If both canidates came forward together after their nominations and told the American public this: We have decided that the American people have had enough of politics as usual and we will for the first time run ONLY postive campaigns..we will NOT talk about each other..ONLY what we will do if elected by you the people. A FULL agreement in front of the American people...an Oath if you will only to speak on their programs, agenda etc...and NOT one negative word
would you support this idea???
btw: I am not interested in answers like: they would never do it...one would cave in...bla,bla,bla...
it's just an idea
2007-09-04 11:36:10 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Do not vote Democrat or Republican consider another party.
2007-09-04 11:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by MIE 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
You just can't dream that. In the world of politics you have to show why your opponents views are harmful to the country. One has to demonstrate why that particular candidates voting record must be taken into account as to where the future of a state or the country would be headed if that candidate wins. That is the theory behind a two party system.
I know why you would think this, but human nature has never been one of kiss, kiss and lets agree. Even coming down the middle of the road on issues, a portion of the public sector is going to get shafted. That's why in the 2 party system we vote for all the marbles. And we hope that our choice of candidate is willing to go out on a limb to convince one and all why he/she is the better candidate.
I commend you for your idea, but obviously you are very young. You haven't lived long enough to see what damage that idea can do to this great country.
2007-09-04 19:05:14 · answer #2 · answered by Tinman12 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be very interested in this idea. But the media would have to agree as well to focus on the right things and independent entities would agree to stop the mudslinging.
It would be a very nice change.
And it's not true that you have to show why things would be bad for the country, people are smart, why don't you give them the benefit of the doubt.
2007-09-04 19:22:21 · answer #3 · answered by Ellinorianne 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would not have that aspect changed at all. Sometimes I can learn something I have not known if it were not for a candidate bringing something to light that I was not aware of. So, bring the mud in. I want the truth now, not when it is too late to change my vote!
2007-09-04 20:04:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah right, you know what would happen. the candidate's proxys would then sling the mud, like now george Sorros , and the leftwing press and keyboard comandos will do all the negative campaigning for them.
2007-09-04 18:48:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry you're not interested in the truth, but, it would never happen, and one of them would cave and go negative. If the other didn't respond in kind, he (or she) would lose.
2007-09-04 18:45:30 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Mud slinging is part of the entertainment value.
2007-09-04 18:49:36 · answer #7 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd be suspicious and looking for the other shoe to drop. If they followed through on it, I would be pleasantly surprised.
2007-09-04 18:44:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
When my alarm finally went off I'd hit the snooze bar and go back to sleep.
2007-09-04 18:42:53 · answer #9 · answered by Lavrenti Beria 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The same thing I would do when pigs fly.
2007-09-04 21:42:20 · answer #10 · answered by rick b 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋