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? "
Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.
What would make us happy?
For example net neutrality. Net neutrality pisses off some money pumpers, though, and the general population doesn't care. Will we get it?
For example, no longer blaming computer games for violence. But it's a cheap scapegoat and it makes overcareful and ignorant parents happy, and it's a cheap excuse not to change a thing about education or social issues. Not blaming games cost more money and votes than blaming them.
For example, if the mafiaa didn't get whatever laws they want handed to them. Though, we're the only ones caring, there's a lot of money coming from them, so... see first example.
Do I have to go on?
Face it, as long as we don't ship more geeks into the US from somewhere, we won't get jack from either side of the political spectrum. We don't count.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A thing to note on Ron Paul, too, is that he is one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and against Internet regulation. A few other nice things about him:
Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum...
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Here is an interesting piece (source WND) on Ron Paul in the debate and his true comments about the war:
... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.
But who was right - Rudy or Ron?
Posted: May 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."
The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous - the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.
Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
"I would ask the congressman to
A fair question and a crucial question.
When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in co
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
> Democrat Stooge [ ]
> Some Wacko Independant [ ]
> None of the above [X]
Or the next best thing. If you can't vote with your dollars, vote with your feet.
"Stephen Harper, or whoever else is Prime Minister of Canada on November 5, 2008 [X]"
Anyone who can scrape together 67 points can get in, and anyone with a Bachelor's degree (which guarantees you'll get the full 16 points for English proficiency, even though your Americanness guarantees you'll get 0 points for French :) and one year's work experience and a job offer -- or one year's work experience and a spouse with a Bachelor's degree -- is going to make the cut.
Canadian income taxes aren't much more than US income taxes. US Federal tax forms don't show the extra 6.2% that's getting taken off for Socialist Insecurity, nor do they take into effect state taxes. The Canadian federal government just turned a $10 billion surplus, and you even get the equivalent of catastrophic health care insurance in exchange for your tax dollars.
Atlas shrugs, eh?
He has the most technical experience ( Former head of the Department of Energy ), the most foreign policy experience ( Former diplomat to the UN ), and an open mind. He supports medical use of marijuana. Most of all, he seems to be an honest guy. Too many candidates seem to have a facade formed by their political handlers, Bill just appears to be who he is. And finally, he is the only candidate I have drunken a beer with, and that seals it!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I agree with respect to Ron Paul. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist until I saw how bad government can get when your guys aren't running the place. Maturity and George W. Bush have taught me that less is more.
I'm still quite the socialist*, but my view of the constitution is originalist. Many federal programs that I think are just fine are, unfortunately, not constitutional. The states should be running these programs as they see fit, not the feds. Realistically, conservatives want Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee having as little say in their lives as possible. Similarly, I want Orrin Hatch and James Inhofe having very little say in my life. The best way to do this is to return power to the states where it rightly belongs.
*I actually identify as a "states' rights liberal" if there is such a thing.
I've been saying for a long time now that slashdot (despite the wide spectrum of philosophies and voting practices of its readers) is becoming a political party. Let's face, we do have a common interest that is largely influenced by politics. America never had a united technocrats party before. You might be witnessing its emergence.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
**** ...the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.
****
Nader needs to be kicked out of the party and stuffed into a retirement home. Every time he TOUCHES the nomination, it tanks the entire party's legitimacy. I'm registered Green and I loathe the jerk. He's so far off-base from the core ideals that it would be funny if he didn't manage to self-proclaim himself the party's candidate every damn election. Watch what happens - he'll declare himself the candidate next time around, despite who the people actually vote for.
As for Republican, Ron Paul without a doubt. The powermongering and consolidation of power in D.C. is appalling and needs to stop now before the entire system implodes. Or we turn into a police state like the U.K. We need a massive swing back towards the center and he's the only person who's even entertaining the notion.
As for Democrat, obviously Obama, since he has the least political connections and time in the system(and therefore the least corrupted). He seem pretty level-headed, like with this vote - he said he'd read it before he made his mind up. Gosh - what a novel concept! Reading legislation instead of toting the party line!. Btw, he did vote against it. This should be the litmus test for Democrats, btw - whether they voted to stop the war or not.
You're very confused about the reasoning behind these votes. A little more due diligence on your part would go a long way toward understanding government. I will comment on the reasons, though.
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
-- Government should not be funding research.
# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
-- Government is not constitutionally authorized to restrict such transport.
# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
-- Federal government is not authorized to make this a crime, this is an area where only states are supposed to have law making power.
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
-- The abortion issue is tricky, all libertarians do not agree on this. The logic goes like this: All people own themselves, their life, their person, etc. All people have full control of their property, and nobody may take that away from you unless you are attempting to take it from someone else first. One person's rights ends where another persons begins. Two adults have an exactly equal right to life, and no matter how beneficial it is for one person to harm another person, you may never do so unless you are threatened.
So using the above principle, person a is an unborn baby, and person b is the mother. Person A and person B have equal right to life. But at exactly which moment do all of these rights kick in? When do they start to exist? Conception? Viability? Birth? We know they kick in at some point, because all people have them, and they are inalienable. So where is it? Viability is a moving target. Does it make sense that these rights exist now at 7 months whereas 100 years ago they existed at 8 months?
The above quandary will go away eventually. In 500 years when viability is the same as conception, it will no longer be a moving target, and then we can say that rights begin at conception, I suppose.
But don't say Ron Paul is not for the rights of women. He is for the rights of everybody equally. You only differ in when you think a baby's rights start to exist.
# Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
-- Government is not authorized by the constitution to regulate cloning.
# Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
-- Government is not supposed to be promoting particular social agendas.
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
-- Government should not be taking money from hard working taxpayers in the US and sending out to foreign countries. If people wish to do do foreign charity work they should do it themselves. This is not in the purview of government.
Ran outta time, have to run. Hopefully the above will get you started.
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools (AKA religious schools)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Actually, there's both view on both sides of the political spectrum. Some conservatives want big government (as the current administration does), while other conservatives want small government (libertarians). Effectively, big government = federal rule, and small government = states rights.
Liberals are the same way - there are those who want the federal government to stay out of their lives and primarily be involved in regulating businesses, dealing with other countries, etc. Then there are the liberals who want the "mommy society", as a previous poster put it - i.e. the federal government regulating everything that could conceivably be considered harmful in any way.
The constitution says, in article 1, section 8, paragraph 3, (emphasis mine):
It does not say:
The supreme court has ruled that "among" essentially means "within" because (ready?) anything that happens "within" could have happened "among."
Seriously. Look it up.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That isn't what your constitution says. Bill Clinton, and any other two-term elected president, is constitutionally barred from being elected president. That's all that the 22nd amendment says. He isn't barred from holding any other elected office, including vice president, or ascending to the presidency by some other means. (Say he ran for Congress, got elected Speaker, and then the P & VP both die. He's next in line, he takes over.)