Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary

Posted by samzenpus on from the strange-bedfellows dept.

30 Republicans and 14 Democrats are running for president in the New Hampshire primary this year, the largest number since 1992 when 62 candidates ran. Among other factors, the meager $1,000 fee to get one's name on the ballot makes New Hampshire an attractive place for unusual candidates. This year we have home-builder John Davis who "has budgeted $500,000 to visit all 3,143 counties in the U.S. in a 43-foot live-on bus emblazoned with a photo of himself brandishing a femur-size wrench and the slogan 'Let's Fix America.'" The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American. From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

33 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die". Extra points if he (or she) can get away with appending it to "Live Free Or Die, Bitches"

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

      I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on?

      Not any libertarian I've ever heard of running for anything notable. Every self-proclaimed libertarian I've seen lately who has been able to bring attention to their campaign is just another conservative who finds it advantageous to run under a different label.

      When you are tethered to corporate everything the way the likes of Ron Paul wants people to be, you are less free than we are now. And when you continually roll back anything resembling controls on large corporations, you inevitably give them the power.

      I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by stms · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      Yes that's what the Libertarian Party stands for when you boil it down. When you boil down the Republican party it stands for "vote for us if you hate poor people". If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money". Isn't it fun to over simplify complex political ideas even though it's ultimately what's destroying this country.

    4. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Fned · · Score: 5, Funny

      Citizen

      You are hereby declared to be not Living Free Enough

      As per NH criminal code LFOD2012 this is a summary captial offense

      Prepare for immediate execution

    5. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

      The same Republican Party that gave us massive expansions in Medicare, the Department of Education, and the national debt? The same Republican Party that has shown no interest in eliminating any Federal entitlement programs, the Department of Energy, the aforementioned Department of Education, or much of anything else? The same Republican Party that's been fighting for the same absurdly broad definitions of the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suited their draconian drug policies? The same Republican Party that took the country to war against Iraq despite having no evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States or its citizens? The same Republican Party that continued and supported US troops being stationed in over 150 countries around the world? The Republican Party that supported the likes of George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Child Left Behind? Massive Federal land grabs? FCC censorship? Support for Federal marriage restrictions and Federal abortion limitations? Support for banning flag burning? Indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil like Jose Padilla? No Fourth Amendment protections for Americans returning to the United States? Invasive and dangerous searches at airports by security which became forcibly Federalized? Bailouts and takeovers of private businesses?

      It just goes on and on and it's been going on for decades. The Republican base and the GOP itself are -NOTHING- like libertarians. Most Republicans I've seen don't have a clue what the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments are, why we have them, and why they should care about them. Democrats are certainly no better when it comes to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments. President Obama picked up exactly where George W. Bush left off pulling the same kind of garbage, only with a more articulate spin on why shredding the Constitution is the right thing to do. Where's your hope and change? It's in Guantanamo Bay, the Obamacare insurance company giveaway, the Federal Reserve trying to run the economy behind the curtain, and the continued bailouts and stimulus that have kept us barely treading water while adding the weight of debt to our ankles and threatening to drown us all slowly and painfully.

      Let me correct your statement for you:
      The people who call themselves the Democratic Party - at least in the US - are functionally identical to the Republican Party on >99% of all matters.

      Not a one of them gives a damn about you or me. Neither of them has our interests at heart. Neither of them has or cares about solutions. The only thing they care about is selling you a promise to get your vote so they can take your money and sell your ass for a carton of Lucky's the first chance they get once they make it through the next election. They've got you playing these stupid games of blaming this group or that when all the while it is they who tug on your strings like expert puppeteers making you put on a show for their benefit.

      You see, what you're missing is a very simple fact of life almost universally lost on folks thinking that government can be a force for good: government IS politicians. libertarians don't want small government because we hate the poor or because we don't want to do our part to help those around us. libertarians want small government because all governments are inherently populated with these kinds of self-serving scumbags within a few years of their formation and we want to limit the amount of damage they can do. The larger your government is, the smaller you are by comparison in the eyes of the egomaniacs who seek that kind of power. You're a tool for them to use to build a machine that enriches them and their cronies. Any good that comes from their actions is purely for PR purposes and the sheer level of damage caused is truly unimaginable.

      50 sm

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul?

      Wow, another slashdot message in blind support of Ron Paul. Shocked, I am not. Said message didn't bother to read all of what I said; also not shocking.

      The one who is against corporate personhood?

      Saying you're against corporate "personhood", and then removing regulations that prevent corporations from effectively owning people and walking all over both those they do and those they do not own, are a conflict that Ron Paul has no apparent problem with. He is fine to strip out government regulations that keep our water, air, and food safe. That's not libertarianism; that's just extreme pro-business action.

      What a shocking surprise, that you wrote up a message of nonsense, in reply to a message that you didn't read in its entirety, and yet you got moderated up because you praised Ron Paul. Next you're going to try to tell us that there is a secret enclave of far-left slashdotters holding you down.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by stinerman · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must not know the joke.

      A Libertarian is a Republican with a conviction for possession of weed.

    8. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone, and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

      You're mostly right about many of your other points, especially Obama and the "change" (or lack thereof) he brought. But your idea of what libertarianism is, and what real national-level politicians who call themselves Libertarian or espouse Libertarian principles consider to be libertarianism, are two different things.

    9. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by diamondmagic · · Score: 2

      "Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want people to be high all day. To the contrary, it implies that it's a completely inappropriate role of the federal government, just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    10. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone,

      What they advertise has changed; what they actually do has not. The Contract with America was virtually nothing but hot air. The only reason we got close to a balanced budget was that the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic President couldn't agree on what to spend tons of money on.

      and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

      I would strongly disagree. The current Republican candidates (minus, to an extent, Ron Paul) give a small amount of lip service to cutting taxes and regulations because - quite frankly - it's not an issue where they can distinguish themselves from President Obama. They'll mouth some words about it to sound tough, but I don't think there's a sane person alive who actually believes Rick Perry would start dismantling major sections of government. The flub he had in that debate was not one of having the 'senior moment' we all have once in a while. The guy couldn't remember what some writer stuck on an index card for him as part of a pathetic attempt to get his name back in the news to regain momentum. Mitt Romney will happily tell you the sky is purple and he wears women's underwear if it'll gain him +1 net vote. His positions don't change; he doesn't have positions, and if you put him in a debate with President Obama it's going to sound like a damned echo chamber. Gingrich would rather tell you what 74 people have written about a topic over the last 300 years than give you anything original or firm. And quite honestly, when you look at President Obama, you can't begin to claim he hasn't bent over backwards to the point of forming a pretzel shape when it's come to big business and corporations. He's even fought for tax breaks for people up and down the line. There's nary a candidate for President in the 2012 election who isn't for tax-and-spend-but-sound-like-you-care-about-deficits-by-giving-lip-service-to-microscopic-cuts-that-keep-Washington-politicians-firmly-in-the-driver-seat-of-the-country. The only one of the bunch who's really come up with a firm position is Ron Paul in that he's strongly and consistently against both regulations AND subsidies and special government perks for big business. And again, I don't think that's because Paul is such a great guy and I don't trust him any further than I can throw him. The last guy who came into a presidential race talking about how government was the problem and not the solution ended up blowing up our deficit in a way not seen since WWII with both military and discretionary spending programs. But at least he's claiming and appears to sincerely believe that his goal is to cut down on the power and influence of the politicians in DC.

      You can't begin to tell me that someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich believes or has any intention of implementing libertarian principles of small, limited government. You can't begin to tell me that someone like George W. Bush had a clue what those principles are. I'll bet you anything that Newt can recite the Constitution and all the Federalist papers from start to finish; but he doesn't give a damn about what

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    11. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      What they really need is much harsher penalties for politicians found guilty of crimes, with the penalties going up with the level of their office (i.e. a small-town mayor convicted of a crime gets a lesser sentence than a US Congressman convicted of the same crime, though still much worse than a non-politician). So US Congressmen convicted of things like insider trading or corruption, for instance, should be drawn and quartered.

    12. Re:Let see one implement their motto... by residieu · · Score: 2

      Good thing to bring up when the GOP campaigns in NH. "Our slogan is "Live Free or Die." Are you a candidate brave enough to let us do that? Will you restore our freedoms and let us take the tiny risk we might die in a terrorist attack?"

  2. And this is how by geekoid · · Score: 2

    you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:And this is how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is necessary but not sufficient. To be sufficient you'd also have to replace first-past-the-post elections.

    2. Re:And this is how by Snarfangel · · Score: 2

      I would mod this up if I had points. Plurality voting sucks. At least go with Approval for single-winner races, if you think Condorcet is too complicated.

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    3. Re:And this is how by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      How about also removing the party label for each candidate from the ballot. We already have multiple parties running in various elections but there are probably too many people who look for the D or R label and vote based off of that. This would at least require that people be some what informed as to who the R and D candidates are since they couldn't just vote down the ticket unless they knew all of their party's candidates.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:And this is how by monkeythug · · Score: 2

      The UK has a coalition government precisely because it has more than two parties! However it is also the first coalition we have had in decades, and it (arguably) only happened this time due to very particular circumstances that are unlikely to happen again any time soon.

      This is most likely the reason why the LibDems were so keen on switching away from FPTP - it represented the only way they were likely to get another bite at the cherry in 2015. Sadly it was not to be, which is a shame as having more than two parties with a fighting chance of being elected would not only have been good for the LibDems, it would have been great for the UK.

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    5. Re:And this is how by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

      There were five parties on the Presidential ticket in enough states last election that they had a mathematical chance of winning. The trouble is, media are controlled by the corporations, who have convinced everyone that a vote for a Green or a Libbie is a wasted vote. That way they only have to bribe two candidates.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  3. Vermin Supreme? by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Vermin Supreme sounds like a pizza in some dystopian future. "Includes all toppings, with rats, cockroaches, and maggots. Dung Beetles are extra".

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  4. Oddly enough by tylersoze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find it hard to tell the difference between those candidates and the "actual" Republican candidates.

    1. Re:Oddly enough by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd take the super rat guy over a bigoted, homophobic asshole any day of the week.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  5. From the article... by skids · · Score: 2

    From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

    ...and he was probably talking about the front-runners, not the gadflies.

    --
    Someone had to do it.
  6. And he should be at the Donald Trump debate by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American.

    Still saner than Michele Bachmann.

  7. Re:Ponies? by khallow · · Score: 2

    Sorry, Uncle Sugar knows that you need a pony even if you don't want it.

  8. Sounds like... by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...a good place for the Pirate Party to start running candidates.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:Sounds like... by Agripa · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

      The established players have no worries. Plurality voting is sufficient to crush all newcomers.

  9. Missing Option by cashman73 · · Score: 2

    Is CowboyNeal running, too?

  10. Please oh great fsm... by jcwayne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please, tell me that The Rent Is Too Damn High Party will be represented. I've missed that guy.

    --
    Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
  11. Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    This place is overrun by Ron Paul zombies. If a potential candidate can find a way to control them, they'd certainly win my vote.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  12. Yes, he's the crazy one. by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness.

    As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.

  13. Bob Greene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did NO ONE READ the article???

    Why is no one excited about an ENGINEER for President who is talking about Thorium??

    I officially Endorse Bob Greene for POTUS

    http://www.greeneforoffice.org/Home_Page.html

    1. Re:Bob Greene by JazzLad · · Score: 2

      I'm sure the AC endorsement will make all the difference!

      Kidding aside, I agree completely. Finally a candidate the "nerds" can & should care about & he is the only one not discussed. I'm not new here, so not surprised. Still disappointed.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever