Is it fair in a debate to ask a presidential candidate

[mondo joe]

Is it fair in a debate to ask a presidential candidate:

Do you believe in Evolution?

Did you see a UFO?

[ThomWV]

1. I think a Presidential Candidate should answer every damned question he or she is asked

[angstlessk]

2. If seeing an 'unidentified flying object' cause the class rooms in

America to study 'alien creatures' I would say neither is okay..but you are comparing apples and oranges...SINCE A UFO is only 'unidentified'..and does not imply alien space craft..on the other hand to not believe in evolution is to believe in a 2,000 year old tome written BY MEN OF MEN AND FOR MEN...OF THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!

On edit: so therefore, I like grapes

[mondo joe]

4. While it's true that a UFO simply means it is unidentified, as colloquially used

the terms often means something else. I think in taking the question, the candidate might simply explain his or her use of the term.

[angstlessk]

5. Given the amount of time Dennis was given by the inquisitor

he should waste as little time as possibe on this absurd question!

[mondo joe]

7. I dunno - Obama made very good use of a similar question.

But what about it do you consider absurd?

[angstlessk]

8. the question has WHAT TO DO WITH POLICY??? IT IS ABSURD

ON ITS BEING ASKED!

[mondo joe]

9. How do you feel about beig asked about evolution, as the Repubs were asked?

[angstlessk]

12. That question effects policy...WHAT TO TEACH IN SCHOOLS..

the bible or science...see the difference?

I voted 'I like grapes'

[mondo joe]

13. Technically it's not what to teach - it's what you believe. But your interpretation could

apply to UFOs too --- what to teach in school, science or paranormal claims?

[angstlessk]

16. mondo..get over yourself..no one is trying to teach paranormal

crap based on a UFO siteing...you are just being an ijit!!!11!!

[mondo joe]

17. If civil questions are so upsetting for you, I would suggest you put me on ignore.

I have no desire to disturb you so.

[angstlessk]

18. honey...why would I ignor you?? this is our first exchange...

just because I disagree with you now will not make me not disagree with you again!

[Jane Austin]

3. One is about science and the other is about observation under varying circumstances

and can't be demonstrated easily.

[msongs]

6. the debate question was a SUCCESSFUL attempt to MINIMIZE kucinich nt

[Basileus Basileon]

10. Yeh, because Kucinich was such an electoral threat. nt

[Basileus Basileon]

11. Yes, for different reasons.

They're both asking, "How much stock do you place in your own perception of events against an evidence base?"

The first is, "Do you believe in a fundamental aspect of numerous scientific fields, modern biology and medicine to linguistics and archaeology?"
The second is, "Do you believe that contrary to probability, you actually saw a strange object flying in the sky?"

Answering "no" to the first would be a deal-breaker to me.
Answering "yes" to the second would make me less comfortable with a candidate, but not by much.

[napi21]

14. Neither question is OK! One is injecting religious beliefs into

politics, and the other is simply dumb.

Who really cares if a President believes there are UFO's?

Although the media doesn't treat it this way, a UFO is an "unidentified flying object" so if anyone sees something flying through the air and doesn't know what it is, by it's definition, it's a UFO!!!!

[saltpoint]

15. I'm likely to be more drawn to a candidate with a sense of adventure and

a respect for what we don't know as humans.

It leaves a yucky feeling when the MSM marginalize Kucinich over this comment. They don't have the eggs to cover him as a legitimate candidate but when they can marginalize him with this, they pile on. Not unlike media response to Jerry Brown. A Chicago columnist smeared Brown with "Moonbeam" and some years later, retracted the gesture and publicly apologized. It was too late by then, but it was something at least. Many in the MSM generally and ABC especially owe Congressman Kucinich an apology.

It won't be forthcoming, of course, but they could set things better by allowing the man his experience and remarks. Ultmately they don't know shit about the cosmos and others' speculations are legit and often interesting. Carl Sagan would respond quite a bit differently than Britt Hume to the topic, for example.

I'd say the questions are legitimate provided their intent is to open discussion to a fuller range. If their intent is to marginalize or mischaracterize, I wouldn't trust the question.

Excellent post.