Questions for People in Power

[kthx]

Phrase it however you want, but here's a question:

Do you vote the way you do in power because you actually believe in it, or do you vote that way because you feel pressured to have your opinions a certain way?

Basically this question is asking, why are Republicans so against so many of the ideas now especially with the healthcare reform, when they themselves supported many of those same ideas just a few years ago. Is it because they have truly changed their minds, because people are pressuring them (i.e. special interests, tea party crazies) or because they feel as opposition they basically just have to oppose ANYTHING that governing party does.

In America a politician is supposed to vote how their constituency wants not how they personally believe.. that is how our country works. But my guess is that the republicans probably saw leaders in Canada have to fly to the US to get heart surgery because of the terribly long lines and god awful service and quality of doctor they have in Canada all stemming from the socialized medicine program.

Do you feel the 24-hour newscycle has hurt democracy by making everything that can be said into some sound byte? Are politicians hampered by the fact that they cannot make any tough decisions or else they may be 'called out' by the media because the media has nothing better to talk about to fill their 24-hour news schedule?

I don't see this as a bad thing, unfortunately in todays world most media outlets only get watched by the type of people that want to watch them. Liberals watch ABC/NBC/CNN etc, Conservatives watch Fox and listen to talk radio Rush/Hannity/Beck. I think it is fairly obvious by ratings which one is doing the best. Either way it is a good thing to have 24 hour news constantly watching these people, that way we know much sooner when one of them is fucking fifty thousand dollar hookers or when one of them constantly lies and flip flops, and they can get called out on it.

Would you support a bill denying all political contributions from corporations and interest groups and only allow individuals to donate. Do you think this would improve things?

A recent supreme court decision just found that a corporation was allowed to contribute as much as it liked to the candidate of its choosing which makes absolute sense. You see a corporation is just a group of people who are invested in a company and if that group of people works say in... the oil and gas business and they are afraid of democrats passing a cap and trade bill that would destroy their company then they should be allowed in a free country to donate as much money as they like to any candidate they like. It is the same thing that unions have been doing for years by going behind the backs of many union members and sending union due's in to politicians that the union supported even if the individual didn't. That is why individuals only donating wouldn't work, because since unions are so far up the democrats ass at this point (IE Cadillac health care plan tax) that it would cause a very unfair situation as far as donations if corporations couldn't put their money where they decided it should go.

[Fit of Rage]

Frankly, I'd focus your questions on anything and everything to do with the media and the relationship that Washington has with it. Any question you ask about why politicians have voted the way they have and why they take kick-backs and stuff like that, they're most likely going to answer how they answer any other media person that might ask them--whatever makes them seem the least douchey. I seriously doubt you'll get a straight answer from a politician. The only exception might be Rahm Emmanuel, whom you could ask legitimate questions about how busy it is around the White House etc. Otherwise, it seems like the VP from Fox and others are great targets for hard questions like the example you mentioned.

[paradise!]

pretty much skip over any questions tagmor and wark say. Any critiquing questions will be, in all likelyhood, shot down by typical nonsense rhetoric, the fillers.

what you should so is come up with original questions about topics you are sincerely interested about. don't squander an opportunity like this asking questions they get everyday at press conferences.

propose ideas. see if they bite

[Ephemeral]

They are professional politicians, they not only will deftly dodge any questions they can’t turn their favor, but they will use the opportunity to turn the ‘student visit’ into 30 second sound bites that will advances their careers. Be looking good since you will likely show up in their next campaign commercial.

Best you can hope for is to anticipate the above and set them up. Ask questions that you can predict how they will answer, get them in their comfort zone and thinking that you are 'on their side', then ask something that might cause them to stumble around.
If you understand something, you can predict it. If you can predict something, you can control it. Anything less than this, you'll end up being their pawn.

[Xog]

I'm pretty sure the gov't is watching this thread already. They already know what questions will be asked. They know your master plan!

Edit: sry guys, dunno how Tone teleported to my house and used my computer

[genocidal]

In America a politician is supposed to vote how their constituency wants not how they personally believe.. that is how our country works. But my guess is that the republicans probably saw leaders in Canada have to fly to the US to get heart surgery because of the terribly long lines and god awful service and quality of doctor they have in Canada all stemming from the socialized medicine program.

I'm not sure why you think politicians are just supposed to be a mouthpiece for their constituency but it isn't the case. If it were our country would have turned to shit 200 years ago. America is a republic, not a democracy, because the framers specifically didn't want majority constituencies to dictate government. Politicians are accountable to their constituency, that's not the same as doing whatever the majority of them want.

I don't see this as a bad thing, unfortunately in todays world most media outlets only get watched by the type of people that want to watch them. Liberals watch ABC/NBC/CNN etc, Conservatives watch Fox and listen to talk radio Rush/Hannity/Beck. I think it is fairly obvious by ratings which one is doing the best. Either way it is a good thing to have 24 hour news constantly watching these people, that way we know much sooner when one of them is fucking fifty thousand dollar hookers or when one of them constantly lies and flip flops, and they can get called out on it.

Yeah it's a good thing I'm told when someone flip flops. I would never want anyone admitting a poor decision they made in the past by changing their mind. Stay the course, even if it's straight to hell, I always say.

A recent supreme court decision just found that a corporation was allowed to contribute as much as it liked to the candidate of its choosing which makes absolute sense. You see a corporation is just a group of people who are invested in a company and if that group of people works say in... the oil and gas business and they are afraid of democrats passing a cap and trade bill that would destroy their company then they should be allowed in a free country to donate as much money as they like to any candidate they like. It is the same thing that unions have been doing for years by going behind the backs of many union members and sending union due's in to politicians that the union supported even if the individual didn't. That is why individuals only donating wouldn't work, because since unions are so far up the democrats ass at this point (IE Cadillac health care plan tax) that it would cause a very unfair situation as far as donations if corporations couldn't put their money where they decided it should go.

1) Corporations are still banned from direct contributions to candidates. Source, under "Prohibited Contributions"

2) The same ban that limited corporate spending on political speech banned union spending as well. Source

3) The law doesn't treat a corporation as a collection of individuals in most senses. If it did, then depending on the number of individuals said to make up that corporation, they could donate the maximum individual amount multiplied by individuals. This would be retarded.

[Material Girl]

Here's a good one:

We all know the President has a white house DOG.... why don't they have a white house KITTY-CAT?

[Summa]

1) Corporations are still banned from direct contributions to candidates. Source, under "Prohibited Contributions"

2) The same ban that limited corporate spending on political speech banned union spending as well. Source

3) The law doesn't treat a corporation as a collection of individuals in most senses. If it did, then depending on the number of individuals said to make up that corporation, they could donate the maximum individual amount multiplied by individuals. This would be retarded.

It's not as rosy as you would like to paint it. What Citizens United vs. FEC did was essentially 2 major things: it renounced the ban on television advertisement 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days prior to a general election and it removed all limits on money spent for "express advocacy" in regards to corporations, unions, and 501(c)(4) groups (PACs for those who don't know what that is).

Essentially, prior to this there was the "magic word test" which was a list of 16 words and sentiments that you could not usin in advertising for a candidate because it was considered "express advocacy", and any "express advocacy" was considered hard money and thus had to be disclosed. Like gen said, there have been no changed to the hard money campaign contribution limits, but the soft money flood gates have been opened. Anyone can look at that and say "hmmmm, there might be something dirty with unlimited sums of money being thrown around for express advocacy". However, there is no statistical evidence right now that explicitly shows that increased advertising and express advocacy leads to being elected.

Essentially, it smells funny, but there is no smoking gun.

[cash.MONay]

Ask em this:

y US missiles, drones, n tanks always vs my peoples' stone rocks n old ak47s???

[Summa]

@ Fit: We have two groups among us. 1 group is more centered around money and its influence in politics, and the other is centered around media, media quality, and media and political relations. I am a member of the media group, so I will be focused a little bit more on getting media answers. However, our entire group has been reading and researching both sides, so I am quite well versed on the money side as well (ultimately we will have to critique and criticize eachother's policy papers so we need to be). I agree that the media people are far more easy to get information from in general, but it is very difficult to press them on the business model and how profit motives and "the race to the bottom" have mostly killed newspapers and hard news. That has actually been more difficult in our preliminary meetings than getting anything from any politician.

@Para: Why should I ignore them? They are citizens just the same as you and I. I am going to try and represent them as best I can, since they will likely not have this opportunity. At least they have questions and concerns about our government, and care enough to try and get at least a little politically engaged. Where are yours?

@Ephem: We have 30 mins to an hour before every meeting to strategize. Our goal is often to manipulate them into a "kill question", which we put in the shy, pretty, innocent, smiling, white girl's mouth (it is statistically proven that this yields better results). I don't know how successful we will be, probably more so with the house representatives and the policy people than with the big name senators; but thank you for the advice. I will try to come back with at least some tiny shred of something worthful.

@trolls: gtfo

[Squeezer]

Ask them if I can go too

I'm jealous.

And punch Arianna Huffington in the face for me.

Actually I have one for the Huffpo:

Since they cherry pick their content from other news sites (IE reproduce their video, article, analysis, etc.) without doing their own reporting, I'd like to know how they consider themselves an institution of journalism? And if they consider themselves to be apart from sites like Digg or Fark? Then justify why.

[Summa]

Ask them if I can go too

I'm jealous.

And punch Arianna Huffington in the face for me.

Actually I have one for the Huffpo:

Since they cherry pick their content from other news sites (IE reproduce their video, article, analysis, etc.) without doing their own reporting, I'd like to know how they consider themselves an institution of journalism? And if they consider themselves to be apart from sites like Digg or Fark? Then justify why.

We actually asked something similar to the Seattle Times. We said something along the lines of "since you pull every one of your international news stories from the AP wire or the New York Times/WSJ, how can you call yourselves an international newspaper on your website?"

They provided no substantial answer and a lower tier reporter even said, "well I guess we can't"

[Squeezer]

Another good question in general:

Are the politicians and Rahm Emanuel worried/pleased/content with the animosity that has grown as a byproduct of our Us vs. Them 2-party mentality? Do they believe there is more discontent and hyperbole in our everyday political discourse and how much culpability do they hold on their own shoulders?

[Xog]

Is this going to be recorded? Would be interesting to hear it ourselves after its done. You could suggest this to ur superiors if it isnt, because you can further analyze it after the discussion. Please get a copy

[Epinephrine]

So essentially you want me to ask about the pressures that influence their voting and if it takes precedence over personal values? What specifically would you want me to focus on, because it needs to be a bit more pointed than that. I mean do you want to know about lobbying, because I got data to back that. Tea Party is a bit hard. Media pressure I could stretch a bit. Party pressure would have to carefully worded or I could offend. I couldn't really get away with a general influence question, they would take the opportunity to rant my ear off.

I don't know how to word it well... the 2 questions basically ask does the advent of 24-hour media/social networking/internet and so on make it so that it is harder for
1) Politicians to make complex and well thought out decisions vs what 'sounds good' in a 5-second sound bite
-the thought process is that with our increasingly 'headline' directed media, politicians these days will make decisions that sound good in a headline without caring about the long-term consequences or complex problems which require more than 5 words to explain

2) Politicians to think independently and not tow the party line, especially in the senate where there has always been a history of independent thinking vs. blindly following party politics which seems to be happening more and more these last 5 years.
-seems like with things like 'death panel' being popular in the right-wing media (ever since Sarah Palin used that term on her facebook wall) it's gotten every single republican against health reform, because they don't want to be seen as supporting 'death panels', even if technically funding for these things was first approved BY republicans a few years ago.

This one would be hard to ask, and may cause significant ranting, because of a few recent supreme court cases surrounding contributions. I will write it down and try and work with it, but not sure if I will be able to fit this in. Also I am interested in the thought process behind this.

There are some interesting arguments debating that there is not enough money in politics. I could point you to some of those if you're interested.

Again hard for me to get specific as I don't know the names of the laws. I know the US supreme court recently struck down the rule that corporations can't fund special interest groups to pay for ads. I guess the question is, would the politician support a law which prohibited such ads from happening. I know Obama has come out against it since the ruling, but do other people actually support this? i.e. one side effect would be groups like the swiftboaters would not be funded anymore.

I believe that these questions are non-partisan enough to get somewhat of a real answer if you can find a better way to word them.