Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Which Candidates For Geek Issues?
Okian Warrior writes "An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
The R's and the D's are truly just 2 arms of the same beast. They both survive only due to blaming the other camp for all of the problems in the world.
Geeks are not even in agreement on technical issues, so how can you expect a candidate that would be good for "geek issues?" Half of /. supports net neutrality as a way to protect the spirit and nature of the Internet, and half oppose it as yet another regulation that will lead to handouts to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else. There are people who support the interests of the copyright lobby, and people who oppose them. There are free software supporters, and people who think the GPL is a bad thing. Any number of candidates might be supported by the general geek community.
Palm trees and 8
Just admit it, you wanted a politics flamewar on /. for some entertainment, and since flamewars are page view magnets the editors happily oblige.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Full disclosure, I managed Warren Mosler's 2010 US Senate campaign. But I encourage Slashdotters to look at the third party candidates running in their jurisdiction. As Eugene Debs pointed out, It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
I'm beginning to believe this "2 party system" is the problem. It seems like the R's and D's just recycle the same ole, same ole; as some other comments have stated. Independents and other parties have little hope, and very rare success, of seeing candidates in Congress. I can't even imagine its even possible that we will ever see the white house held by a party other than R's and D's. Part of it the problem, maybe all of it, is $ from corporate and union donors. There is just too much $ handed over via campaign contributions to too few candidates.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
"Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him"
I am discounting him. He's a medical doctor who in the 90's advocated banning HIV positive individuals from restaurants to prevent the spread of HIV. Other gems of his are linked/quoted below. My point: how can a guy with such closed-minded beliefs be expected to embrace new technologies and ideas (as well as enact sane policies concerning new technologies, etc.), which I think what most slashdotters are looking for in a politician. It's amazing to me that he is so highly-revered in some circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy
from the wikipedia article:
Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Users don't understand the technology they use, and what legislation would do to it in the long (or even short) run. They look at currently available features, and it never enters their mind that other possibilities could exist. It's only the power users and geeks who do the digging to be informed (regardless if the subject is computing, cars, politics, etc).
I'd rather have a technologically unaware representative who will work against PATRIOT/SOPA/etc than somebody who uses an iPad and has buys into security theater and its IP equivalents.
An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?
I don't think you got the appropriate sense of the pronouns in use. When it's said that we(1) should change the situation by voting in better officials and that we(1) have no one to blame but ourselves, that we(1) refers to the voting populace at large. You've transposed that to mean we(2) meaning /.ers (or perhaps geeks in general) but we(2) do not have a lot of political clout for a number of reasons mainly boiling down to the number of voters that will base their decision on "geek issues". First, there aren't many of us -- so already that's going to be a niche demographic to target. Second, as a group, we are very divided on non-geek issues such as economics and foreign policy. That makes us less attractive as a target because it means that we aren't likely to vote as a bloc unless geek issues become so important that they override other policy differences (for instance, most /.ers wouldn't vote for a foreign-policy hawk that was anti-gay and pro-life even if he had 100% from the EFF). Finally, geek issues just aren't very poignant with the electorate at large -- virtually no one is going to make their political decision based on those issues so there's very little for candidates to gain (and much to lose) by staking out strong positions.
Ultimately, living in a democracy means accepting that sometimes the voters either don't care or disagree with you, even after all your attempts to convince them otherwise. It's a hard pill to swallow, especially when many arguments are of the form "if you REALLY understood issue X then you would have policy Y" and its contrapositive "if you don't favor policy Y then you don't understand issue X" that simply can't accept that sometimes you just can't convince people. Politics always has losers, and the losers invariably believe that they are right and somehow the political process must be defective merely because they lost.
[ And, I hate to say this but I'm not being cruel here, I personally will not vote on geek issues. I think foreign policy and economics are far more important than SOPA and patent law. That's not to say I don't have opinions on the latter, or think that the 'wrong' policy might harm us, but rather I have priorities and I'd rather have the foreign policy that I like and the geek law that I don't rather than the other way around, in such cases where it appears that I cannot have both concurrently. ]
Let's see here, now:
1) If the economy recovered, Keynesian stimulus worked!
2) If the economy didn't recover, the stimulus wasn't big enough!
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Not really, he actually wanted the USA to default on all debt. Tell the other countries to stuff it up their butts and say, "the USA will not pay any of it's debts, If you want to try and collect, please send the air force your GPS coordinates and we will launch your payment to that location."
and honestly it would have been better for the USA to have completely Defaulted. we would be in a far better financial position right now if we did.
a Lot of rich people would have lost some money, no big loss there. All the middle and lower class already lost any of their money, so they would not lose anything.
The problem is, every single one of the scumbags in the Congress, White house, and Supreme Court care more about the ultra rich than the poor. the Democrats support bullshit like SOPA that only benefit the rich. The Republicans believe in the bullshit of the trickle down theory. in reality all of them are there to do one thing. protect their riches and their friends riches.
It has always been that way, and will always be that way. Luckily us poor have TV to keep us preoccupied and not pay attention to what the rich people are doing.
I have photographs of all those guys plus Friedman and Greenspan. I must be a freaking genius economist.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I understand that Ron Paul is a radical. However, calling him "not viable" is defeatist given that his numbers are significantly strong. I also understand that voting for mainstream candidates is a lose-lose situation no matter what letter is appended to their name. Knowing my vote will not make a real difference, I will instead vote solely to send the message that I'm fed-up with the establishment's shit. And the establishment's treatment of Paul shows that they're afraid, otherwise they'd allow him more lip service, and I'd vote for him for that reason alone even if I weren't paying attention to everything else.
Those of you who are also fed up do the same. If not for Ron Paul, for a sensible third-party candidate. Everybody else is not working for your best interest.
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
- then it's Ron Paul, no contest.
Why, you ask?
Because without technology and especially the Internet where would Ron Paul's campaign be? You certainly wouldn't hear about him or anybody like him in the MSM, so then what, town hall meetings?
Ron Paul is actually using the technology in the political process. Obama's blackberry and what not, and you are still going to get SOPA and PIPA and no veto from Obama.
Do you realise now how silly it is, to say that the most important thing is who uses the technology most is your preferred candidate, because you are actually oblivious as to how the technology is really used?
The question is actually this: who is going to prevent government force from taking your liberty to use and work with technology that you choose?
You can't handle the truth.
Duverger's law explains that we only have two viable parties because we use an antiquated voting system that encourages tactical voting. If you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, you're basically "throwing your vote away."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I'd argue you are throwing your vote away if you DO vote for one of the two major parties. They are both so rigid in their hatred of each other, you can already determine the outcome of votes depending on which party introduced it. There is no rational thought any more.
today is spelling optional day.
Not to mention illegal immigration, and sky-high debt. Perpetual wars in the mid-east. Out-of-control government spending.
Yeah, gotta love those constitution shredding dems.
GWB was not better, but at least Ron Paul wants to uphold the constitution, which is more than you can say for the present Obama-nation.
It's too bad Paul is a terrible person and it would be a disaster if he got into office.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
Somebody that's incapable of compromise is not desirable as a leader. President Bush had a habit of never backing down and never compromising through his first term in office and ultimately he got basically nothing done his second term because he had so pissed off the opposition that when his own party turned on him he couldn't make any deals with the Democrats.
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
It's simple. Because a voting district can only have one answer, only the largest majority party in any given region gets ANY representation. So, for political parties, you must be this tall to ride this ride. A third party either can't get off the ground, or if it does, replaces one of the other two. Representation by geography is strangling American politics as it leads inevitably to a two-party system. And unlike the days when we all got our news from Walter Cronkite who tried to at least appear impartial, we now (mostly) get all our news from like-minded sources who have no qualms demonizing those from the other party. This hyperpartisanship is creating a false choice, all of column A, or all of column B, never mind those like myself who want some of this, some of that, and a bit that isn't on the menu at all. Worse, it's becoming an offense to even work with the other party. Also, representation by geography means that my voice does not matter at all unless my neighbors agree with me. Representation by party would let any party with a significant percentage of voters be heard, even if they are spread around the country like so much butter. Sadly, this would require a constitutional amendment to change, and very few successful members of the current system are likely to want to change it.
In a true free market, you set up and operate. If you are good, you succeed,
No regulations, just economic success or failure That way a person who is very talented, yet not certified or educated can rise on their own merit.
What's your thought on taking your children to a pediatrician under this system?
And that is the problem. Free marketers want to believe that the free market can cure all ills. It doesn't. It has the fatal flaw of assuming that everyone is ethical. What it doesn't take into account is that there are some people who are not going to be satisfied until they control everything. It doesn't take into account the many things that actually operate better when there is some regulation.
Because the application to the true free market of say taking your children to that free market pediatrician is that he might be totally incompetent. He might kill your children. But after he kills enough children, his name will get around and he'll go out of business. The free market worked. There's a whole list. Your house might burn down because of bad electrical work. You might buy a car that falls apart at highway speeds and kills you. But if it happens enough, word will get out and that company will go out of business. But yeah, the free market worked. It's kind of like evolutionary adaptation. What doesn't adapt, dies. But people seem to forget that that adaptation is the small percentage that doesn't die.
I liken some of the ideas of libertarians to be kind of like the anti-vaccination crowd. "No one gets such and such disease any more, so getting vaccines is stupid, and dangerous sometimes!" they don't remember when Polio and pertussis and measles other childhood diseases killed many children each year.
The libertarians don't remember why we made anti-monopoly and anti trust laws and an environmental protection agency and other laws and regulations.
Funny thing is, on a intellectual level, I am a libertarian. On a pragmatic level, I know enough about humans to understand it won't work.
Although it would have been kind of neat to see the Cuyahoga when it caught on fire...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important..."
Civil Liberties are always important. They don't become irrelevant just because there are other problems in the world. Iran appears to be developing nuclear weapons; surely that is a more pressing concern than dealing with corruption that has been the largely acceptable status quo for almost 30 years?
"Come to terms with it already; you`re NEVER going to have a candidate who meets you on every single view you have."
Probably not. I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect agreement on a few areas, though.
"Get a little perspective already. Gay folks should be thankful if they can`t get legally married. You know how many straight folks would give their right thumb for that?"
Har har har. Hilarious. You should do the Catskills.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Just because Ron Paul wouldn't be allowed to actually implement his agenda and ideals doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at it. He might in actuality have less real power as president than he does now since he wouldn't actually be able to do anything except stop legislation getting passed without support from someone in congress he wouldn't have, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.
Obama has been a great disappointment to an awful lot of people. Some of that is more about perception than reality(If Obama had taken the fight to the republicans would he have actually won? Is there somewhere to actually put the remaining few people in Guantanemo Bay? Can we in good conscience stop the war in Afghanistan and let the Taliban come back and do all the things they used to do even if we should never have begun it in the first place?), but I won't argue that he's been disappointing. For all of that though, he's miles more tolerable than anyone the Republicans have fielded.
1. You need to think harder. The CBO found in 2004 there were 1,138 instances in federal law where marital status is a factor in determining rights, privileges, or benefits. Joint property, medical decisions, inheritance, and a lot more.
2. Article IV, Section 1 disagrees with your assertion that it isn't a federal issue. States are refusing to recognize legally performed marriages from other states.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
While there are some nutters who actually think we'd be better off defaulting right now (there's a point where we would be, but we aren't near there yet), the entire discussion is actually moot. Ron Paul and others who were strongly against raising the debt ceiling were not insisting that the United States default on its debt obligations. In fact, the US Federal government has plenty of income year-round which would have more than covered all debt obligations and minimal Federal operations. Things like national parks and touristy stuff would have been closed and Federal contractors likely would have been in the dark in terms of payment for a bit as funds trickled in and a new funding model was worked through, but there was NEVER any danger of the US being unable to service its debt simply because of a vote against raising the debt ceiling.
The absolute bullshit spewed by the media on the subject was completely ridiculous. It had no more validity than claiming the US could default on its debt this coming Thursday at 1pm. Could it? Sure. The Dept of the Treasury could simply refuse to service our debt obligations regardless of the availability of funds. It could have chosen to do the same after a Congressional vote against raising the debt ceiling. Or it could pay those debt obligations - an option it's never lost.
As for understanding foreign policy and debt obligations, I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. First of all, the creditors take a hit when a sovereign nation defaults, but the system adjusts and life goes on. Nations too deep into debt are generally better off defaulting than going the IMF/WB route (see also: South America for both sides of how that coin falls). Greece may have actually reached the point where a sovereign default would do that country a lot of good after some horribly painful short-term realignment of national funding and spending. If you believe sovereign default harms trade in any appreciable manner, you're terribly wrong and there's enormous amounts of history to back up that position. It's short term pain (lots of it) for the citizens living there, a period of readjustment, and then typically some excellent economic growth. If properly managed, that puts you on the fast track to success in the long term. The IMF and WB can help a moderately indebted nation chart a path toward fiscal responsibility. What they cannot do is take a nation with crushing sovereign debt and bring it into solvency and economic prosperity. There are times where austerity makes more sense and times where default makes more sense. The US is a case where austerity still makes more sense. Virtually no one has seriously argued otherwise beyond some ignorant goofballs in the tiniest of minority opinion blocks.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
From the outside and just looking at the numbers without having a team to cheer for it appears that you've got your parties mixed up unless you are dredging up something from before Reagan.
All this partisanship and blaming the failings of your favourite team on the other team look incredibly petty and ignorant from the outside.
I think Obama and the next two or three Presidents are going to be thought of as failures because they couldn't instantly dig the USA out of the hole that Bush tossed it into.