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.
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: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:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one way to look at it....I see things a slightly different:
*Republicans believe that nothing should hold back an individual or group from achieving success and happiness provided that it is done in a way that is not that harmful to society or others - also, that ideally all individuals and families should be positive role models. Furthermore, republicans generally believe that each section of society has a proper role and size where the family is responsible for giving kids a good start in life and being the primary resource for handling emergencies and major events, that the individual is responsible for what he achieves and his health, that religion and churches should look after the moral health of society and also be the venue through which most general welfare and charitable activities be handled, that government be limited to providing basic infrastructure and a neutral safe ground for everyone to interact, and lastly that when decisions in government be made that it be at the level closest to those impacted (e.g. local control of schools rather than state/federal).
*Democrats believe the republican "traditional approach" has failed or otherwise lets too many people out in the cold. Their arguments are more from the emotional side (e.g. everyone has a right to good health, it is better that we all have the same standard of living than that some do too much better than others, that too many people are not capable of governing their own life and we should use government to ensure they are both cared for and that their actions be for the general good).
Both approaches have their pluses and minuses.....I see the sensible middle ground being that for society to succeed long term it must blend both, enough of the republican approach to have wealth, and enough of the democrat approach for everyone to feel they've had a fair chance at life and not rebel.
Politics is more intense now simply because the USA is at the start or middle of an economic decline and there are two approaches being discussed. Republicans want to do everything possible to recover growth and wealth (no matter how painful it will be). Democrats are more fatalistic and believe that we should be directing our attention towards managing the decline in such a way that no one group gets hurt too bad, and that if any group must be hurt -- it should be at the higher end. Unfortunately, these two approaches are somewhat the opposite of each other...
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:You obviously have chosen a side (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the debt accrued during Obama's term is attributed the unfunded liabilities introduced in Bush's terms. Most the debt comes from the Bush tax cuts and Bush pharma bill which has never been funded. The majority of the debt added directly by Obama is attributed to one time costs associated with stimulus packages.
If you think Obama is doing a worse job than Bush you aren't paying attention, or you're only paying attention to Fox News.
Re:You obviously have chosen a side (Score:4, Informative)
There are some great infographics [cbpp.org] that show the debt over time and the effect Bush's unfunded programs had on the debt. I think it was even shown on the Daily Show one night. Looking at the first graphic, the white area at the bottom is what the deficit might look like if neither Bush nor the economic downturn hadn't happened. You might have a hard time seeing the white area, it's very small. Looking at the second chart, you'll noticed the single largest contributing factor to the debt is the Bush tax cuts, and it's contribution gets larger each year. In theory, if Bush had been replaced with an inanimate carbon rod, the U.S. debt would be almost half of what it stands at today.
Of course, there are other informative graphics, like this Debt as a Percentage of GDP [fastcompany.com] graphic. The most important fact to note from this graphic is that the rate of growth of the debt is actually slowing. If Obama were making the problem worse, the debt should be growing faster.
There's also a pair of infographics on this article [nytimes.com] from the New York times. The first one shows the difference between Clinton's policies and Bush's policies. At the end of Clinton's (Jan 2001), the Congressional Budget office was predicting 10 years of surpluses, if Clinton's policies were continued and the economy continued to grow at the same rate. At the end of Bush's term (Jan 2009) the congressional budget office was predicting 10 years of massive deficits if Bush's policies were continued even if the economy returned to normal growth.
The second New York Times graphic shows the contributions of Bush and Obama to the debt by policy change ($5.07 trillion for Bush and $1.44 trillion for Obama). $1.136 trllion of the Obama's debt contribution is stimulus spending and stimulus tax cuts. $0.278 trillion is non-defense discretionary spending and $0.152 trillion is health reform and entitlement changes. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Bush tax cuts each were responsible for more debt by themselves than all of Obama's policies combined (projected costs across 2 terms to make the numbers comparable).
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Because his "reasoned and well written opinion" is not backed up by the policies actually supported by Democratic legislatures and presidents, which have also enriched a lot of people "at the top." What he ascribes to the Republicans is actually a fairly universal consensus in both parties: called, variously, "neoliberalism," the "American consensus," etc. The Democrats are comfortable with a concentration of wealth in the top of the financial services sector, in the top of various cultural industries and "brand" firms, in all the things that make up the tertiary economy. Now, that happens to coincide with the interests of some other groups: generally, those economies prosper when there is more retail activity - that is, when the market is spread out wide. This is especially true for IT, culture/entertainment, and retail sectors. Policies which "dislodge" a bit of the wealth are useful to those sectors, but not ones which encourage saving. The Republicans' interest bloc thrives more with B2B; labor costs reduce the dynamism of B2B economics, and so they are less likely to want to increase the minimum wage, are a bit more interested in keeping the pressure on the worker so that they don't take too much of their employers' revenues, etc. But ultimately, they are both serving the interests of the (different) elites who fund them, back them, hang out with them, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
While I can see an argument for Democrats heavily favoring culture and entertainment, can you please cite any examples in recent memory where Democrats act in the interest of financial services any more than Republicans? The current democratic president has created an entire oversight body to attempt to reign in the corruption rampant in that industry, and Republicans in congress have blocked it from becoming fully operational until the looming recess appointment of its director.
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: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)
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: (Score:3)
Sadly, thanks to the paradoxical voting system the US uses where each person gets one vote to cast in favor of one candidate in a one-pass election, there's this thing called the Spoiler Effect. Basically it's what leads to "a vote for Nader, is a vote for Bush" being essentially true. It forces people to game their vote rather than casting it where their true preferences lie and, although it doesn't make upsets impossible, it creates a very strong attractor towards a two party system.
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: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: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: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: (Score:3)
There could be quite a spirited debate about affirmative action, but allowing gay marriage is, like, the opposite of pushing your moral agenda on to people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never had any objection to people being wealthy, even ridiculously wealthy, and most Democrats that I've talked to on this matter do not have a problem with this either. The problem is in shirking responsibilities. No legal document founding this country makes any guarantee of being wealthy, or any respect for it.
If you want to talk about what wealth disparity does, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. ALL had large elements of a super-rich, corrupt elite who wouldn't return to society some of the fruits of their success that they benefitted from society. When income and resource inequality gets too far out of whack, revolution happens.
I am not going to get into a debate about affirmative action right now, the issues of generations of racial discrimination and the ramifications of it are far too far reaching to get in to depth on in this forum. On the other hand, I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to have a gay marriage. I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to participate in a blow job, or in birth control, or in sex for pleasure, or in sex in anything other than the missionary position (I'm pointing directly at Santorum here), nor is anyone forcing them to have premarital sex or extramarital affairs. The point in this is that Democrats generally want to not prohibit activities between consenting adults. I do, however, see Republicans arguing that their social restrictions on who can have sex with who when everyone involved are consenting adults, and I find that more disgusting than any of the sexual practices that they seek to render illegal between those consenting adults.
I was referring to the elected officials, not to the public. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. In my opinion, Democrats should have removed the filibuster from the Senate's rules of order and rammed single-payer-with-optout (ie, if you opt out, no one is required to care for you if you can't pay), end of DADT, appointment of judges, cabinet post and agency director positions, and a whole host of other legislation down Republicans' throats just as the Republicans did when they managed to gain majorities in both chambers.
I know, you're libertarian, so you don't like many of my ideas, but if you want roads, clean air, clean water, postal delivery, the ability to purchase things that require loans, someone to deal with the results of your rights being violated, someone to put out fires, and much, much more, you'll need some form of organizing body, and that is called Government.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats suck at falling in line... Why do you think there was so much softening of things like health care reform, and a failure of the card check bills? because DEMOCRATS pealed off.
If there were bills on the floor that a a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house had to pass, and a republican president, you would have the majority leader, the speaker and the president deciding what the bills look like, and when they will be scheduled to be voted on.
Re: (Score:3)
How is a coal miner voting for Obama a vote against his self interest? Unless you mean to say that he should have voted Green....a Libertarian vote would certainly not be in his interests (you think the Libertarian party supports mine safety regulations with string inspections?)
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: (Score:3)
It's difficult to say these days, in this mad race to the bottom. Both sides take a lot of money from business interests that are counter to popular opinion. Take SOPA (please) as an example.
The almighty campaign contribution, rather than sentiment among the voters of one's jurisdiction seems to rule these days. There are some marquee social issues, but those are red herrings to the real problems-- like the advance of global weather change, uproarious pollution, hundreds of thousands of deaths in Middle Eas
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: (Score:3)
Yeah! Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution, with all the gay marriage bans involved in it.
Re:So you like NDAA, SOPA/PIPA and high unemployme (Score:5, Informative)
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions. So don't give me that bullshit that he's not against gay marriage.
And I'll believe the stance that he wants to "get the federal government out of marriage altogether" when he introduces a bill to remove recognition of straight marriage from the federal government.
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: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: (Score:3)
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates? Come to terms with it already; you`re NEVER going to have a candidate who meets you on every single view you have.
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?
And in the 1950s you'd have been saying "Christ, again with the civil rights shit" and in the 1850s "Christ, again with the anti-slavery shit" I suppose?
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Informative)
Yes and no. Democrats definitely are not defined as "look at individuals for success"; the Republicans often like to bash them for being the opposite of that in their support of big government programs. The parties are too hard to define so succinctly though. Democrats are for the workers but they're actually more supportive of unions than actual individual workers per se. Both parties are mostly beholden to big campaign donors, whether those donors are sitting on top of a giant pool of workers versus a giant pool of stockholders. The "big business" side of Republicans is just a small and declining wing of the party, and it's much less of a division between the two than it was in the past.
I definitely disagree with the naive European view that the two parties are identical. Just because both lean to the right of the European center does not make them identical. There are distinct and obvious differences. Maybe in certain areas they look very much alike (pro-business).
A big problem is that because we have a winner-takes-all process in most districts in the US we end up with a defacto two party system. A third party that's viable is very rare and doesn't last long. The two dominant parties will dance around a bit and end up covering roughly half the populace each, with things always kept in flux due to internal party divisions and occasional offshoots. A European parliament may form a coalition of a few parties in order to gain a majority control whereas the US Republican and Democratic parties are essentially coalitions themselves. This is what makes the US parties so hard to understand since they're internally inconsistent.
Very broadly speaking and due to history, Republicans tend to be mostly rural and southern whereas Democrats are urban and on the coasts. And this strongly influences their outlook. Republicans in the last 50 years have also been the most staunchly anti-communist as well (and thus anti-socialist). So a more rural Republican base is very distrustful of anything to do with welfare whereas a more urban Democratic base is in favor of government programs and assistance. However that strong southern and rural leaning in the Republicans make them much more conservative with regards to moral issues than the urban Democrats.
So you end up with the inconsistency of the Republicans being for individual freedoms in economic issues while being in favor of restrictions on individual freedoms in social areas, with the reverse broadly holding true for Democrats. Most of the other big differences can be traced back to either historical issues or the demographics of the voting bases. And the history goes all the way back to before the states were independent.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take an admittedly poor attempt to distinguish.
Republicans want little or no regulation in the economy. They believe that government regulation stifles business, slows the economy, and discourages creativity.
Democrats favor more regulation in the economy. They believe this helps set a fair playing field, fosters creativity and competition, and discourages abuse.
It's overly simplified, and the taxation question is just an absolute mess from my perspective. Lately, I've seen less of the religious tilt
Re: (Score:3)
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lot more complicated than that. In each party you have different groups coming together - like monacle-wearing big-bussiness types teaming up with social conservatives in the GOP, or big labor teaming up with environmentalists in the DP. Sometimes one group may even believe things which conflict with the party's platform, but a key issue forces them back to the table - like religious types who like the social policies of the DP but stick with the GOP because of abortion, or blue collar workers who like the social conservatism or 'tough on crime' stance of the GOP.
In all cases, both parties are manipulated and controlled by politicians. Some have entered politics for noble causes, some for personal gain, and some for a feeling of importance or entitlement.
Both parties seem to favor some form of big business nowadays - possibly because big business is how things get done in America. Big business manufactures the products, hires the workers, and organizes us into something that has increased our standard of living(while having many, many obvious negative effects - I'm not getting into that).
Geek interest? Start with science. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
- Creationism is a valid theory. (Nevermind fossils or the definition of scientific "theory".)
- Global warming is a hoax or not something that should be addressed. (Nevermind the data and the >98% concurrence among climatologists.)
- Vaccines cause retardation (Nevermind... facts)
- Abstinence education is effective. (Nevermind the data that show how high pregnancy rates are when it's all that's available.)
- Abortion is pretty much never a medical necessity. (That's from the ACTUAL PHYSICIAN candidate, too.)
- Being gay is a mental disease/lifestyle choice/bad decision/horrible influence on children (Nevermind that the AMA and American Psychiatric association recognize it as normal variation, and studies show gay parents are fine.)
- Sex is only for man-woman-marriage-baby-making. (Nevermind reality. And Newt Gingrich.)
It's quite evocative of that famous Asimov quote: Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
I wish sanity were something that was a little easier to parlay into support, but the Primaries are the Crazy Olympics, and it's all about who can out-God and out-blue-collar the next.
I want to like a party that espouses fiscal and personal responsibility. I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
If you want to see what I think very well may be an exhaustive list of literally every person running for President of the United States in 2012, I think this site may have it, together with what contact information is available for each of the candidates:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/candidates.phtml#LBTN.1 [thegreenpapers.com]
It really is an exhaustive list, including would-be challengers to Barack Obama for the Democratic Party nomination and a host of 3rd party candidates as well. I will promise you that in this list i
Re: (Score:3)
It has been explained to me this way:
"The Republicans are on the right like our conservative party, whereas the Democrats are on the right like our conservative party.".
Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:4, Interesting)
"We do have to make sure that there are computers in a computer age inside classrooms, and that they work and that there’s Internets that are actually -- there are Internet connections that actually function." - Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/president-obama-internets_n_891781.html
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.
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: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:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me put it this way: sit Bush and Obama down. Give each one a motherboard, hard drive, and all the other makings of a PC. I'd bet decent odds that Bush would have the thing working first.
(Note: I am not asserting that either man is smarter than the other, just that Bush is more experienced with, and more likely to be comfortable with, dealing with technology shorn of its user-friendly trappings. Sending emails on a Blackberry doesn't qualify).
Geek issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geek issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
Geeks don't agree, but geeks don't literally come down as on only one side of each of several issues with another group of geeks coming down on exactly the opposite side of the set of issues either. A politician who knows the issues and can actually talk about them with some kind of insight is the kind of person we would ultimately want, even if not everyone agrees with everything they stand for all of the time.
My wife is an MIT alum and is really active in her alumni group, so I know A LOT of extreme übergeeks. They fall all over the place as far as opinions on the political responsibilities and ramifications of technology, yet they all would agree that generally understanding and employing technology and being able to look at the results of its usage is essential in the further progression of society. After all, Technology is what differentiates human beings from all of the other animals on this planet. We are the only species that engages in any sort of high level manufacturing beyond a little bit of the use of found objects in a few other mammals.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'm not 100% certain that the submitter meant to discuss "geek issues". That's the title of this story, but that phrase isn't used in the summary.
Personally, I think that's a good thing. If one is determined to cast a vote based solely (or even mainly) on a candidate's viewpoints on net neutrality or SOPA, I think one needs to reevaluate one's priorities. With all that is going on in the world today, and in America specifically, I have a difficult time seeing these as the most pressing issues for
choosing between 2 parties (Score:5, Funny)
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
I would think that IRV (Instant-Runoff Voting) would abolish such foolishness otherwise known as a political duopoly.
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing legally or constitutionally prohibiting another political party from forming in America. Indeed there are several other would-be political parties that routinely get votes and even hold conventions and at least pretend to be competing against the major two.
The problem is really one of money and people willing to support those parties.
This said, I would have to agree with you that some of the legal mechanisms that keep the major parties entrenched into their position and keep other minor parties from getting accepted is a tragedy and something that ought to be fixed in some fashion. Something even as mundane as proportional allocation of electoral votes (tried in Colorado, and the voters failed to pass the referendum question) would go a long way to helping support 3rd parties being recognized as a legitimate political force. Or more importantly simply winning some seats somewhere, even if it isn't everywhere (like the Libertarians are trying to do with the Free State Project).
There are valiant attempts to go beyond the two major parties, but it takes people doing something about it rather than constantly bitching that they need to go. You also have to be very creative in terms of working within the system as you need to be aware that the deck is stacked against you.
H. Ross Perot had a real chance to make a real difference, had he not flaked out so awfully. If some billionaire or even a not so terribly huge group of multi-millionaires got together and wanted to make a real challenge to the status quo, I'm pretty certain they could make it work. Or perhaps if a group of more ordinary folks got together and put together a genuine populist movement (Occupy Wall Street actually getting organized in some fashion?) they a true competitive 3rd party could form. The sad thing is that most of the 3rd party groups want to remain 3rd party groups and aren't focused on actually winning elections instead of spreading their political message. That takes a whole lot of work, organization, and effort.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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: (Score:3)
At the same time, voting on your ideals can allow the greater evil to move in. While there are far better voting systems out there, until they are changed, we kinda have to do what we can with what we have. Change the voting system before you bitch at people for not voting for more 3rd party candidates.
John Huntsman (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:John Huntsman (Score:5, Informative)
He's the only acceptable one in the GOP bunch. Romney is second but he's clearly a 1-percenter and beholden to big money so you can't expect any solutions from him.
Perry and Santorum are GWB squared and Libertarianism is a stupid outdated ideology so Paul doesn't make the cut either although he has a few good ideas. Gingrich has proven that he's an unethical asshole (just like Perry and Santorum.)
Re: (Score:3)
Huntsman's a 1%er too, you know. He's not batshit crazy and seems able to respect those he disagrees with, but he's certainly rich.
Re:John Huntsman (Score:5, Informative)
He's the only acceptable one in the GOP bunch. Romney is second but he's clearly a 1-percenter and beholden to big money so you can't expect any solutions from him. Perry and Santorum are GWB squared and Libertarianism is a stupid outdated ideology so Paul doesn't make the cut either although he has a few good ideas. Gingrich has proven that he's an unethical asshole (just like Perry and Santorum.)
A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the banks. Let's take a look and see who's paying for his campaign. Shall we?
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500
Courtesy of Open Secrets:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286 [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:3)
>>You can see John Huntsman tip toe around certain questions about the envrionment by saying that he believes that a leader should listen to the experts in the field on the issues.
Hmm? He believes in global warming and evolution. He's the most pro-science candidate the Republicans have. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, it's been reported.
He also speaks Chinese, and is all round I think the best candidate. I'll vote for him if he 1) Didn't forge that racist attack ad against him and 2) He hasn't
Re: (Score:3)
That's GP's point, that Huntsman's position is reasonable, even though he won't say it strongly for fear of alienating the party. The rest of the field believe they are their own experts when it comes to climate change.
Only question you need to ask (Score:5, Funny)
What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
Next time you're at one of their townhall meetings, just ask one simple question -
vi or emacs?
Two party system is failing us (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 outrigh
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure it's the two-party system that's failing. It's more the division of power that is failing you.
Most Westminster-system governments are more-or-less two-party systems, but there are many 3rd and 4th parties that "keep the bastards honest" like we say in Australia.
A Westminster system of govenment [wikipedia.org] means that the executive is accountable to the Parliament and is an elected member. Which means they can be replaced at any time and must answer questions in Parliament.
Judging your politics as an outsid
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. ]
Re: (Score:3)
I think foreign policy and economics are far more important than SOPA and patent law.
What makes you think that SOPA and patent law has no impact on economics? As far as I can tell, SOPA will be the death of a good chunk of the New Economy 3.0 companies....
Pete Ashdown! (Score:5, Informative)
Pete Ashdown isn't running for president, but he is running for a senate seat against that epic ass clown Orrin Hatch. He started the best ISP I've ever used here in Utah and has run for congress before with a very tech-savvy platform and utilized cool technologies in his campaign.
Check him out: http://peteashdown.org/ [peteashdown.org]
In my mind getting rid of Orrin Hatch and getting Pete Ashdown to replace him is killing two birds with one stone.
Re: (Score:3)
Read his statement on NDAA and SOPA here and see if you agree: http://peteashdown.org/journal/2012/01/06/ndaa-sopa-and-upcoming-volunteer-meetin/ [peteashdown.org]
We have met the enemy and he is us (Score:3)
Ron Paul (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties
Yes, he has that perfect civil liberties stance of being against gay marriage.
And no, I don't believe the idea that he's against government in all marriage. Get him to introduce a bill that removes recognition of straight marriage from the federal government, and then maybe I'll think about him.
And with his "let the states decide!" bullshit, how would conservatives like it if states were to decide whether or not you could have guns?
Re: (Score:3)
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
Sound policies? He wants to take off the straight-jackets in the sociopath ward of our society.
Granted, his views on the military are something that I happen to agree with, but turning our country into even more of a greed-fueled, egocentric, plutocracy is not my idea of progress.
He seems to believe that humans are fundamentally good and altruistic. We aren't. If we were, then systems like capitalism, communism, and socialism would work just fine. However, history has shown repeatedly that a not insignifica
If you can't vote for actual socialists, nobody? (Score:5, Interesting)
A conservative should be against disruption, and a progressive should be in favour of, well, progress.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Democratic politicians are not unlikely to be in the back pocket of Big Coal, Big Oil, and Big Content, where they try not to notice the Republicans in there with them. At least Republicans hate solar, we can at least distinguish the two on one tech issue.
Frankly, I think ALL the available politicians are "conservative" about disruptive technologies, since new companies are still poor and unable to bribe\\\\\\ contribute to their campaigns, and the existing Powers That Be are able to ensure that any disruptions are thwarted, or at least slowed down.
I think that Canada's NDP ("New Democratic Party" - based on the British Labour Party - no longer actual socialists, but as far as we go in that direction) does show what a genuinely progressive party would be like in the States. They don't take corporate contributions. And here's the most anti-DRM piece I've ever read from a national politician - from an NDP Member of Parliament, last month in the Huffington Post, protesting our Conservative Party's new "C11" bill:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/copyright-canada-reform-bill-c-11_b_1143332.html [huffingtonpost.ca]
Excerpt:
"Most nations with modern copyright laws do not criminalize bypassing digital locks for non-commercial use. They allow people to burn a CD from music purchased on an iPod. They let you copy a new DVD to your laptop. They don't prevent someone who is visually impaired from using software to read ebooks aloud. They don't stop teachers from referencing other media to illustrate a lesson. Under Bill C-11, all of these acts are crimes."
USA pirate party (Score:3)
http://us.pirate.is/ [pirate.is]
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not Ron Paul this time.
Not first post.
Frist isn't running for president.
Wrong on three counts.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not Ron Paul any time.
His preferred position on economics is to ignore that silly mathematics stuff and go with a mix of psychology and gut instinct.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:5, Funny)
The free market is magic. It's powered by unicorns. Have some faith.
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: (Score:3)
I think libertarians want to minimize government, not do away with government regulation entirely .
Re: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:3)
let's be honest. no keynesian thinks the stimulus was enough, nor spent in the correct places, regardless of economic growth rate. it was certainly stimulus (and mostly ineffective), but not keynesian stimulus.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the republican narrative:
1) If the economy recovered, Keynesian stimulus prevented a more robust recovery!
2) If the economy didn't recover, the stimulus did not work!
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Yep, that's what you get with flawed reasoning.
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:5, Informative)
Erm... I'm pretty sure RP has a much, much better mathematical background in economics than any of the other candidates. He has actually written books on it, is a member of the Mises institute, and has photos of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard on his wall.
I'm not sure if I agree %100 on his monetary policies, but he's certainly learned about it. You might prefer Keynesian economics but its certainly not more based in mathematics.
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: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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if that were true, and it's not, then I'd still rather go with the "gut instinct" of the guy who predicted the housing crash on the floor of the congress back in 2002, to all the other candidates who have been telling me that "we're in recovery" from 2007 onward.
Re:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:5, Informative)
The Democratic Senators from Oregon are both opposed to SOPA- and Ron Wyden has offered his services to Fillibuster it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate. I'm sorry to break it to you, but he's just about the last person that ought to be in charge of a country the size of the US. Excessive rigidity in thinking is just as dangerous, if not more so, than excessive malleability is. Most people want a candidate that represents them and doesn't change his or her mind without good cause. Having somebody that refuses to change his or her mind ever isn't something that's going to work well. Just look at the TEA Party morons that los
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:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:4, Interesting)
In short appealing to an extremely small minority...
21.4% for third place in Iowa is not "extremely small" when the leading two got only ~24.5% each. Yet another attempt to marginalize Paul and his supporters.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic
See above. And if you're calling the overwhelming support from military personnel "a tiny demographic," then perhaps you should enlist and put your ass on the line. I hear Iran's pretty nice this time of year.
if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having.
A moronic and naive statement given the state of American politics. Obama, for example. Where's all that hope and change he promised? How do we know a candidate will work in our best interests based just on what they say? What about the other republican crackpots?
Also, this is a false dilemma...
No, believing that one should vote only for an establishment candidate on either side of the fence is a false dillemma, one that's been utterly ruinous to our country. If Ron Paul is elected, two things could happen: The first is that Ron Paul will spectacularly betray us like Obama did. Okay, fair enough, people start either fleeing the country or picking up their guns. Maybe Ron Paul will be elected but be powerless to do anything. That's fine, because at least some progress was made and the message was sent. Same if Ron Paul didn't win, but got at least a third of the votes.
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: (Score:3)
Actually, the one country that has had the best response to the AIDS crisis has been Cuba- their solution? Send entire families into internal, if very comfortable, exile, and make sure they have the best comfort and symptom drugs available in the world. They effectively limited the spread of AIDS to the 3% of returning soldiers lent to the USSR for 1970s and 1980s adventures in Africa- and NO other group, not even homosexuals, have gotten AIDS. Complete segregation *works* when it comes to disease preven
Re: (Score:3)
If you've been paying attention, you' d know the following:
- Ron Paul did not write those
- Ron Paul has disavowed them
- Ron Paul has admitted this as a mistake
It's a pretty lame excuse to the hold something against him, knowing the above 3 facts, unless you can say you've never screwed up. It's also pretty lame considering he's consistently talked about issues for the past 30 years, and says what he believes even when it's unpopular.