Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Whom Do You Want To Ask About 2012's U.S. Elections?
For the next year, it will be hard to escape the political season already in full swing in the U.S., as candidates aim for the American presidency (and many other elected positions). There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided. But there's a hitch: we need to know which candidates or other figures we should attempt to track down for a Slashdot interview. So please help narrow the field, by suggesting (with as much contact information as possible, as well as your reasoning) the people you'd like to hear from. It doesn't need to be one of the candidates, either: if you know of a pollster, a campaign technical advisor, an economist (or even a politicians's webmaster, say) who should be on our list, make the case in the comments below. And if you represent or are affiliated with a particular campaign, that's fine — but please say so. We'll do our best to find a number of your favorites in the year to come.
I hate to be cynical and say that it doesn't really matter, since no politician is ever going to give you an honest or useful answer anyway (any written response won't even written by them, just some staffer, you know). But I will suggest one of the VERY few politicians at the top who actually seems to give a modicum of a shit about freedom, the little guy, and all that jazz. From his well-known editorial on why he supports net neutrality to his fight against contractors and for regulation of the financial industry, Al Franken seems to be one of the few people in Washington interested in something more than just padding his pocket.
I would be particularly interested to hear more on the Net Neutrality issue, since he seems to be one of the only politicians, Republican or Democrat, actively supporting it.
Yes, he is a little batshit from time to time and prone to saying some crazy shit. But in his defense, they did a LOT of coke on SNL back in the day. He's lost a few brain cells. Poor Chevy Chase is MUCH worse.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided.
Oh they won't have teleprompters for a Slashdot interview? So what? Every single candidate or person working for a candidate are going to do the following:
This isn't my first rodeo. Seriously, watch a candidate's speech in BFE one-horse-town North Texas one day and then their speech in yuppie concrete jungle Manhattan the next day. They will skirt issues and spew half truths that are almost (but not quite, it's an art) in direct conflict with their message at another locality. How do you maximize votes? Why settle for those localized maxima with the same speech in two different demographics when a massive overhaul will win you the campaign? Why do you think they have teams of speech writers? If you campaigned on one consistent platform through the country, you're dead in the water. The only way to win is to lie by omission or worse.
Oh and if you think that a webmaster of a politician is going to be allowed to answer questions in regard to that politician's campaign, you can forget it. A person with a STEM background interfacing in a Q&A for someone's campaign?! Are you daft? No no no no, nobody is going to allow that. The phrase "talking points" was made for a reason. Can you imagine that conversation? "Hey, I know I designed your website for your campaign, now I'm going on a news site to represent your campaign to potentially anybody -- I mean if I really fuck up this could be on Colbert or something. Wish me luck!"
My work here is dung.
Need to explain? ;)
I don't think he given fair representation by either side of the media and is simply labeled as radical and crazy.
Not only does Andrew Tanenbaum have a good handle on polls and vote-projection, but his nerd credentials are excellent.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Given Slashdot's predilections, it is certain that the ones Slashdot likes the most will be the least likely to get elected.
So, come join us on Slashdot to see who WON'T be the next president!
Let us whine together about how awful and broken the system is!
Let us propose reforms to the election system that will never be implemented!
Let us ask obscure technical questions of candidates to the highest office in the land!
Yes, I have been here during elections before.
In b4 Ron Paul
Ron Paul... duh... and I'm pretty sure he'll do it to. I think his answers to slashdot questions would be very interesting indeed. I doubt any other candidate would come near this site with a 1000ft pole.
Why not ask Rebecca Mercuri? She is a voting expert, and if indications are correct, the last couple of voting exercises were not exactly as clean as they were supposed to have been.
You can ask politicians whatever you want, I would suggest you become more interested in assuring that your vote actually goes where it is supposed to go.
Insert
Get a journalist from a major network and ask them why the fuck they let politicians off the hook when they give non-answers to direct questions in interviews and debates.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
I think Ron Paul's answer would be a little dull. ;-)
The thing is you can ask this but I can predict what the answer will entail.
Basically, it will all boil down to the fact that we "need" government to do these things because otherwise terrible (but generally vague) things will happen. The government is responsible for providing for the general welfare and all these things it does directly benefit the general welfare, QED.
Do you want your schools to fall behind in the technology arms race, or to turn out graduates who lack sufficient self-esteem? Do you want people living out in the street and starving while Senators feast on suckling pigs and roast immigrants? Do you want evil corporations using their mind-control rays or poisoning your pets with nuclear waste and crooked accounting? Do you want terrorists sneaking in your house and stealing your healthcare? Do you want Iran nuking your right to bear arms and freedom of speech? Or evil Wall Streeters selling your children to drug lords to pay for their SUVs that run on stem-cells?
Of course, it doesn't matter that in each case the government is either addressing the wrong problem, or addressing the right problem but completely failing to do anything to make it better. The important thing is that We Do Something (TM)! If the problem isn't getting better than we need to do something faster, harder and with more money.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Elections are where free people can choose who they want in public office.
In America, the government, corporations, institutions, organizations, and political parties choose what rich stupid b*stard gets to be put in front of you to get "voted" into office.
You do not have a choice. Whatever party you vote in, you will still get scr*wed by a lying, cheating, bribed b*stard. You get the same sh*t. Just different public "statements, promises, and claims"
If we were electing someone to represent our interests in government, they would be representing our interests. Instead, they are representing the interests of lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups, corporations, institutions, and the rich and famous in general.
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%? I do not think so. How many jobs has Obama created? 1, for Michelle's brother, the basketball coach in Oregon.
Tell me again how anyone, Democrat or republican, got anything they voted for.
Liar.
wake up and hold your nose
1) Because the Constitution is not nearly as restrictive as Ron Paul would have us believe. It does enumerate a number of specific powers, but adds "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" which allows for much latitude to what is allowed to do.
2a) because there is no violation.
2b) because requiring an amendment (which requires several years at a minimum to pass) for the normal day-to-day actions of the Congress, which so gridlock the national government, as to force to destruction. (IOW, Why do you hate America?)
I think you make a good point. Therefore, I suggest we interview Jon Stewart and/or Stephen Colbert.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sixty-two year old babe running for Senate from Massachusetts. Straight shooter, smarter than me and probably you, too. Also tough as nails. If you like Senator Franken, you will like future Senator Warren.
Given that Republicans don't have clear front runner, chances that Obama will continue as a president is highly probable.. By inviting Sarah Palin we can at least get some LOLs.. (and may be some material for SNL skits)
Basically, it will all boil down to the fact that we "need" government to do these things because otherwise terrible (but generally vague) things will happen.
Sometimes, but many times government does these things because terrible things HAVE happened and are likely to happen again.
The 1929 stock market crash, bank failures, and depression resulted in legislation that reformed banking. Unfortunately, the politicians don't study history and undid those regs, resulting in the 2008 crash and the Great Recession.
Social Security was started as a result of dire poverty among the elderly. It was the reaction to something bad that had already happened.
The 2006 welfare reform package was to counter generational welfare Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society and War On Poverty wrought. Again, something bad had happened and they fixed it.
Deregulation? Yeah, tell that to the dead miners in West Virginia. Tell that to any of us who were alive before the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
You only get stupid laws and regulations when you elect stupid or corrupt politicians; the overreaction to 9-11 and the loss of civil liberties afterwards is a good example.
Free Martian Whores!
And I am sure his positions have not changed since then...
http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/ron-paul-campaign-answers-slashdot-reader-questions
Paul B.
"Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban, then un-ban alcohol in the US....yet marijuana and other intoxicants since then, have been banned/regulated on the whim of the US legislature or executive order? Why is a constitutional amendment no longer needed for banning an intoxicant?"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why not just ask if they've stopped beating their wife? The way you ask the question allows for no reasonable answer. The correct answer is that the Constitution rightly endows the Supreme Court with the power to interpret and explain its provisions, that this power has been used since the dawn of the Republic, and that Ron Paul's reading of settled law as "unconstitutional" is simply a method of pandering to his supporters. And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).
What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.
The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.
And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.
Regards,
dj br