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.
Need to explain? ;)
In all fairness, that's because he is radical and crazy.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, when compared to "arrogant and stupid" or "two-faced and disappointing"
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/
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?)
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)
"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).