Ask Slashdot: Which Candidates For Geek Issues? 792
Okian Warrior writes "An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
same old same old (Score:4, Insightful)
The R's and the D's are truly just 2 arms of the same beast. They both survive only due to blaming the other camp for all of the problems in the world.
Geek issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are "Geek Issues" (Score:4, Insightful)
Just admit it, you wanted a politics flamewar on /. for some entertainment, and since flamewars are page view magnets the editors happily oblige.
Consider voting third party (Score:5, Insightful)
Two party system is failing us (Score:4, Insightful)
!RonPaul (Score:0, Insightful)
"Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him"
I am discounting him. He's a medical doctor who in the 90's advocated banning HIV positive individuals from restaurants to prevent the spread of HIV. Other gems of his are linked/quoted below. My point: how can a guy with such closed-minded beliefs be expected to embrace new technologies and ideas (as well as enact sane policies concerning new technologies, etc.), which I think what most slashdotters are looking for in a politician. It's amazing to me that he is so highly-revered in some circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy
from the wikipedia article:
Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think this, but I've come to realize that this thinking is not entirely correct.
The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth. They believe that making people at the top rich will lead to prosperity for all. Many believe that social programs do not help well enough to justify many of them. Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them, and whose behaviors do not affect them in the slightest. The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree.
The Democrats look at individuals for success, and define success through a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach, as many believe that top-down approaches have led to severe inequality. They believe government has the ability to address such injustices and to help dampen inequality. Many believe that an individual's right to make ones' own choices, so long as those choices don't victimize others, is important, but are not willing to ignore data that demonstrates particular freedoms causing lots of harm. Democrats generally like to build consensus before agreeing on a plan, which lately has been to their detriment, as it allows their political opponents to stonewall things that should be able to pass despite objection.
There are times for either, and both political parties have this habit of becoming sort of rotted out from the insides due to corruption. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans rot-out a lot faster than the Democrats, yet members of the party have seemingly short memories of it, like Newt Gingrich, who has managed to be a serious contender for the Republican party's nominee for President despite having resigned from the House of Representative in disgrace.
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Users don't understand the technology they use, and what legislation would do to it in the long (or even short) run. They look at currently available features, and it never enters their mind that other possibilities could exist. It's only the power users and geeks who do the digging to be informed (regardless if the subject is computing, cars, politics, etc).
I'd rather have a technologically unaware representative who will work against PATRIOT/SOPA/etc than somebody who uses an iPad and has buys into security theater and its IP equivalents.
I don't think the OP understood what was meant ... (Score:5, Insightful)
An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?
I don't think you got the appropriate sense of the pronouns in use. When it's said that we(1) should change the situation by voting in better officials and that we(1) have no one to blame but ourselves, that we(1) refers to the voting populace at large. You've transposed that to mean we(2) meaning /.ers (or perhaps geeks in general) but we(2) do not have a lot of political clout for a number of reasons mainly boiling down to the number of voters that will base their decision on "geek issues". First, there aren't many of us -- so already that's going to be a niche demographic to target. Second, as a group, we are very divided on non-geek issues such as economics and foreign policy. That makes us less attractive as a target because it means that we aren't likely to vote as a bloc unless geek issues become so important that they override other policy differences (for instance, most /.ers wouldn't vote for a foreign-policy hawk that was anti-gay and pro-life even if he had 100% from the EFF). Finally, geek issues just aren't very poignant with the electorate at large -- virtually no one is going to make their political decision based on those issues so there's very little for candidates to gain (and much to lose) by staking out strong positions.
Ultimately, living in a democracy means accepting that sometimes the voters either don't care or disagree with you, even after all your attempts to convince them otherwise. It's a hard pill to swallow, especially when many arguments are of the form "if you REALLY understood issue X then you would have policy Y" and its contrapositive "if you don't favor policy Y then you don't understand issue X" that simply can't accept that sometimes you just can't convince people. Politics always has losers, and the losers invariably believe that they are right and somehow the political process must be defective merely because they lost.
[ And, I hate to say this but I'm not being cruel here, I personally will not vote on geek issues. I think foreign policy and economics are far more important than SOPA and patent law. That's not to say I don't have opinions on the latter, or think that the 'wrong' policy might harm us, but rather I have priorities and I'd rather have the foreign policy that I like and the geek law that I don't rather than the other way around, in such cases where it appears that I cannot have both concurrently. ]
"Magic" is the province of Keynesianism (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see here, now:
1) If the economy recovered, Keynesian stimulus worked!
2) If the economy didn't recover, the stimulus wasn't big enough!
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Re:Two party system is failing us (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it the 2 party system that is the problem, more that we (voters/public/peons) expect to find someone that will take a position on all the issues that we agree with. We could have 20 parties and different canidates from each and still not find one that agreed with our views.
That and our 'if you are not with us you are against us' mentality.There is no bend in what we will tolorate anymore.
I don't have a problem with the $ from corporate and union donors, I have a problem with the either outright lying or badly distorting the facts with the money. Any money that is used for something that was proven to not be 100% factual should have a penality of 10x that much to be split up amoung the opposition.
Re:Consider voting third party (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that all depends. Was it better to vote for Nader in 2000, and get George Bush? Or would it have been better to vote for Al Gore and get Al Gore?
Hard to say, really, but I don't think the tautaulogy works for everyone.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, he actually wanted the USA to default on all debt. Tell the other countries to stuff it up their butts and say, "the USA will not pay any of it's debts, If you want to try and collect, please send the air force your GPS coordinates and we will launch your payment to that location."
and honestly it would have been better for the USA to have completely Defaulted. we would be in a far better financial position right now if we did.
a Lot of rich people would have lost some money, no big loss there. All the middle and lower class already lost any of their money, so they would not lose anything.
The problem is, every single one of the scumbags in the Congress, White house, and Supreme Court care more about the ultra rich than the poor. the Democrats support bullshit like SOPA that only benefit the rich. The Republicans believe in the bullshit of the trickle down theory. in reality all of them are there to do one thing. protect their riches and their friends riches.
It has always been that way, and will always be that way. Luckily us poor have TV to keep us preoccupied and not pay attention to what the rich people are doing.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The real difference between the leaderships of the two party is which elite interests they represent.
The Republicans are largely the party of the primary economy and part of the secondary economy (resource extraction, agriculture and base manufacturing.) The cultural values that they support - religious values, etc. - are those which coincide with that sector. The democrats are largely the party of the tertiary (and past) economies - some manufacturing, but mostly services, especially financial services and the culture industry. Their cultural values are also thus in line: cosmopolitanism, a sense of "progress" (very important in sectors of the economy that emphasize changing styles, such as retail.) These elites agree on a lot, but they disagree on enough things - where they want public sector activity and where they don't, for example - that the different parties do compete.
The social / cultural values things - the left's diversity, the right's "family values" - are mostly window-dressing.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have photographs of all those guys plus Friedman and Greenspan. I must be a freaking genius economist.
Re:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Those of you who are also fed up do the same. If not for Ron Paul, for a sensible third-party candidate. Everybody else is not working for your best interest.
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
- then it's Ron Paul, no contest.
Why, you ask?
Because without technology and especially the Internet where would Ron Paul's campaign be? You certainly wouldn't hear about him or anybody like him in the MSM, so then what, town hall meetings?
Ron Paul is actually using the technology in the political process. Obama's blackberry and what not, and you are still going to get SOPA and PIPA and no veto from Obama.
Do you realise now how silly it is, to say that the most important thing is who uses the technology most is your preferred candidate, because you are actually oblivious as to how the technology is really used?
The question is actually this: who is going to prevent government force from taking your liberty to use and work with technology that you choose?
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth."
So do the Democrats. How many poor Democrats are in congress? Seven of the top ten richest congressmen are Democrats.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
3. "The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree."
Same for the Democrats. How to you think the Democrats get 98% of the black vote. It's almost impossible to get 98% of any group to agree on anything. My friend is a coal miner and voted for Obama because the union told him too. If that's not voting against your self interest, I don't know what is.
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:5, Insightful)
Duverger's law [wikipedia.org] explains that we only have two viable parties because we use an antiquated voting system that encourages tactical voting. If you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, you're basically "throwing your vote away."
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:5, Insightful)
So you like NDAA, SOPA/PIPA and high unemployment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention illegal immigration, and sky-high debt. Perpetual wars in the mid-east. Out-of-control government spending.
Yeah, gotta love those constitution shredding dems.
GWB was not better, but at least Ron Paul wants to uphold the constitution, which is more than you can say for the present Obama-nation.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
It is uninformed voting. Doing something because someone else tells you to do it isn't necessary against your self-interest. Of course you are in danger of acting against your self-interest if you blindly trust the advice of someone else. But it does not imply that you actually do.
I have no idea whether your friend voted against his self-interest, but you cannot conclude either way just from his choice being determined by the union's suggestion.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
My friend is a coal miner and voted for Obama because the union told him too. If that's not voting against your self interest, I don't know what is.
Wait, explain how voting for McCain would be in his self interest? Explain how putting the party in power that wants to dismantle any kind of environmental regulation, any kind of workplace regulation, and that has since then introduced legislation in several states to try and dismantle the power of unions would be voting in his self interest? If anything, the Democrats have the interest of the working class in mind far, far, far more than the Republicans.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
Re:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:2, Insightful)
It's too bad Paul is a terrible person and it would be a disaster if he got into office.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
Re:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
Somebody that's incapable of compromise is not desirable as a leader. President Bush had a habit of never backing down and never compromising through his first term in office and ultimately he got basically nothing done his second term because he had so pissed off the opposition that when his own party turned on him he couldn't make any deals with the Democrats.
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
How does not voting for Obama = voting for McCain? They weren't the only two candidates on the ballot and there's even a write-in field. And don't say that if one doesn't vote for either party means they're throwing away their vote because that just keeps the two party BS rolling. If enough people voted, we could have someone from neither party in office.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:5, Insightful)
In a true free market, you set up and operate. If you are good, you succeed,
No regulations, just economic success or failure That way a person who is very talented, yet not certified or educated can rise on their own merit.
What's your thought on taking your children to a pediatrician under this system?
And that is the problem. Free marketers want to believe that the free market can cure all ills. It doesn't. It has the fatal flaw of assuming that everyone is ethical. What it doesn't take into account is that there are some people who are not going to be satisfied until they control everything. It doesn't take into account the many things that actually operate better when there is some regulation.
Because the application to the true free market of say taking your children to that free market pediatrician is that he might be totally incompetent. He might kill your children. But after he kills enough children, his name will get around and he'll go out of business. The free market worked. There's a whole list. Your house might burn down because of bad electrical work. You might buy a car that falls apart at highway speeds and kills you. But if it happens enough, word will get out and that company will go out of business. But yeah, the free market worked. It's kind of like evolutionary adaptation. What doesn't adapt, dies. But people seem to forget that that adaptation is the small percentage that doesn't die.
I liken some of the ideas of libertarians to be kind of like the anti-vaccination crowd. "No one gets such and such disease any more, so getting vaccines is stupid, and dangerous sometimes!" they don't remember when Polio and pertussis and measles other childhood diseases killed many children each year.
The libertarians don't remember why we made anti-monopoly and anti trust laws and an environmental protection agency and other laws and regulations.
Funny thing is, on a intellectual level, I am a libertarian. On a pragmatic level, I know enough about humans to understand it won't work.
Although it would have been kind of neat to see the Cuyahoga when it caught on fire...
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties attract those who are power hungry to their elected ranks:
- Republicans unfortunately have a tendency to allow politicians who are being paid by big business who want to gut all regulatory oversight and put in place laws that protect them. These guys certainly are as you describe.
- Democrats have the equal and opposite problem - politicians who are eager to give away other peoples money for projects and programs that don't work, as long as it gets them elected and in the elite so they can become the new "ruling class". When challenged about the fact that they are bankrupting the country, they respond with fake data/arguments or simply imply that some magic fairy will pay for it all ("the rich"), etc.
I find both very bad, but I don't blame the parties per say for the problem as much as the american voter for letting them get away with it. I also still think most voters intend to put someone who follows the party ideals I stated above into office, they just don't research enough or vote party line rather than review each candidate individually.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
...I'm not against gay marriage but it is a moral issue for many people.
Yes, it is a moral issue. The issue is some people want to force their morals on others with the force of law and prevent individuals from making their own choices. Presenting the concept of allowing individuals to choose for themselves as an example of Democrats "do this also" when "do this" was previously described as "push their moral agenda on people" just shows how easy it is to buy into the fiery but empty rhetoric spewed forth by politicians.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion. Marriage started out as a legal contract and then religions latched onto it. If the government wants to use marriage as a legal contract and write laws about it, they should do so in a way that does not discriminate between different religions or genders as is required by the first amendment. If Ron Paul and his ilk actually gave a damn about freedom they'd have exactly the opposite position on this topic.
Re:So you like NDAA, SOPA/PIPA and high unemployme (Score:5, Insightful)
"Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important..."
Civil Liberties are always important. They don't become irrelevant just because there are other problems in the world. Iran appears to be developing nuclear weapons; surely that is a more pressing concern than dealing with corruption that has been the largely acceptable status quo for almost 30 years?
"Come to terms with it already; you`re NEVER going to have a candidate who meets you on every single view you have."
Probably not. I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect agreement on a few areas, though.
"Get a little perspective already. Gay folks should be thankful if they can`t get legally married. You know how many straight folks would give their right thumb for that?"
Har har har. Hilarious. You should do the Catskills.
Re:same old same old (Score:4, Insightful)
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them" Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
This is the example you chose? Prohibiting same-sex marriage is an attempt to push your own moral agenda onto someone else. Your grandmother's "Fw:Fw:Fw:B HUSSEIN Obama" email to the contrary, no one is going to force anyone to have a gay marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage won't affect heterosexuals in the slightest.
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because Ron Paul wouldn't be allowed to actually implement his agenda and ideals doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at it. He might in actuality have less real power as president than he does now since he wouldn't actually be able to do anything except stop legislation getting passed without support from someone in congress he wouldn't have, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.
Obama has been a great disappointment to an awful lot of people. Some of that is more about perception than reality(If Obama had taken the fight to the republicans would he have actually won? Is there somewhere to actually put the remaining few people in Guantanemo Bay? Can we in good conscience stop the war in Afghanistan and let the Taliban come back and do all the things they used to do even if we should never have begun it in the first place?), but I won't argue that he's been disappointing. For all of that though, he's miles more tolerable than anyone the Republicans have fielded.
Re:So you like NDAA, SOPA/PIPA and high unemployme (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You need to think harder. The CBO found in 2004 there were 1,138 instances in federal law where marital status is a factor in determining rights, privileges, or benefits. Joint property, medical decisions, inheritance, and a lot more.
2. Article IV, Section 1 disagrees with your assertion that it isn't a federal issue. States are refusing to recognize legally performed marriages from other states.
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriages should not be licensed by local, state, or any government. Government shouldn't be involved with defining religious sacraments. If two people, regardless of sex and sexual preference, want to get married, then they can find whatever church/synagogue/temple/witches circle/shaman's tent that allows it and get married.
The rights that are associated with marriage such as health benefits, inheritance, etc. can be assigned in a legal agreement. Government can have what it wants (legal rights defined) and religion can have what it wants (definition of a sacrament) and they don't have to be (and shouldn't be) entangling each other over this.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:4, Insightful)
While there are some nutters who actually think we'd be better off defaulting right now (there's a point where we would be, but we aren't near there yet), the entire discussion is actually moot. Ron Paul and others who were strongly against raising the debt ceiling were not insisting that the United States default on its debt obligations. In fact, the US Federal government has plenty of income year-round which would have more than covered all debt obligations and minimal Federal operations. Things like national parks and touristy stuff would have been closed and Federal contractors likely would have been in the dark in terms of payment for a bit as funds trickled in and a new funding model was worked through, but there was NEVER any danger of the US being unable to service its debt simply because of a vote against raising the debt ceiling.
The absolute bullshit spewed by the media on the subject was completely ridiculous. It had no more validity than claiming the US could default on its debt this coming Thursday at 1pm. Could it? Sure. The Dept of the Treasury could simply refuse to service our debt obligations regardless of the availability of funds. It could have chosen to do the same after a Congressional vote against raising the debt ceiling. Or it could pay those debt obligations - an option it's never lost.
As for understanding foreign policy and debt obligations, I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. First of all, the creditors take a hit when a sovereign nation defaults, but the system adjusts and life goes on. Nations too deep into debt are generally better off defaulting than going the IMF/WB route (see also: South America for both sides of how that coin falls). Greece may have actually reached the point where a sovereign default would do that country a lot of good after some horribly painful short-term realignment of national funding and spending. If you believe sovereign default harms trade in any appreciable manner, you're terribly wrong and there's enormous amounts of history to back up that position. It's short term pain (lots of it) for the citizens living there, a period of readjustment, and then typically some excellent economic growth. If properly managed, that puts you on the fast track to success in the long term. The IMF and WB can help a moderately indebted nation chart a path toward fiscal responsibility. What they cannot do is take a nation with crushing sovereign debt and bring it into solvency and economic prosperity. There are times where austerity makes more sense and times where default makes more sense. The US is a case where austerity still makes more sense. Virtually no one has seriously argued otherwise beyond some ignorant goofballs in the tiniest of minority opinion blocks.
You obviously have chosen a side (Score:2, Insightful)
From the outside and just looking at the numbers without having a team to cheer for it appears that you've got your parties mixed up unless you are dredging up something from before Reagan.
All this partisanship and blaming the failings of your favourite team on the other team look incredibly petty and ignorant from the outside.
I think Obama and the next two or three Presidents are going to be thought of as failures because they couldn't instantly dig the USA out of the hole that Bush tossed it into.
Re:same old same old (Score:4, Insightful)
The rights that are associated with marriage such as health benefits, inheritance, etc. can be assigned in a legal agreement.
It is. The government calls it "marriage".
Re:same old same old (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically it's what leads to "a vote for Nader, is a vote for Bush" being essentially true.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and believe me, I will never make the mistake of throwing away my vote on a third party again. As long as the two major parties have billions of dollars to throw around putting their faces on every TV screen in the country, a third party doesn't have a hope in hell.
The only way to break this cycle is to completely rebuild our campaign system and basically put everyone on an exactly equal footing regardless of what party they're stumping for. Think that's ever gonna happen? Never in a million years.
This system is beyond repair.