Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans
A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.
By that standard, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant, too.
Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!
Fucking moron.
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
Corporatism != Free Market
I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
Polls a few days ago showed Huckabee leading in a few southern states. Granted, it's highly unlikely that he'll carry enough to actually do anything.... but he's splitting the conservative vote with Romney and handing the nomination to McCain in the process. Paul is not affecting this race.
Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?
The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*
McCain should hang his head in shame and drop out right now. 2% better than the dark horse candidate? That's pathetic.
The establishment hates Ron Paul because his platform is to take their toys away. The economic collapse we are now experiencing makes the likelyhood of Paul running away with the Republican nomination increasingly likely as spring turns to summer.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
It's a ploy by the slashdot editors. By omitting Ron Paul, they ensure he's the only one people will talk about.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.
RFC2119
I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
:wq
There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture. It's nice to hear someone just flat out say torture is bad and we shouldn't be doing it. Don't hem and haw about how what is torture and what isn't. Just say no. It doesn't get you reliable information and it's kind of hard to hold moral high ground with some guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room.
Actually, the post says "...discuss the best presidential candidates...". Granted, you may define "best" as having a chance of winning the nomination, as judged by your personal criteria. Perhaps other people define "best" differently, such as a candidate that actually talks about _why_ the current policies are not working and _why_ his policy recommendations will help to fix the problems caused by the current (and past) policies. I consider that kind of candidate to be "best". Much more so than ones that seem to be more concerned about keeping the mentos tooth sparkle at full gleam, while their sycophants kiss their glove.
RFC2119
My blog
There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture.
Man, talk about a low bar to clear...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".
As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.
Give some arguments please!
What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?
It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us.
The man has a very long track record, and I checked out his voting record. If he has some hidden agenda, could it be worse than undeclared wars, debasement of the currency, violating the rights of habeas corpus and the right to keep and bear arms, imprisoning thousands of POWs of the War on (some) Drugs, or arresting cancer patients?
Things are so bad that even when a politician says what I want to hear (and in a sincere way), I still can't trust him.
I know how you feel. Reagan let me down on draft registration, and several other very important issues. Nevertheless, RP's record is exemplary.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Actually, Kabloom, Paul is definitely NOT out of the running.
As of today, no major newspaper has correctly reviewed the process at which actual delegates to the actual national convention are chosen. Most of the time, they come up with "estimated" delegates based purely on voter percentages. What isn't seen is that many States currently don't offer actual delegates, or delegates remain unpledged/uncommitted, or the number of delegates is unknown because the public voted for delegates to choose delegates to choose delegates.
The power behind Paul as of right now is the hope that he can last out Super Tuesday with enough delegates to force the national convention to pick a candidate. This is truly an interesting perspective, solely because Paul is basing his campaign on two issues: the Iraq War and the Economy disturbed due to too many taxes, regulations, and restrictions. The rest of his policy (civil liberties, etc) aren't huge issues right now.
If Paul can last to the national convention, and a brokered convention is required, Paul is hoping that the Iraq war goes further south, and that the economy continues to plummet. In this case, he has many wildcards available to actively compete for delegates once the first round of the brokered convention is over.
Also remember that Paul is the only candidate other than Kucinich who still has the anti-war view. As more and more Americans start seeing the negatives of a trillion+ dollar war, people may start changing their minds, even this summer.
I'm not here to espouse Paul's views, just to provide WHY Paul is still important to vote for if you're a Paul supporter -- a brokered convention will be huge.
Also, if Paul supporters don't vote for Paul, and he runs third party, it can have an even worse effect on who will win. I love the chaos, so I support pushing the candidate selection to as late as possible. I think the national convention is in September, which could mean only 2 months to campaign against the Democrat. Nice!
And yet, so many of the other candidates have failed to clear it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.
The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.
Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.
Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.
If you don't think that any of the other candidates are hearing the buzz around him and adjusting to steal some of that thunder, you're nuts.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).
Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.
I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.
4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.
5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.
News flash: Most public education is currently handled by the States. If the U.S. Department of Education went away, public education would still be around. Public education in some States would be worse for it, but other States would be greatly relieved that to have Federal interference out of their system.
There is a meme-disease that has infested our society, spread by power-grubbing politicians and money-hungry corporate interests (including the sound-bite-driven media.) It is the idea that if there is a problem, the Federal government should fix it. Any problem, great or small, anywhere in the country, is in need of a Federal "fix." There needs to be a new cabinet-level department, or a Federal bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court ruling, or a "War On *" to fix it.
You hear it from Obama. His resounding "Yes We Can" is saying "Yes, we, the Federal Government, can fix everything that's wrong!" You hear it from Hillary, or anyone else promoting Federal government-provided healthcare. You hear it also from McCain, Romney and Huckabee. You hear it, with a slightly different tune, from mainstream evangelical Christians -- the problems are different, but the solution, Federal Government enforcement of morality to "fix" immorality, is the same.
The problem with the idea is that it overlooks all the other options for fixing a problem.
When there is a problem:
- You or I can fix it
- You or I can educate people on its existence and what they can do to fix it
- You or I can start a non-profit organization dedicated to fixing it
- You or I can (potentially) start a business that makes money by fixing it
- Existing local businesses can make money by fixing it
- Local religious groups can (possibly) work to fix it
- Local non-religious non-profit organizations can help to fix it
- Local governments can help to fix it
- Larger / regional businesses can make money by fixing it
- Larger / regional non-profit and/or religious groups can fix it
- State governments can fix it
- National / Global non-profits can fix it
- National / Global corporations can fix it
- The Federal government can fix it
If a flood wiped out your city, who would you be most relieved to see: someone from the Red Cross (National / Global organization) or someone from FEMA?
If you just discovered you had heart disease and needed a triple bypass, who would you rather have handle it: your local top-100 heart hospital (could be for-profit, non-profit or religious), or the National Institute of Health?
If your kid is getting a poor education, who would you trust to fix it: a private school (also could be for-profit, non-profit, or religious, or even yourself if you aren't averse to homeschooling), or the Department of Education?
If there's a problem with people with drug addictions, who often turn to crime, who should fix it, a doctor, or the Federal government?
If there's a problem with internet regulation, who should fix it, ICANN or the U.S. Government? (Even the suckiest-run nonprofits seem less scary than the prospect of the US Government meddling in that.)
If there's a problem with one group of people who don't approve of the morality of another group of people, who should provide the solution? The groups who have the problem working it out with each other, or the Federal Government enforcing the will of the more populous group on the other?
The Federal Government was created to make peace between the States, to defend the States from outsiders, and to guarantee "Liberty and Justice for all." As long as it sticks to that basic plan it can do a lot of good, but when we look at the Federal government as "Mr. Fix Everything" we are setting ourselves up for trouble not just in things getting "Fixed" up in the FUBAR sense, but also in conflicts of interest, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, between fixing-problems and "Liberty and Justice for All"
I'm reluctant to water down the message by adding a cliche, but if eve
The requested URL
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.
...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
...great distance...
...great distance...
I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...
Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).
If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".
You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).
Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).
Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).
So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).
Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
John McCain
No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
That's exactly how the gold standard works! As a result of the gold standard, gold is considered more valuable because it is legal tender. Gold is just another form of fiat currency, albeit one that requires more effort to mine and store. Instead of artificially raising the value of gold by using gold as legal tender, some very clever people figured out that you could artifically raise the value of sheets of cloth paper with paintings of dead presidents printed on them, and it serves the same purpose without the market distortion caused by using a real commodity as legal tender.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Paul is +10% in several states. He possibly won Maine, its just that the whole caucus thing was ignored by the media, he MIGHT have won Louisiana, 66% of provisional ballots went uncounted, it was enough to hand paul the win as 80% of provisionals that were counted went to Paul delegates. There is an official complaint filed by the campaign to find out what happend (Essentially all the people who signed up as Republican's late november paperwork went unfiled)
Exactly what I was going to point out. I'm disgusted at how the Mainstream Media and others are creating this self-fulfilling prophecy by declaring Paul unelectable, and failing to cover him. For instance, the other day they were talking on CNN about fund raising, and completely ignored the fact that Ron Paul led all candidates in both parties last quarter in fund raising. They showed the GOP candidates and had Romney, McCain, and Huckabee in a 3-pane view -- and LEFT OUT the one candidate who beat them all. I hate to sound paranoid, but that is overt and clearly purposeful.
1. Why is he running as a Republican?
Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern Republicans.
2. Why is he STILL running?
Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Define hypocrisy: Slashdot.
How many times have we seen people bitch about the state of civil liberties in this country? How many time have we seen people complain about corporate interests and lobbiests? How many times have people bitched about Bush, Cheney, war propoganda, and ridiculous spending of our government? How many times have people bitched about the Consititution being eviscerated?
Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.
Huh? Why? He supports the Constitution. He supports balanced budgets. He wants to get rid of government waste. He wants to get rid of lobbiests. He wants to repeal the PATRIOT and the Protect America acts. He wants to reinstate Habeaus Corpus. He wants to do just about every freakin' think that the Slashdot crowd has been bitching about for the past 7 years and somehow he is a kook?
He doesn't believe in regulating the internet and is endorsed by the NTU as the person who would actually reduce taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. Ron Paul even has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal. The government hates competition.".
He's pro-life. So what? He believes that the federal government has no say in it. He's not convinced of evolution. So what? He doesn't believe the government should be mandating what should be taught. He's not convinced of global warming? So what? He doesn't believe it's the federal governments responsibility to do what state regulations should cover (see EPA vs. California).
He also actually understands the world community. Anyone who thinks that terrorists attack us for our freedoms have drank the kool-aid. The US has been screwing the Middle East over for the better part of a century. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've supported ruthless dictators. I mean for heaven's sake we are the ones who supported and trained Osama bin Laden.
Do you think a non-interventionist foreign policy is crazy? Do you think that saber rattling and bombing threats are a more effective means of negotiation than diplomacy? Do you really think the US can AFFORD its current aggressive foreign policy?
How many of you know that according to the GAO, that this country will be bankrupt in (best case scenario) a couple of decades?
There is actually an honest politician with a completely consistent record of supporting the Constitution and sound principles that actually echo what slashdotters as a whole have been complaining about and all you can say is he is crazy. Has everyone swallowed the blue-pill?
I would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why he is a kook. If you disagree on some of his platform, then fine. But that does not make him a kook.
Other than Ron Paul, name one candidate who has voted or would vote against the war in Iraq. Name one candidate who is willing to bring the troops home. Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and WHY the Fed is destroying our currency. Name another candidate who has actually followed through to uphold the oath of office. Name another candidate that does NOT have lobbiests in his campaign. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against pork. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against giving congressional raises. Name another candidate that actually returns unused funds back to the budget at the end of the year. Name another candidate that REFUESES to use any FEC funds because he believes that taxpayer dollars should not be used for campaigning.
Ron Paul has been the candidate you've been asking for. And yet he is a kook. Only on slashdot.
~X~
~X~