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? "
Ted Stevens, he understands that the Internet is not like a big truck
Please check the box for the candidate you wish to support.
Republican Stooge [ ]
Democrat Stooge [ ]
Some Wacko Independant [ ]
Non of the above [X]
CowboyNeal for president!
I read slashdot for the articles.
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?
Cthulhu. "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
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
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
I'll take a stab at actually guesssing what Ron Paul's views on this are. No, I didn't read his website specifically looking for this so I could be wrong, this is just based on what I know of his philosophy and voting record.
privacy/total information awareness: He is as much a privacy nut a the biggest nut job here. Essentially, since the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to collect the data then the government does not have that power. Period. A little more unclear is his opinion on states/corporations gathering information. Corps first... my take on it is that even though he would be apalled by the practice, corporations are private entities and so the government should not prohibit then from collecting data. I really don't want to hazard a guess as to his views on state governments collecting and using data. Obviously he's opposed to it, but whether the feds should prohibit it... you'll just have to ask him.
Internet regulation and taxation: This one's easy. He's opposed to it. Period. Never voted for a tax in his life. Note that since the constitution grants the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, the question is not purely consitutional. It also means he would have no problem prohibitting states from enacting thier own taxes.(I am supposoing here...)
net neutrality: This one has me stumped. On one hand, he would support the rights of providers to run their business the way they see fit. On the other hand, they are usually government granted monopolies which he opposed. I'll have to look into this...
copyright/patent reform: This one is the one that he would disagree with most slashdotters on. While I am sure he would agree tate the current patent office is broken, I am pretty sure he will conceptually side with patent holders on this one.
the right to read: Not sure what is really meant by this? Talking about censorship perhaps? If so, then he is most certainly opposed to all forms of censorship.
the right to secure communications: I am pretty sure he would see this as a free speach issue, so yes he would be in favor of it.
the right to tinker: Pretty sure he would support this as well, despite the patent/copyright implications. At least so long it is for personal use. But this is a guess on my part.
There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances, but overall he is the one I agree with the most. I even changed my affiliation to Republican(from unaffiliated) so that I could vote for him in the primary. Do I think it would be best if he did win... not sure. But I know we need a lot more people like him in office so that maybe, a generation or two from now, we'll have the same rights we used to. It will take that long.
Yes, they should take that word and put it somewhere it can't be used. Somewhere safe. I'm not sure what you'd call such a place...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
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.
Bull shit he is all for free trade. In fact he wants lower tariffs. I hate disinformation jerks like you. It's the reason why the wrong people get elected.
t m
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.h
"We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."
Did you even see "An Inconvenient Truth"? They had this staged conversation on his cellphone as he was typing at his computer. As the conversation became more dramatic towards the end, he positioned his finger over a key and at the right climactic moment, pressed it. The key was the spacebar.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
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 best thing a president could possibly do for nerds or just about anyone else is stop making more laws and start dismantling the stupid laws perpetrated by previous governments.
I am not in the US, so I can't do much about your choice of president, but at least I can have my say here. The way I see it from here, your options can be divided unambiguously into two groups:
1: Scumbags that will sell you out, nay, have already sold you out, to whichever corporate and special interests will finance their campaign.
2: Ron Paul.
I am a cynic. I hardly expect people to vote in their own best interests. There's a reason the scumbags sell their souls for campaign money - it gets them elected. So I expect another scumbag leading your country in 2009. But please, please, for the sake of all that is good, pure and true in this world, anyone but Giuliani.
I swear, if you guys elect Giuliani, I am going to go out every weekend, find drunk Americans, and beat the crap out of them. Maybe even daily. You've been warned.
Software patents delenda est.
Actually that is not true. The votes in the swing states are divided approaching evenly between parties. That means the candidates have to work hard for any undecided's. In the non-swing states, the votes count just as much, sometimes more, but everyone knows who the overwhelming majority are going to vote for. If we got rid of the electoral college, only the votes of people in high population states would count. If it is simple majority of votes, who gives a s$$t about Alaska voters, there are probably more undecided's in Chicago than all the voters in Alaska (and certainly more in the greater metropolitan Chicago area). The biggest problem with our Presidential elections is that all the media really pays attention to is the "horse race", who's ahead in the polls, who's gaining ground who's losing ground. The news media don't really tell you about a candidates stand on an issue unless it is one they care about, and even then they distort the position. Sometimes they distort to make a candidates position seem closer to the ideal, sometimes further away. I remember one election (state or local), candidate A thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5; candidate B thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, Item 4. The local press all reported "Candidate A is opposed to Item 5, Candidate B favors it".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
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)
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.
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."
Yes, I am. These states: AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN and TX all have such provisions. See this page.
Amazing, isn't it?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Those laws are on the books, but I doubt they'd pass constitutional muster. Of course, that provision won't be tested anytime soon because of this poll:
Gallup. 2/9-11. Adults. MoE 3% (no trend lines)
If your party nominated a well-qualified Candidate For WH '08 who was _, would you vote for that person?
Yes No
Catholic 95% 4%
Black 94 5
Jewish 92 7
A woman 88 11
Hispanic 87 12
Mormon 72 24
Married for third time 67 30
72 years old 57 42
A homosexual 55 43
An atheist 45 53
Remember, even if you're well qualified, if you don't believe in the man in the sky, you aren't going to win an election.