|
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 10:00 AM by welshTerrier2
i would love to see all the "campaign crap" stuffed away in a "campaigns" forum. there, loyal supporters could sling mud and post polls and endorsements to their heart's content.
here in GDP, and I think it would make this forum far more valuable, candidate-related posts, both pro and con, would have to be issues based.
consider this: i doubt most people here, even after all the candidate posts, could explain much about how the candidates' would answer the following questions:
1. where do you stand on the Iraqi Oil Law? 2. where would you get more funds for education? 3. if the Iraqi state couldn't survive without the US, would you still withdraw? 4. under what circumstances would you attack Iran? 5. if you disagree with single payer health care, why do you disagree? 6. do you agree there is a quid pro quo for campaign contributions? 7. what would you do to take money out of politics? 8. are you willing to call for real conservation measures to protect against global warming?
you get the idea. all this noise and cheerleading with very little information. the result is all the useless back and forth from candidate supporters. the only resolution I see is to redefine the purpose of GDP. If it continues to "welcome all", I think what you see is what you'll get. And it will get worse.
my vote would be to establish a separate "campaign forum" in the hope that a more useful discourse would occur in GDP.
|