Well done -- You deserve an interviewe. A possible add-on for both:
(In my 8 decades) I cannot recall a moment when the country was so divided with both "sides" being equally sure of their points of view. What would you do to try to bridge the gap by bringing us citizens closer together and restoring some level of bi-partisanship in our politics?
Full disclosure: I'm no more attracted to Harris than I am to Trump (I guess that makes me one of those double haters you hear so much about). Having gotten that out of the way, I do have to say I'm somewhat sympathetic to Harris' position. She is still VP. Asking her questions about her interaction and agreement/disagreement with Biden puts her in a very difficult position in that it's hard to be a loyal VP (a job requirement) while publicly outlining where you stand in relation to your boss, especially if there really is daylight. I know, because I was put into a similar position by a boss, where my time was split between a job that required loyalty to him and one that could put me in an adversarial position with him. I had to tell him I couldn't do both and that he'd have to pick (he wanted me in the adversarial position, interestingly; eventually I returned to the original position). But President of the US is such an important job that we can't let her use this as an excuse to be mum on her policy stances, and if she disagrees with Biden, so be it.
I think we have to take her at her word that there's no daylight between her and Biden and frame the questions exactly as we would if we were interviewing Biden (without the sympathy for mental incapacity).
Had to grit my teeth habit to accept the absolute non-biased beauty of your questions. I guess I do want to skewer one of the candidates :-) With that said, my recommended line of questioning would focus on the wisdom/fallacy of our growth based economy. For ex. Globalism has helped more countries create a middle class, but the outsourcing and prolific shipping of widgets all over the planet has negative social and biologic environmental consequences. If we (USA) are the creators of Globalism, can we assess it honestly and make moves to mitigate the downsides.
I would ask both of them, if administered by a neutral respected third party, would they be willing to take both a cognitive and psychological test as well as a physical test so that the American people know that they are both physically and mentally sound.
I encourage you to dig a little deeper by looking not only at the “what” (I.e. what’s the policy or platform) but also at the “why” (motive) For example, regarding eliminating taxes on tip, query whether increasing the net income potential for workers receiving tips reduces the worker’s incentive to unionize (which in turn, may benefit the corporate donors of each candidate.) There are other examples as I’m sure you know
I enjoy your work for its clarity & accuracy. But, again , I encourage you to venture a little further into the “why”. Other readers may (or may not ) feel the same
These are perfect questions that would peel back the onion for sure. Wow. I doubt you would get many straight answers from Trump on any of them Gabe. But these are questions for sure to be addressed.
I would ask both of them. How would they work to mend the great devide amongst our citizens and how can we start to restore civility and common. Respect between all of us? Huge to many Americans.
Also to Trump. How do you justify the proven statistics that by and large prove that most things that you say are made up on the spot and are categorically false? How can we trust anything you say?
Good questions and I think you would get meaty answers from Kamala, not so much from trump. I think he would likely attack you and tell you it was a dumb question.
I agree, I expect Trump would attack and give one of his word salad answers. My other problem with him is whether you can fact check him as he speaks, or even if he does answer what he would support, whether it would be a valid answer the next day.
Wonderful questions, Gabe. The real test would be in the interviewer’s ability to follow up the inevitable non-answers with penetrating questions that force the issue to prevent the candidate from continuously dodging the original question by spouting mush.
I hope the ball you’ve started gains momentum.
That said, I must quibble with this: “Both parties have been creating a permission structure for this inaccessibility for years, with incessant criticism of the media and claims that journalists are biased against them and therefore undeserving of more access.” IMO that’s a blatantly false equivalence. While it’s true that Biden (for what has become obvious reasons) has been inaccessible, it is grossly unfair to state that BOTH parties have railed equally against the media and claimed that journalists are biased. That both-siderism is just not true.
Mr Trump -- be so kind to answer this one question: "Do you uphold the Law of the United States, or do you consider yourself to be above the Law, and if you do how will you expect the citizens of this country to respect the Laws of this nation and abide by them?"
All your questions other then then the Olympics are very important to the American people and the country. Hope you get the opportunity to interview them both.
these questions are far better thawed out than any interview we’ve seen in the last 40 years. I think you really need to be handling this. Congratulations on all your success. I enjoy every post!
Well done -- You deserve an interviewe. A possible add-on for both:
(In my 8 decades) I cannot recall a moment when the country was so divided with both "sides" being equally sure of their points of view. What would you do to try to bridge the gap by bringing us citizens closer together and restoring some level of bi-partisanship in our politics?
Excellent set of questions. If only.....
Full disclosure: I'm no more attracted to Harris than I am to Trump (I guess that makes me one of those double haters you hear so much about). Having gotten that out of the way, I do have to say I'm somewhat sympathetic to Harris' position. She is still VP. Asking her questions about her interaction and agreement/disagreement with Biden puts her in a very difficult position in that it's hard to be a loyal VP (a job requirement) while publicly outlining where you stand in relation to your boss, especially if there really is daylight. I know, because I was put into a similar position by a boss, where my time was split between a job that required loyalty to him and one that could put me in an adversarial position with him. I had to tell him I couldn't do both and that he'd have to pick (he wanted me in the adversarial position, interestingly; eventually I returned to the original position). But President of the US is such an important job that we can't let her use this as an excuse to be mum on her policy stances, and if she disagrees with Biden, so be it.
I think we have to take her at her word that there's no daylight between her and Biden and frame the questions exactly as we would if we were interviewing Biden (without the sympathy for mental incapacity).
Wow, we need you have a sit-down with both of them. Stat!
Brilliant questions Gabriel....I wish they were required to answer them.
Had to grit my teeth habit to accept the absolute non-biased beauty of your questions. I guess I do want to skewer one of the candidates :-) With that said, my recommended line of questioning would focus on the wisdom/fallacy of our growth based economy. For ex. Globalism has helped more countries create a middle class, but the outsourcing and prolific shipping of widgets all over the planet has negative social and biologic environmental consequences. If we (USA) are the creators of Globalism, can we assess it honestly and make moves to mitigate the downsides.
To both: what do you believe is the purpose of government? What is government for? I want to know if either has any first principles.
This is excellent work, Gabe. Great questions and the answers (if you got them) would be intriguing.
Definitely agree.
I would ask both of them, if administered by a neutral respected third party, would they be willing to take both a cognitive and psychological test as well as a physical test so that the American people know that they are both physically and mentally sound.
Thanks for the thought provoking piece
I encourage you to dig a little deeper by looking not only at the “what” (I.e. what’s the policy or platform) but also at the “why” (motive) For example, regarding eliminating taxes on tip, query whether increasing the net income potential for workers receiving tips reduces the worker’s incentive to unionize (which in turn, may benefit the corporate donors of each candidate.) There are other examples as I’m sure you know
I enjoy your work for its clarity & accuracy. But, again , I encourage you to venture a little further into the “why”. Other readers may (or may not ) feel the same
These are perfect questions that would peel back the onion for sure. Wow. I doubt you would get many straight answers from Trump on any of them Gabe. But these are questions for sure to be addressed.
I would ask both of them. How would they work to mend the great devide amongst our citizens and how can we start to restore civility and common. Respect between all of us? Huge to many Americans.
Also to Trump. How do you justify the proven statistics that by and large prove that most things that you say are made up on the spot and are categorically false? How can we trust anything you say?
Thanks Gabe. Keep up the great work !
Good questions and I think you would get meaty answers from Kamala, not so much from trump. I think he would likely attack you and tell you it was a dumb question.
I agree, I expect Trump would attack and give one of his word salad answers. My other problem with him is whether you can fact check him as he speaks, or even if he does answer what he would support, whether it would be a valid answer the next day.
Wonderful questions, Gabe. The real test would be in the interviewer’s ability to follow up the inevitable non-answers with penetrating questions that force the issue to prevent the candidate from continuously dodging the original question by spouting mush.
I hope the ball you’ve started gains momentum.
That said, I must quibble with this: “Both parties have been creating a permission structure for this inaccessibility for years, with incessant criticism of the media and claims that journalists are biased against them and therefore undeserving of more access.” IMO that’s a blatantly false equivalence. While it’s true that Biden (for what has become obvious reasons) has been inaccessible, it is grossly unfair to state that BOTH parties have railed equally against the media and claimed that journalists are biased. That both-siderism is just not true.
Mr Trump -- be so kind to answer this one question: "Do you uphold the Law of the United States, or do you consider yourself to be above the Law, and if you do how will you expect the citizens of this country to respect the Laws of this nation and abide by them?"
All your questions other then then the Olympics are very important to the American people and the country. Hope you get the opportunity to interview them both.
Maybe you should ask questions during a debate? Or is t too much of a coward to debate?
these questions are far better thawed out than any interview we’ve seen in the last 40 years. I think you really need to be handling this. Congratulations on all your success. I enjoy every post!