Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?
blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "
With the existing electoral system, only those in swing states matter. Most of the other votes are essentially discarded.
Deleted
With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.
I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?
I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?
A very clear choice -- He has stated repeatedly that he does not want to regulate the internet in any way. (Most of his other views, immigration not withstanding, are sensible as well.)
An Gore/Clinton ticket would be interesting. It'll give historians and talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.
A person running that actually has enough integrity to stand behind what he says. Don't think you could say that about another person running...period.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.
1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.
2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.
If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.
Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.
go get it
Wrong. Slashdot is a group that doesn't (as a group) have clear priorities, communicate them to politicians, and give lots of money to political campaigns based on them, therefore as a group it doesn't exist to politicians.
Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.
Gore? Not even close. Gore is an entitlement vector. Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork; worse yet, he'd push the mommy government even deeper into it's trend of legislating against consensual, victimless, informed actions. He's your 2nd worst nightmare.
Ron Paul is by far the candidate that not only represents the "nerd", but also the actual basis for the government, the constitution. The only thing a president can really do (legitimately) is fool with foreign policy, and Paul isn't the least interested in making war on anyone - check out his positions. If we could get a congress that had actually read and understood the constitution (not to mention a supreme court), then you'd really have something.
But we all know what's going to happen: Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.
If you really want improvement, cast your vote for Ron Paul. It won't be wasted, because as the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates... so it won't make a bit of difference where your vote goes if you vote for anyone else. After all, we can't have Bush again. Unless he makes another illegal executive order, of course.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.
Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.
Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
and from the sounds of it is thus the only person who was standing on that stage who is not an idiot.
Invading Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true. He probably thought that just luring us into Afghanistan would be enough to weaken us, but then we went and not only got ourselves embroiled in an even bigger quagmire, we also took out a huge enemy of his for him. The only way in which bin Laden could have been made happier is if we had gotten involved in an even bigger quagmire by trying to take out an even bigger enemy of Osama's, namely Iran. Thank God we didn't; Iraq is an episode of American Idol compared to what invading Iran would be like.
We do not excuse - but we must understand.
Nobody fucking understands the difference anymore, and it's made us retarded. If you even imply that the terrorists are not completely insane, completely evil, and driven by nothing less than the demonic forces of hell to kill, then you are condoning their behavior. If you try to discuss the actual motivations behind their actions, you are just making excuses.
We are deliberately avoiding understanding our enemies under the guise of patriotism, and as a result we don't understand our enemies and thus, unsurprisingly, we are completely inneffective against them.
The enemies of Democracy are
Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.
Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.
Indeed it was. That doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional.
The problem when you ignore the constitution for "good" programs, you must also ignore the constitution for "bad" programs. Either the feds have the power or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose when they do based on which party is in control of the legislature.
Actually states' rights is the belief of the minority party in the legislature.
Everyone falls back on "leave it to the states" when they have no power to affect the change at the national level. Once they get in power, sticking up for states' rights falls by the wayside.
We can see this in action with respect to the Republican party. They were for states' rights for most of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. That was because they were the minority party during those years in the House. They gained control in '95 and made the transformation to "big government conservatism" right around 2000 (if not before).
No. For instance, what works for New York State, a verdant, wet and well populated region, will not work for Montana; we have other environmental issues. Socially, we're also different: Actions taken legally in Connecticut (for instance, that the state can steal your property under eminent domain for the basically evil purpose of getting more tax revenue out of it), are 100% illegal in Montana for the specific reason that we have our own bureaucracy and they aren't quite as batshit insane as those legislators abusing the citizens of Connecticut. Texans can't sell sex toys (poor bastards), but we can. In some states, atheists can't hold public office. Unbelievable, but 100% true. Please keep both the feds and your own state's ideas far, far, away — really, if you want these laws, by all means, but keep them to yourselves. I'm sure you don't want our idea of what is good law forced on you, either. People significantly differ in outlook by region for both social and practical geographical reasons.
State's rights are critically important, likewise it is important that we stop the feds from illegitimately taking over everything they put their nasty little fingers on. Take a look at what they've done with the commerce clause if you want to see just how out of their tiny little minds they are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
After all, it defeats the point if one can't move away from states with bad policies and into states with good policies.
It also removes a useful remedial effect: States with bad policies would see a population (and revenue) drop, while states with good policies would see gains. This would tend to send a wake up call to the worse states, which would act, based on economic pressure, to adjust the bad policies to be more in line with what people actually want. The more homogenous the states are, the less leverage the citizens have. Voting with your wallet (and your feet) is a great way to say "no thanks, buddy" to politicians that are out of control. With the feds running everything (and they pretty much are trying to), the differences erode and the citizen's power to force change with their feet/wallet erodes at the same time.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I agree completely, even though I'm supporting Ron Paul.
I'm not a libertarian at the state level. I'm a pretty radical socialist. If Ron Paul was running for my state rep or governor, I wouldn't give him the time of day. I'd be looking for someone to the left of Kucinich (if there is such a thing).
I'm a libertarian at the federal level because forcing my ideas on to the people of all 50 states is a bad way to get things done. You and I could be happy in our liberal paradise with our socialized medicine, $10/hr minimum wage, decent public schools, etc. The fine people in Utah wouldn't.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, the "red states" are a net negative on the treasury (they take in more federal money than they dole out in taxes). They're always trying to shove religion down our throat as well. Cut them loose and let them turn their population into a bunch of idiot hicks that can't get a job. We'll do just fine without them TYVM.
Let the politicians in the shitty states screw up their own states AND NOTHING MORE.
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.
libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions
Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.
and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom
I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party. I've said it before
Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?
Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.
Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.
Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."
Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork.
Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.
You're using an interesting technique to tar the Democrats.
First, haul out the old canard that the Democrats are less fiscally responsible than the Republicans. That may have been true when Walter Mondale was running for President, but those times are long gone. The White House and Congress have presided over an enormous porkfest over the last six years. Instead of inefficient social welfare programs, it's being spent on Halliburton and Blackwater. The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. As long as you spend it on war, somehow it's not as wasteful as spending it on social programs. The Democrats have become more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, at least at the national level.
Next, blame the Democrats for the failures of the Republican Party. Ohmigosh! The Democrats haven't suddenly extracated us from Iraq! You seem to think that the Democrats have been doing nothing, but there has been a heated battle on Capitol Hill over funding the war. The budget is the only weapon the Democrats have in this situation, and everyone knows that if they go nuclear with the budget, they'll lose their leverage. It is Bush's complete refusal to listen to the will of the public, to budge even one inch, that is keeping us in Iraq. Let's put the blame where it really lies, with the self-proclaimed "War President."
the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates
There are differences. Look at where our national priorities were under two terms of Clinton and compare that to two terms of Bush. Look at the issues that are most important to Republican voters (Guns & God), and the issues that are most important to Democratic voters (Jobs & Environment). The fact that both parties have money behind them doesn't mean that there are no differences between them.
That said, I think we need more choices. A choice between two parties doesn't adequately represent the range of views in the American electorate. Paul certainly looks more credible than any third-party candidate in recent memory. Unfortunately, the sort of government Paul wants is a radical return to a prewar ideal that may be impossible to achieve, given the fact that government is the largest employer in the United States.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Most people aren't going to change states because of their state's policies. Also, environmental issues of one state effect the environment in other states.
Taking this idea even further, would you be pissed if you were a landowner and your next door neighbor decided to build a power plant and a toxic waste dump on his property? Clearly anyone who doesn't like it should leave his property. But you are on a different property.
If only it were *really* that simple. I personally have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, despite disagreeing with him on many things. But neither Ron Paul nor Al Gore would (currently) be able to affect the changes nerds want. Not because they don't want to, but because it's up to Congress to make and repeal laws. A president makes a great figurehead, but if nerds want to be represented, they need to start replacing their representatives, which is a long and slow process, if it's even possible at all. Nerds would essentially have to band together and gain a *majority* in a significant fraction of the 50 states and 435 districts. Let me know when we get started on that.