We feel we don’t know enough about the candidates, so in partnership with The Ubyssey we’re presenting The Presidential Debate.

One hour of questions directed at the candidates, intended to point out differences between the candidates. We’re scouring through voting records, we’re watching the old debates, we’re researching what’s been said, and we’re fact checking. Come out and watch your hero triumph or fluster. Instead of a rigid format, Geoff Costeloe will be moderating in a style to encourage interesting debate.

Tuesday, January 26th, 7pm at the Centre of Student Involvement (main floor Brock Hall). Afterward, there will be a casual reception with refreshments. Bring a friend!


4 Comments so far

  1. Sexy~Brunette~ on January 23, 2010 9:35 pm

    love this, and love you boys.

  2. Paul on January 23, 2010 9:43 pm

    Awesome idea… and a great way to promote the CSI too.

    However, even thought they may not be the focal point of the debate, how about at least acknowledging the existence of the other two candidates?

  3. Collective Farmer on January 24, 2010 7:28 am

    Haven’t you realized the other candidates are not worth mentioning because they are not hacks? It would be depressing to be running against a current BOG member and an AMS Councilor who get attention by default and association (not because of their ideas). You will find that there is very little in terms of ideas coming around and conclusive plans with a few rare exceptions. Natalie’s PR approach is so apolitical it is revolting – she seems to have no critical take on anything, and presents herself as salvation without having any stance that does not get passed by Duncan first. He complains Bijan has been at UBC for too long, and forgets his been here for a long time. The difference is that while Bijan was working hard on his two degrees Mike was partying away, taking 1 course per term and lounging on student money to become perhaps one of the most ineffective Board members in the not-so-impressive political history of students at UBC.

  4. Alex Lougheed on January 24, 2010 2:06 pm

    That was actually an editorial mistake. I meant to write candidates instead of “two candidates”.

    We’ve sent an invitation to all four, but based on where we’re finding candidates have support, questions will likely be directed more towards the front-runners.

    Hope to see you all there!

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet