Should intent of candidates be established before each political debate?

  • Must we explicitly know ones intentions

    Even though debates inform you about how a candidate perceives the world and leans, Its not explicitly stated as to how they want the society to be for others and for themselves.

    Many of the answers that are given by candidates are vague and ambiguous and no clear line is drawn in the sand. Every candidate is guilty of this.

  • The People in Command

    I feel the current party system creates a toxic environment in Government operations where most voters simply choose the letter "R" or "D". . . Each year, The People should vote on ballots consisting of Important Issues, Coupled with a choice of the top scientifically proven and ethically/morally considerate potentially viable solutions to include total cost/side effect of each solution. . . Once issues are clearly decided, We vote who best to champion and execute each task based on relevant skill sets and experience. . . Only voted solutions receive the limited funding for the task execution based on estimated bids from corporations and small businesses. The winner is mandated to maintain transparent balance sheets similar to current public companies SEC filings creating a similar environment to the consumer markets. Better results = more opportunity to continue competing to work for the American people. . American operated companies receive priority if they can deliver. . . Companies profit share with the People to fund further task completions and future growth. Small startups are encouraged so anyone can fill an enjoyable niche they are passionate about. The smaller the business, The more competitive cost advantage consideration is given to ensure they can compete with large corps or overseas markets. The Federal Government would then be largely reduced to a few entrusted by the people based on track record to oversea each task execution by primarily American companies. After a specific task is complete and delivered, A jury of our peers reviews the company that provided the service and the few elected officials entrusted to oversea the project. Better = higher rating, More work, With poor performers earning lower ratings. The better the rating the more work and more funding to execute tasks and to research new areas of interest of the people. . . What kind of Government model is that?

  • Lihgkug ouhiuiu oy ibug

    Lhoi hoi iuh iu hoi h oih l i hk hk hk. H kjh kj hkjh kjh kjh kj hkh h. H hh. H h lkh k lk lk k k kkhk hk kh jhkjh kjh k kjh kh. T;i i iuhu hih hhbhhbh h h h h hh

  • Yes it should be

    How should the electors know what to expect if they don't even establish what their goals are. Just saying they hate Trump and will do better things than him don't help.
    Come with a plan and show to the people who vote for you.

    Ignore this, I need more words

  • Orange man bad

    Thats what a debate is, Though We can't call it a debate if you want to change that, Just get educated by researching on your own instead of just eating what the comedy man and CNN man said. Orange man bad!
    Seriously, Its ridiculous,


    Ignore this, I need more words

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.