And if voters should be tested on their knowledge of civics, shouldn't candidates for public office have to be tested as well? And disqualified from running if they fail?
Seriously, what I hear from DeSantis and Trump is not connected to the American Republic with its balance of power between the branches and the federal government and the states, and with its requirement for due process in taking life or property. Increasingly, all the Republican candidates talk about is the monopoly one person having all the power.
The debate would be much better as a game show in which the candidates are asked about how the actual American Republic works and scored by actual historians and constitutional scholars.
Good questions, all. This is the level of scrutiny all politicians should face: not only presidential candidates, but all candidates for office, especially Republicans, a large majority of whom (polls suggest) have rallied behind a lawless and reckless man whose contempt for democratic norms and constitutional order is evidently unlimited.
Curious if you ever watched Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom”? It aired like 10 or 12 years ago which makes it seem eerily prescient today. Anyway, one of the subplots in season two was about this exact thing- asking actually relevant and meaningful debate questions and really holding the candidates to account for their answers- instead of just moving on to the next question once the time was up.
Radley: Masterful exhaustive list of questions that won’t be asked.
Mr. Ramaswamy: why do I think your “civics test” idea would end up disenfranchising more Republicans than Democrats?
And if voters should be tested on their knowledge of civics, shouldn't candidates for public office have to be tested as well? And disqualified from running if they fail?
One more: what color is the sky in your world?
Seriously, what I hear from DeSantis and Trump is not connected to the American Republic with its balance of power between the branches and the federal government and the states, and with its requirement for due process in taking life or property. Increasingly, all the Republican candidates talk about is the monopoly one person having all the power.
The debate would be much better as a game show in which the candidates are asked about how the actual American Republic works and scored by actual historians and constitutional scholars.
Good questions, all. This is the level of scrutiny all politicians should face: not only presidential candidates, but all candidates for office, especially Republicans, a large majority of whom (polls suggest) have rallied behind a lawless and reckless man whose contempt for democratic norms and constitutional order is evidently unlimited.
Curious if you ever watched Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom”? It aired like 10 or 12 years ago which makes it seem eerily prescient today. Anyway, one of the subplots in season two was about this exact thing- asking actually relevant and meaningful debate questions and really holding the candidates to account for their answers- instead of just moving on to the next question once the time was up.
A great list of blunt questions, but I think they'd take up all the time of two or three debates. Which ones should get priority?
The League of Women Voters or someone else who can apply pressure should ask them in writing.