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'?"

Comments

Re:same old same old

[tiqui]

Wow. It's pretty hard to be more wrong.

The Republicans generally support the goals of big business

Nope. MOST Republicans are big supporters of SMALL BUSINESS. Big businesses tend to become corrupt and become the best buddies of big corrupt government. Big corrupt businesses like to lobby big corrupt government to create rules and regs that make it hard for any new upstart business to rise and challenge them (it's easier for such goliaths than actual innovation and competition). G.E. (owner of NBC/MSNBC, exporter of thousands of jobs and complete tax dodge) is one of Obama's biggest supporters and the CEO is on Obama's jobs council. The exception is that SOME north-eastern "establishment" Republicans love big business because that portion of the party wants power and always thinks that it will get the love of corps like G.E. if it can get in power.

Barack Obama took more money from big Wall St banks than any Republican has ever taken. Some of the biggest firms on Wall St, like Goldman Sachs and the biggest GSE's (like Fannie and Freddie) are virtual arms of the Democratic party (which is why EVERY Democrat senator INCLUDING Biden AND Obama voted to keep Bush from having any power to stop all the reckless activity and Fannie and Freddy before the meltdown.)

...and have a top-down approach to wealth. They believe that making people at the top rich will lead to prosperity for all.

Comic-book, simplistic, pushed-by-unionized-Wisonsin-school-teachers-style drivel. Most Republicans/Conservatives believe that government should keep its paws mostly off of the markets and that the basic rules of the market, while imperfect, are the best solution to the very complex routing of resources to where they will best be used, while providing benefits to individuals and society generally with more freedom and efficiency; They tend to think that you are better-off as an individual if you are free to choose your own career, start your own business, create your own product or service, etc than you are if somebody else tries to manage the economy, picking winners and losers (where YOU might be the "loser" and their political friends are the "winners").

...Many believe that social programs do not help well enough to justify many of them.

Most Republicans/Conservatives believe that INDIVIDUALS are free (and even MORALLY, rather than legally or politically) obligated to be charitable, but that it is borderline criminal to have the state take money from one citizen at gunpoint and hand that cash to another citizen (or non-citizen). Make no mistake, taxes are not voluntary; it you fail to pay your taxes, somebody from the government will garnish your wages. If you find a way to get your money, then they will try to take your stuff, including your home. If you refuse to surrender you stuff, they will show-up with guns and encourage you to let go. If you resist, they will try to carry you away from your stuff and home. If you fight them, they will shoot you. Taxation for the GENERAL welfare (i.e. taxing all to provide something to the general public including all the taxed (like roads, national defense, parks, courts, etc) is one thing and is clearly intended by the Constitution. Taking from some, for the purpose of giving the cash to others (INDIVIDUAL welfare) is nothing more than armed-robbery-by-proxy.

Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them, and whose behaviors do not affect them in the slightest.

Also not generally true. First, many (though certainly not all) do feel that the country once had moral standards which had developed over centuries which provided societal benefits, and that as those standards have been relaxed, many negative side-effects have arisen. There simply is no American equivalent of the Taliban trying to enforce some radical moral agenda. Even the most energetic activists of the GOP mostly want SOME of th