Should they be forced to answer YES or NO before an explanation so they can't dodge the bullet?
2007-11-06 06:31:29 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wouldn't it be great to be able to actually trust what politicians say when they're campaigning? I wonder how many of them actually plan on doing what they promise. Too many politicians get into office and break their promises. I consider it fraud.
2007-11-06 06:36:05 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, truth serum makes a person fairly intoxicated. But I thought somebody should invent a nearly perfect lie detector. Then require that all political debaters be connected to one, with the read-out displayed on the bottom of the TV screen.
2007-11-06 06:37:42 · answer #2 · answered by Tom H 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
carry on with up questions. by utilising the moderators and/or the different applicants. And we could consistently provide the applicants extra suitable than a minute to respond to each and each question. in case you somewhat desire to discover a controversy, you're able to be prepared to spend a number of minutes in step with candidate in step with challenge. Debates all attempt to discover each challenge with each candidate, and there isn't any longer adequate time to try this suitable. we could consistently swap to debates that throughout ordinary terms conceal a single challenge, and have a debate on each and each challenge. Or have debates that run for like 10 hours. Then they might in simple terms tutor a hour of highlights. this may be much less of a controversy as quickly as we are extra alongside in the election, and we've narrowed all of it the way down to a smaller style of applicants. yet even then they nevertheless probably won't run the debates in a useful way.
2016-10-03 11:59:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If truth serum worked, there would be no ,so called, need for torture in the military. Yes, they should have to answer a , yes, no, question that way and not evade the issue.
2007-11-06 06:39:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
-Forget the "debate"--(/explanations of why they think,feel or believe a "report/study",need to fix.fight against, .etc,..
-Politicians should all be forced to answer yes or no to the same list of questions. they can then post their "rationale/explanation etc" on their web sites for those interested .
2007-11-06 06:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by cyansure 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh please, you call what politicians are doing on stage a debate? There is more debate going on when someone tries to decide if they should have fries with their Big Mac or not than there is going on the stage of the Democratic or Republican debates.
2007-11-06 06:41:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't know about that, but what if we put an electric wire around their necks and gave the interviewers the right to zap them anytime they avoided answering the question
2007-11-06 06:38:36 · answer #7 · answered by golfer7 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
LOL...that would be hilarious!!!!!!!
Asker: "Senator Clinton, would you withdraw all troops from Iraq?"
Clinton: "No, I am just in this for the name of the Presidency, and to clear my husband's name. Although if someone paid me a lot of money I might do it."
2007-11-06 08:23:28 · answer #8 · answered by DesignDiva1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, where do I sign?
2007-11-06 07:16:11 · answer #9 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some progressive would label that as torture.
2007-11-06 06:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋