Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds? 1140
blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "
Who cares? (Score:1, Informative)
Ok, but elaborate about Al Gore (Score:1, Informative)
Al Gore was the guy who brought the ARPANET out to be the Internet. He's tech savvy. He pays attention to technology and business. I wish our country was enlightened enough to have a guy like Al Gore be the President, but there's still a backward thinking element that favors authoritarianism (fascism).
Al was the one who helped get toxic waste sites identified and create a mechanism to deal with it. He's not working an agenda, he's outwardly focused.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, the only potential major party candidate I would vote for is Ron Paul.
Re:Ok, but elaborate about Al Gore (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:5, Informative)
privacy/total information awareness: He is as much a privacy nut a the biggest nut job here. Essentially, since the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to collect the data then the government does not have that power. Period. A little more unclear is his opinion on states/corporations gathering information. Corps first... my take on it is that even though he would be apalled by the practice, corporations are private entities and so the government should not prohibit then from collecting data. I really don't want to hazard a guess as to his views on state governments collecting and using data. Obviously he's opposed to it, but whether the feds should prohibit it... you'll just have to ask him.
Internet regulation and taxation: This one's easy. He's opposed to it. Period. Never voted for a tax in his life. Note that since the constitution grants the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, the question is not purely consitutional. It also means he would have no problem prohibitting states from enacting thier own taxes.(I am supposoing here...)
net neutrality: This one has me stumped. On one hand, he would support the rights of providers to run their business the way they see fit. On the other hand, they are usually government granted monopolies which he opposed. I'll have to look into this...
copyright/patent reform: This one is the one that he would disagree with most slashdotters on. While I am sure he would agree tate the current patent office is broken, I am pretty sure he will conceptually side with patent holders on this one.
the right to read: Not sure what is really meant by this? Talking about censorship perhaps? If so, then he is most certainly opposed to all forms of censorship.
the right to secure communications: I am pretty sure he would see this as a free speach issue, so yes he would be in favor of it.
the right to tinker: Pretty sure he would support this as well, despite the patent/copyright implications. At least so long it is for personal use. But this is a guess on my part.
There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances, but overall he is the one I agree with the most. I even changed my affiliation to Republican(from unaffiliated) so that I could vote for him in the primary. Do I think it would be best if he did win... not sure. But I know we need a lot more people like him in office so that maybe, a generation or two from now, we'll have the same rights we used to. It will take that long.
Mike Gravel (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RON PAUL is a 30's idiot (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.h
"We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Why NOT to vote for Ron Paul (Score:3, Informative)
# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
# Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
# Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools (AKA religious schools)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
In short, he wants to cut services, not allow woman to make up their own minds, and do what supports his belief in the magical tooth fairy...oh sorry "god"
Green Party (Score:5, Informative)
I'm British (and biased as I was a Green candidate over here this month) so I don't know much about the US Green Party's policies, but looking at RMS's website [stallman.org], he seems to be promoting them.
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.
Under Clinton/Gore, we got DMCA and Bono Act (Score:1, Informative)
Re:RON PAUL is a 30's idiot (Score:2, Informative)
"For example, he opposed CAFTA because it took the power away from Congress to regulate international trade. Check out his speech, CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html [lewrockwell.com]. Congressman Paul is an absolute free trader. I wouldn't expect any less of someone whose entrance into politics was the result of a study of economics. His solution to protectionist policies is to decrease taxes and regulations here that make our businesses competitive abroad. To quote the article, "CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body."
Re:Meh, you could do worse, I suppose (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny, I haven't heard that from the Libertarian camp.
For example, yes they feel that you should have the ability to use recreational drugs in your own home but once you step outside and endanger someone elses life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness, they loose that responsibility.
Re:Simple (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Simple (Score:2, Informative)
1) A booming economy, brought about in part by Republican-sponsored tax cuts
2) A House and Senate both controlled by the opposition, which forced him to do things that he otherwise would not be inclined to do, such as be relatively fiscally responsible.
That last one, especially, was key. Clinton would have been a flop as president if not for a hostile congress. Even with one, he still wasn't very good. The current Bush would be a flop as president with out an external enemy. Even with one, he's still not very good in most areas. His one saving grace is that he's a relatively effective war leader. I say relatively because while he has shown he has the moxie to take the fight to the enemy, he doesn't have the moxie (or the correct advice, maybe) to take the fight to the enemy in the way that FDR, and Truman after him, did. That is the kind of war leader we really need.
That said, you're mostly right about Republicans and fiscal conservatism. The only thing almost as bad as a Democrat is a typical Republican
I live in California, and the governator may call himself a Republican, but he acts far more like a Democrat. Liberal Republicans are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats. I've had it with both of them.
Among the current crop of candidates, I have no real confidence that any of them are cut from that bolt of cloth, with the possible exception of Rudy G.
Re:Meh, you could do worse, I suppose (Score:4, Informative)
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
Are you saying I advocate rights for the rich and slavery for the poor? I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich. Fact is is that reducing government and therefore taxes will mean there is more money available to create new jobs, whereas big government can destroy jobs.
FalconRe:Ron Paul - Voted Against Patriot Act! (Score:4, Informative)
This is, in fact, untrue. Congressman Paul has voted for numerous criminal laws, including the federal ban on dilation & extraction ("Partial Birth") abortions. Every criminal law increases the discretionary power of the executive branch, since it can choose to prosecute or not (or to pardon or not) any criminal offense. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably debated best case-by-case on each particular law, but that's not the claim being advanced.
Re:Simple (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Ron Paul is different. Check his congressional voting record. Go on. I dare you. It doesn't even slightly resemble any Demopublican or Republicrat you could possibly name. Then check his web site for his stated positions, and compare them to his voting record. You're in for a heck of a surprise. The man isn't evil at all. I don't agree with every position he holds, but the vast majority, I do. Furthermore, they actually are his positions and he actually votes his positions. It'd be a total mindf*ck to have a politician in the white house who made every effort to be reasonable, honest, and true to the constitutional basis of their job. Go on, check him out. I know you haven't, because even if you completely disagreed with the man, you'd never compare him to the run of the mill candidate. You'd have to disagree with him for entirely new reasons. :)
Re:Greens? (Score:3, Informative)
How can you be a registered Green and not know that Nader has never been in the party? He promised his dying father he'd never join a political party, and it would appear that applies even to parties that run him for President.
I thought he did a great job for the party in 2000, gave us a serious kick in the shins in 2004. I'm not interested in running him next time, and am giving ever-increasing attention to the question of who it might be instead.
Slashdotters might be interested in reading what our 2004 candidate, David Cobb, answered to his Slashdot interview [slashdot.org], which (ahem) I arranged. He lays out where Greens stand on free software and software patents, among other topics.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I am. These states: AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN and TX all have such provisions. See this page [religioustolerance.org].
Amazing, isn't it?
Re:Green Party (Score:5, Informative)
Among the liberatrian-minded (as most of the people commenting here appear to be, though that's no surprise at Slashdot), Greens are given a bad rap as carrying on the worst elements of state socialism. In fact, this is not the case:
Greens favor devolving power to states [libertytreefdr.org] and even municipalities [justthings.info]
Greens want government out of our bedrooms
Greens want to decriminalize (most) drugs
Greens have no interest in taking guns away from law-abiding citizens [whitneyforgov.org]
Greens understand that so-called "free-trade" treaties are just the government shilling for corporate power
Greens are big fans of free software [greens.org]
And some of you will remember that 2004 Green Party Presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik appeared together in the most lucid and respectful debates in generations -- and then fought together for the integrity of the vote after the election that neither of them managed to win. They disagreed on some topics, but actually agreed on more.
Re:None of them - no, ONE of them. (Score:0, Informative)
>
>Again, citation? I remember this being talked about on Cipherpunks years ago, and I shot it down then with satellite pictures courtesy of the then-fledgling Microsoft satellite photo system, not to mention that I was familiar with some of the areas in question in SoCal and that many of the cross streets identified ran parallel for miles -- sometimes miles apart -- and never intersected once.
The ones from the Cypherpunks discussion several years ago were bogus.
The poster is talking about the camps being funded by the contract described in this KBR/Halliburton press release [halliburton.com] (now a KBR press release after KBR was successfully spun off from HAL last year.)
Coming just a few months after Katrina, "The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts", it seems clear that the camps are intended for more than just the Mexicans.
Remember, a concentration camp is not the same as an extermination camp. Buchenwald and Dachau, for instance, were concentration camps. So were the internment camps the US used to house the Japanese. Not happy places, but there's a bed for everyone, even if the Germans immediately turned them into a slave labor camps; the modern equivalent would be the places where Chinese prisoners are used as slave labor. It still beat the hell out of Dachau and Treblinka were extermination camps; the trains show up, and there's only enough housing to keep one or two trainloads of people. For an educational time, take a look at how the buildings were laid out at Dachau and Buchenwald, then take a look at Auschwitz (which served both purposes, gradually turning into an extermination camp towards the end of the war), and finally take a look at the building layouts at Treblinka and Sobibor. Those last two don't seem to have many barracks, do they? :)
$385M buys a lot of camps, but it doesn't buy enough to enslave (or even exterminate, which is cheaper) the Mexican or Muzzie populations in America. That leaves the most likely option: they're intended for housing (and triaging those who will be too sick/wounded to save, which will be misreported in the press as extermination) the swarms of refugees from a Katrina-level catastrophe. There are lots of things, both man-made and natural, that can wipe out a city (or region), and trigger the activation of the camp network. It'll be like the Japanese internment; unpleasant, but the internees will live. Unlike the Japanese internment, the internees will probably find life in the camps an improvement to life in their homes.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Informative)
Gore and Paul Support Immigration Restriction (Score:3, Informative)
Ron Paul [betterimmigration.com] with a B rating from Americans from Better Immigration(and A- recent record)
and Al Gore with an A- lifetime rating [betterimmigration.com].
By Comparison, McCain [betterimmigration.com] is a D
Hilary Clinton (despite tough talk) earned [betterimmigration.com] a D-
Barack Obama also earned [betterimmigration.com] a D.
ABI is an interest group that advocates restriction of immigration-an F corresponds to loose immigration policy and a A to a restrictive policy. The average congression grade is a C-which is in effect support of one of the loosest immigration policies in the world.
My articles on immigration are here [vdare.com]
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Gallup. 2/9-11. Adults. MoE 3% (no trend lines)
If your party nominated a well-qualified Candidate For WH '08 who was _, would you vote for that person?
Yes No
Catholic 95% 4%
Black 94 5
Jewish 92 7
A woman 88 11
Hispanic 87 12
Mormon 72 24
Married for third time 67 30
72 years old 57 42
A homosexual 55 43
An atheist 45 53
Remember, even if you're well qualified, if you don't believe in the man in the sky, you aren't going to win an election.
Re:Meh, you could do worse, I suppose (Score:5, Informative)
The point is, the libertarian position is directly against wealth redistribution. In most modern societies, this is done through progressive taxing, luxury taxes, and estate taxes. Without those tools, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and eventually are so far behind that they are pretty much slaves.
Stealing from the rich and giving to uncle Sam you mean? Allow more people to keep more of the money they earn then they can create new jobs which benefit everyone. They can do this in two ways. The more money people can keep that they earn, the more they can invest and/or spend. Investing means more money can be used for research and for job creation. The more people spend the more jobs can be created as well. Whereas with government, with few exceptions government is less efficient than the capital market. Also more money goes to the already wealthy.
For instance in the US large multinational agriculture corporations get billions of dollars in subsidies yearly. That was a big reason the WTO meetings in Geneva fell apart. India and other countries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subsidizing these businesses because with subsidizies multinationals can sell food in India, South Korea, and Mexico cheaper than farmers in these countries can grow food. If you live in the US do you ever wonder why so many Mexicans and other Latin Americans come to the US as "illegal aliens or immigrants"? Many of them are being driven off of their farms because they can't compete with subsidized US agribusinesses who are able to export food to Mexico and sale it cheaply there.
Read some Marx.
I have read him, as well as Hilter's book. I've also read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations [online-literature.com] , various writings from Thomas Paine, and Natural Capitalism [natcap.org] by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute [rmi.org].
FalconYou are mistaken. Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993 (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. I don't know why anyone modded you up for this gross and blatent revisionism, but Clinton promised tax cuts in 1992, then delivered tax increases in 1993. Just search Google for "1993 Clinton Tax Cut".
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:1, Informative)
The fact that someone on here, in fact probably many, think that Clinton cut taxes is one of the top ten signs I'm POSITIVE my country is doomed; I guess that's not so bad, I'm tired of living with so many damned blind fools around me.
Immigration laws are unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
Re:None of them (Score:3, Informative)
Ron Paul - hands down.
Re:Simple (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple (Score:3, Informative)
We want net CONTENT neutrality (Score:2, Informative)
We don't want the Verizons of the world to be able to give their VOIP packets a high priority, and everyone else's packets a low priority. That would effectively force all Verizon customers to only use Verizon's VOIP.
Neither do we want the Verizons of the world to be able to sell higher priority to specific content providers. This would give Verizon the power to effectively "sell" its customer base to the highest bidder.
Internet providers have an obligation to abide by "common carrier" principles, one of which is that common services must be provided to everyone. Our national highway system doesn't have a "Fords Only" lane for precisely the same reason. The lanes are open to anyone with an automobile, regardless of who made the automobile, where the automobile is going, or why it's being driven. That's the way the Internet needs to be.
Re:Hitler Was Great For Nerds (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hitler Was Great For Nerds (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It hardly matters, now, does it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)
fiber optic cable, routers, etc... why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to sell different qualities of service and charge differently for them?
They already do. Any broadband ISP sells different connections of various speeds and reliability. What net neutrality is about, is preventing isp's from crippling internet access to sites that don't fork over a blackmail fee. As to why they shouldn't be able to do this, is because A) they've been given a lot of tax breaks and subsidies to do so, and B) because their lines run across public and private land. Once they start paying rent on all those lines, they can whine about the "millions of dollars" they spend on equipment.