely understand. To give an example, should a member of Congress whose a doctor be dictating building codes? When we go down that route, it's rule by the least knowledgeable in a field.

This is a big part of why debates don't focus on details but instead on emotionally charged statements. Not only are the politicians not properly educated to give the details, but most voters themselves aren't properly educated to evaluate those details.

Putting this in a courtroom setting has similar results. Supreme Court justices aren't experts in these fields either, therefore they can't judge the merits of an idea properly.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for the thought out reply.

This may be over simplified, but: Laws SHOULD be easy to understand. ESPECIALLY by the judges. If they aren't, fix them. If you can't agree on how to do that, get rid of the law... Someone's rights are probably being infringed upon. One person's rights end where another's begins.

But if the people have a consensus, aren't we supposed to be able to change the world? Can't we agree laws should be easily understood by all? Maybe I'm an idealist?

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for the thought out reply.

This may be over simplified, but: Laws SHOULD be easy to understand. ESPECIALLY by the judges. If they aren't, fix them. If you can't agree on how to do that, get rid of the law... Someone's rights are probably being infringed upon. One person's rights end where another's begins.

But if the people have a consensus, aren't we supposed to be able to change the world? Can't we agree laws should be easily understood by all? Maybe I'm an idealist?

Framing something as legal/illegal is quite easy. It's defining all the various degrees of illegality and the appropriate punishments that make things complex. Most people agree that what we consider Premeditated First Degree Murder should carry a difference sentence from Manslaughter, but if you simplify them they're both killing someone.

a reply to: Aazadan

Fair enough. Using your example: How intricate can THAT get, though? Separate them. Say that manslaughter is not the same as murder in the 1st. You don't need 1000 different levels. What about: no fault, intentional, unintentional, insanity, reckless, and justified? It could even get more complicated, but it shouldn't get to the point that Americans can't understand them.