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.
Also frist psot.
Where did I put my Jim Crow Tshirt.. hmmm.. ?
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.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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
When asked to choose: "R or D?" it's sort of akin to a polite rapist asking you: "Which hole?"
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
I'd like to know who is in favor of SOPA and who is opposed to it. Personally I would prefer to vote for people that oppose SOPA.
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
I'd like to vote for a Dem. But one of the other ones. Why don't they have a primary too?
God, maybe AmericanSelect? Of them I fear.
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.
You can see John Huntsman tip toe around certain questions about the envrionment by saying that he believes that a leader should listen to the experts in the field on the issues.
What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
Next time you're at one of their townhall meetings, just ask one simple question -
vi or emacs?
I think you probably want to weigh which issues matter the most to you and look them up from there.
Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
NDAA
SOPA (and DMCA at that)
Civil Liberties and Rights (Speech, Press, Guns, Religion, Due Process)
War on Drugs
Economics (Taxes, Monetary Policy)
Taxes
War on Terror
Cybercrime
Intellectual Property
Net Neutrality
Government Transparency
International Relations (Alliances, Economic Ties, Trade, Non-Government Organizations, Etc.)
The problem in finding the "right" candidate, is that the Government has it's hand in so many cookie jars that finding somebody you agree with is practically impossible. Especially since you are trying to bring a group of individuals to some consensus that candidate A is better than candidate B.
I'll bet most anyone can tell you who is winning the Republican horserace for NH based on polls, but I'd wager much more that almost no one could tell you anything about Mitt Romney's 59-point economic plan. This is not simply because Americans are dumb and lazy, it is a direct result of the garbage that is known as American media. Whether it is a sympathetic media outlet for Republicans like Fox News, a virulently opposed one like the NY Times, a neutral one like CNN, or a totally disinterested one like BBC America the media that serves the American people has made a collective decision that issues do not matter nearly so much as poll results. Horserace coverage makes for better ratings than in-depth analysis I guess.
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.
...if they are not named Mitt Romney, then they are all AGAINST Mitt Romney.
If they are named Mitt Romney, they are FOR Mitt Romney.
They are ALL AGAINST Barack Obama.
They are ALL AGAINST tax increases.
They are ALL FOR invading Iran. No, wait, that's not quite right....
It's a Republican primary. Don't expect too much clear blue water between candidates....
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Voting for politicians is the problem, not the solution. Voting is handing ALL power we are nominally given to a corrupt political system which will only work in favour of big business. People who think a single politician can make any change to the system are unfortunately deluded. That's not to say that voting itself is bad. But we should vote for POLICIES, not POLITICIANS. If we can organise nightly votes for teen signing idols, for fuck's sake, we can have nightly votes on issues of actual importance.
Ron Paul has come out fairly strongly against SOPA, IIRC.
What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?
It's trivially easy to divide them into two groups, on lots of different issues:
One is "for" electing Romney, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Gingrich, the rest are "against".
One is "for" electing Perry, the rest are "against".
etc.
But what's this about "geek issues"? Aren't there some fundamental civic issues that this country has cast aside, that should make a more compelling platform than any "geek issue" you could name?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Politicians are scheming winners of popularity contests. They are experts at manipulating people. Gadgets are not their thing. The best you can hope for is to vote for someone who has a science policy that isn't completely looney tunes and doesn't pander to the largest religious groups.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
There is an assumption that any of them are good candidates. It is quite possible that we need somebody completely different. I think it is time to find somebody outside of the proposed politicians.
His mandatory tooth brushing will save us millions in the fight against tooth decay, and his Pony ID is vastly superior to any other ID program proposed to date (which other ones can you ride to work on?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
Not sure if this is a geek issue, but let's reduce the spending! We (the US) passed $15T in debt recently. It's crazy I tells 'ya!
"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."
http://www.sopaopera.org/
Current for/against on the first page.
it's not news for nerds. how about abortion? oh, maybe which of them are racist, homophobic, or whatever have you lies one side can say about the other side just to get you to vote a certain way. Did you know the Republican women are really, really stupid, for example? So the other candidates are at least "for" being smart, except they're religious, which means they're also all retarded.
Politics DO NOT belong on Slashdot. please, PLEASE stop posting this trash, admins.
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. ]
If you need positions laid out neatly, a good place to start is Project Votesmart: http://www.votesmart.org/
Click on "issue positions" for a breakdown.
Candidates are very, very different. Although in a primary you may see general agreement on a few core issues (abortion, tax cuts) they differ on secondary issues. And where there is agreement, that usually means it's being forced by the voters, so it's not a case of limited choices foisted on people. (For instance, look at Mitt Romney's stands on abortion: to be elected as governor of Massachusetts, he *had* to be pro-choice. Today he *has* to say he's pro-life.)
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.
dunno about candidates, but there is a Chrome Plug in that tells you when you are visiting web sites that support SOPA.
Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and is against the federal government being responsible for and therefore against enacting any private business regulation. He believes it is the responsibility of the individual states to deal with such matters if they are so deemed necessary.
Speaks in Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c76yeqQY2ms
Speaks in Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
"He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality legislation.[155]
Paul voted against an amendment[156][157] that would have legally protected net neutrality: "One of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[158] Paul was also asked, "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?" He replied, "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."[159] He was perceived as softening this stance later.[160]
Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET "Technology voter guide". In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.[161]
Paul was one of two representatives to vote against the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007,[162] which states that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi Internet connection to the public, who "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" in relation to illegal visual media such as child pornography transferred over that connection, must register a report of their knowledge to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.[163]"
I'd think a good place to start is to look at which party has funded science institutions historically. For instance, under George W. Bush, the budgets for the following went up significantly: National Institute of Health - tripled in fact; National Science Foundation; NASA (after it was reduced under Clinton). You may find this counterintuitive, but it’s true and on the record. Funding for science organizations has historically been higher under Republicans than Democrats. Neil Tyson (host of NOVA) explains this quite well. http://youtu.be/x7Q8UvJ1wvk
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate. I'm sorry to break it to you, but he's just about the last person that ought to be in charge of a country the size of the US. Excessive rigidity in thinking is just as dangerous, if not more so, than excessive malleability is. Most people want a candidate that represents them and doesn't change his or her mind without good cause. Having somebody that refuses to change his or her mind ever isn't something that's going to work well. Just look at the TEA Party morons that lost out on a big win because they weren't willing to compromise a little.
Pete Ashdown isn't running for president, but he is running for a senate seat against that epic ass clown Orrin Hatch. He started the best ISP I've ever used here in Utah and has run for congress before with a very tech-savvy platform and utilized cool technologies in his campaign.
Check him out: http://peteashdown.org/
In my mind getting rid of Orrin Hatch and getting Pete Ashdown to replace him is killing two birds with one stone.
or else!
The Democratic Senators from Oregon are both opposed to SOPA- and Ron Wyden has offered his services to Fillibuster it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Who cares, it's politics.
Worry about something more important in life then political nonsense.
Hmmm... whitehouse.gov supports it.
true, his foreign policy is completely incompatible with US imperialism. We'd have to change greatly in that sense if he were pres. I don't know if that's bad or not....probably a good thing. Of course he'd screw up the economy with his gold standard garbage; I can't imagine how he got the notion that it would be good to tie economic growth rate to how fast we can pull rocks out of the earth.
I believe that the American political system can't be reformed because Americans are too stupid. I read a recent poll that said that something like 76% of voters want all incumbents out of Congress, but something like 56% actually say "All but my Congressman". That sums up the problem in this country. Everybody wants everybody else to sacrifice so they don't have to. When nobody will sacrifice, nothing will change. It pains me to say it, but we get the government we deserve because of our own stupidity.
An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.'
For the record, this is only true if your politicians don't lie to you...
the ron paul worshippers claim that he represents all that is good and possible in the world. do not believe them. think instead of what is actually required for him to accomplish his "government small enough to drown in a bathtub", and what that actually means for anyone who is not currently well off. sure as geeks we like to think we are doing well because we believe ourselves to be smarter than average, but no smart person would vote for someone such as ron paul who aims for such unitary unchecked control over government and such total dismemberment of basic functions that make life possible for those of us who make less than $250k per year.
just because ron paul is wildly popular with slashdot members does not mean he will actually do anything good for many of us.
three comments and I am forever at terrible karma
Unless you consider trifling little things like your Civil Rights under the Bill of Rights to be "geek issues", I suggest you re-examine your priorities.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Romney has come out and slammed SOPA today, while many professionals have said Obama will sign it because of the vast money he gets from Hollywood. Romney gets my thumbs up because while there is no perfect candidate, being in favor of SOPA is an automatic disqualification. The fact that Obama has come out in the past and said he will veto bills, but hasn't had the guts to same the same about SOPA/PIPA reflects poorly on his knowledge of the situation. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120108/00322817330/did-mitt-romney-just-come-out-against-sopapipa.shtml http://merrimack.patch.com/articles/video-mitt-romney-slams-sopa
Geeks know we are not to blame for who's elected
You research the candidate positions, you go to the polling place, you go into the voting booth, you use the voting machine, and whoever Diebold wants to win wins.
-- Terry
I'd like to think that the best position for the federal government to take in order for technology to flourish would be hands off. SOPA for example, is bad. The patriot act is another example where the harshest possible stance is taken on "cyberterror". Give me deregulation and smaller government! Amen. End the Fed.
which big win did the tea party ppl miss out on?
So what advice do you have to give to those of us who NEVER get our opinions or positions represented?
I think foreign policy and economics are far more important than SOPA and patent law.
What makes you think that SOPA and patent law has no impact on economics? As far as I can tell, SOPA will be the death of a good chunk of the New Economy 3.0 companies....
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
What you call rigidity, others call principle. And it's sorely missed in Washington. I'll happily vote for someone who's rigidly anti-SOPA.
Is to ask which candidate seems to let research and facts inform his opinions rather than a belief system (economic, religious, etc). For that look at what books they read (a standard question the press likes to ask). If it is a political biography reinforcing their belief system, beware. If it seems it is something that might give them background information on an area where they aren't an expert, give them another look.
The candidates are almost all so beholden to big moneyed interests and the TV way of political elections and so caught up in raising money, I really can't see many of them having much time to be self informed so the next best thing is to see the caliber of thinking of the advisers they have around them.
I don't focus on one policy but look to the intellectual curiosity of the candidate...they should be asking lots of good questions. Or even pausing and answering good questions instead of reciting their "appeal to the people" stump speeches in response to all questions..
A person has at least 9 openings if you stop and think about it. So I'd like to make the case that your analogy is valid with up to 9 political parties. Our hypothetical rapist would be stymied by the tenth party though ;).
Easy answer (for me). Google him. He'll be on the ballot in all 50 states so he may have "a fighting chance".
Speaking only for myself, I find the situation in 2012 to be completely different from 2000. But I do not see either of the legacy parties committed to net neutrality, expanding access to broadband, or any other geek/technology issue.
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.
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
You actually post an article about whether we should vote for a presidential candidate based on geek friendliness?????? Wow! America is officially dead.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Yeah! Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution, with all the gay marriage bans involved in it.
A conservative should be against disruption, and a progressive should be in favour of, well, progress.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Democratic politicians are not unlikely to be in the back pocket of Big Coal, Big Oil, and Big Content, where they try not to notice the Republicans in there with them. At least Republicans hate solar, we can at least distinguish the two on one tech issue.
Frankly, I think ALL the available politicians are "conservative" about disruptive technologies, since new companies are still poor and unable to bribe\\\\\\ contribute to their campaigns, and the existing Powers That Be are able to ensure that any disruptions are thwarted, or at least slowed down.
I think that Canada's NDP ("New Democratic Party" - based on the British Labour Party - no longer actual socialists, but as far as we go in that direction) does show what a genuinely progressive party would be like in the States. They don't take corporate contributions. And here's the most anti-DRM piece I've ever read from a national politician - from an NDP Member of Parliament, last month in the Huffington Post, protesting our Conservative Party's new "C11" bill:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/copyright-canada-reform-bill-c-11_b_1143332.html
Excerpt:
"Most nations with modern copyright laws do not criminalize bypassing digital locks for non-commercial use. They allow people to burn a CD from music purchased on an iPod. They let you copy a new DVD to your laptop. They don't prevent someone who is visually impaired from using software to read ebooks aloud. They don't stop teachers from referencing other media to illustrate a lesson. Under Bill C-11, all of these acts are crimes."
The problem is not individual elected officials, it's the entire machine. You can't really change the machine just by swapping nuts and dolts.
I think it's important to note that the Green Party platform supports transitioning government agencies to Open Source Software, supports Net Neutrality and opposes Software Patents. Those are three key "geek" issues to me which both the Democrats and Republicans choose to ignore. Read the Green Party 2010 Platform and decide for yourself.
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
true, his foreign policy is completely incompatible with US imperialism.
No, his foreign policy is incompatible with pretty much any stance other than total isolationism.
It wasn't for entertainment, and it wasn't intended to be a flamewar.
There is no way to choose between candidates of any party because they won't take a stand on any issue.
This is important. To foment change in the future we need an answer for those people who still have faith in the system.
Of the myriad ways we have to change things, the majority can be dismissed simply because they are not 100% perfect. Vigilantes might make a mistake, innocent workers are affected more than the directors, the TSA agents aren't to blame, and so on.
What people don't realize is that there really is no other choice. There is no systemic way for people to express discontent, to put pressure on on our leaders to change things. We can't vote rationally because the candidates keep their views hidden.
Of the candidates, do any of them advocate:
1) Strong financial regulation?
2) Pulling out of Afghanistan?
3) A policy about carbon emissions?
4) A policy for future energy?
5) Health care?
6) Tax reform?
Ignore geek issues - these are things that are important to everyone in the country.
And yet - you can't use these to guide your hand in the voting booth. There is no way to judge what anyone will do with these issues if elected.
This needs to be publicized. It's the reason why people express their discontent in the "wrong" way.
They could have had the Senate as well in 2010.
Ron Paul does not want to ban gay marriage. Ron Paul as a libertarian would like to get the federal government out of marriage all together, ie Federal gov has not say at all. I doubt anything will change though as the other congress critters likes things just the way they are, gridlocked.
Considering that his "principle" is to not allow gay marriage, I can't respect it.
And don't give me the crap that "He wants government out of all marriage!" I'll believe it when I see him introduce a bill to remove the federal government's recognition of straight marriage.
Bloody anonymous posters.
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.
So what advice do you have to give to those of us who NEVER get our opinions or positions represented?
Suck it up.
As a single citizen in a country of hundreds of millions that has a representative government, some people are outliers and just have to live with the policy made by the rest of us. I mean, fairly simple logic will lead you to the conclusion that:
IF: My policy preferences are different from everyone else's (not that there's anything immoral with that, but it's an empirical fact sometimes)
THEN
EITHER:
(1) I will convince people that my policy is right or at least gain support for a compromise policy OR
(2) I will institute a dictatorship that implements this policy irrespective of what others prefer OR
(3) I will not get my position implemented
END_EITHER
END_IF
If you see a fourth option, I'd love to hear it ...
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them. Most Americans do support legalization of marijuana, but they don't support legalizing drugs in general. Most Americans are opposed to the kind of isolationist foreign policy he's pushing for even the liberal voters that are more amenable to pulling out of our free trade agreements.
In short appealing to an extremely small minority isn't something that's likely to win any votes, but if you want to throw your vote away go for it, it is your right to vote for whomever you wish, just do us all a favor and don't pretend like Ron Paul's chances are the result of some sort of conspiracy, they aren't.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic and had some hope of being elected to the Presidency. I'm not sure why you would assume that a candidate that can't even win a state wide race is going to have better luck with a nationwide one.
Also, this is a false dilemma, if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having. Around here we solved the problem by fixing the districting system and taking the power to nominate candidates away from the parties. So far it's been working quite well for us.
That was definitely a big one, another one was the debt ceiling vote where they could have had a much larger reduction in spending, but pissed it away because of a small amount of increased taxation on the richest Americans.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions. So don't give me that bullshit that he's not against gay marriage.
And I'll believe the stance that he wants to "get the federal government out of marriage altogether" when he introduces a bill to remove recognition of straight marriage from the federal government.
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.
Avoid voting for these people.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
Some real news.
http://www.activistpost.com/
The Republicans orgasmed over the NDAA.
Obama signed it into law.
Both parties are exactly the same. If you're worried about bullshit trivialities instead of the fact that the Constitution has been utterly destroyed, you need to get your priorities in order.
The problem is the 1 person, 1 vote system. If people could rank all the candidates then we wouldn't have a 2 party system. But because an individual voter can only vote once, there's only one way their vote can be cast. Ergo...the decision on who to vote for becomes binary. If not A then B. If B then not A.
If Candidate B is for X and X is an issue large enough for me to vote solely for...then B gets my vote. Unless, of course, another candidate comes along and agrees with X. Then both candidates have to find something they disagree on...and slowly this sort of process leads to only 2 parties putting forth only 2 candidates.
There's math behind this reasoning.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Pretty ballsy to organize, perpetrate, and hide massive election fraud when susceptible voting machines are used in only a handful of states and counties.
he's just about the last person that ought to be in charge of a country the size of the US.
I see you subscribe to the common misconception that our president is supposed to be "in charge of a country". He's not. His job is to run one of three co-equal branches of the Federal government, which in turn shares power with the states. I support Ron Paul (among many other reasons) because of his understanding that he's running for President, not for Emperor.
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates? Come to terms with it already; you`re NEVER going to have a candidate who meets you on every single view you have.
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?
Just because what he says doesn't agree with the slashdot masses who support Ron Paul doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be read.
Anyone who rejects scientific knowledge can do good in office only by accident, and should be anathema to people in science-based industries.
In short appealing to an extremely small minority...
21.4% for third place in Iowa is not "extremely small" when the leading two got only ~24.5% each. Yet another attempt to marginalize Paul and his supporters.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic
See above. And if you're calling the overwhelming support from military personnel "a tiny demographic," then perhaps you should enlist and put your ass on the line. I hear Iran's pretty nice this time of year.
if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having.
A moronic and naive statement given the state of American politics. Obama, for example. Where's all that hope and change he promised? How do we know a candidate will work in our best interests based just on what they say? What about the other republican crackpots?
Also, this is a false dilemma...
No, believing that one should vote only for an establishment candidate on either side of the fence is a false dillemma, one that's been utterly ruinous to our country. If Ron Paul is elected, two things could happen: The first is that Ron Paul will spectacularly betray us like Obama did. Okay, fair enough, people start either fleeing the country or picking up their guns. Maybe Ron Paul will be elected but be powerless to do anything. That's fine, because at least some progress was made and the message was sent. Same if Ron Paul didn't win, but got at least a third of the votes.
This is the problem with democracy you get to vote but don't get to vote on what gets voted on (if that makes any sense) it's the illusion of control.
Rocket Surgeon.
Check out http://www.ontheissues.org/Technology.htm#Headlines to see what each candidtae has said about technology and the environment. You can examine their positions on other issues too.
Released in the mid-four fashion designers for their multi-family has paid off, that is to be hot among the top 10 among brand Marc Jacobs top. Whom the consent of the credit for this honor, and non-Marc Jacobs Handbags and Marc Jacobs bags perfectly. In addition, its decks Marc by Marc Jacobs also attracted high attention. Many of them young people, the most popular Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbags and Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags.
http://us.pirate.is/
According to who? I suppose you prefer the an NDAA signing, constitution shredder, like Obama?
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical
Radical compared to what? Obama open defied the US constitution by signing the NDAA. Is that not radical? Remember that nut-job preacher from Obama's church?
"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.
What is being said by different people here does not take a big problem we have in the US. That is, the poor people 70% or more do not have access to equal economic opportunity so that they can take rational decision. No matter how much we shout in Slashdot, nothing is going to reach these larger block of votes. Thus, well organised smaller groups take over the democratic election and create an one-sided US. Those who think RP is for top-down do not recognise that with their narrow corrupt views are based on their selfish economical and political power. They have destroyed the best education system. They don't want water, power, transportation, environment and other related fundamental needs of ALL people/. Their selfish policies are now followed in the third world countries that is creating huge pollution and global warming. On the other hand DP which had original goal of "inclusive society" has gone to be controlled by Unions which are destroying everything and have no place in the 21 century. Ron Paul et al., will totally destroy the USA. The founding forefathers never imagined that the future politicians will be utter crooks pocketing the wealth of the whole country. A few exception in both parties are accidental left over. No matter whom you elect, the old glorious days of the only Democratic USA is gone for ever. Our discussions will not help a bit unless all of us go back to the gross root political movement to educate all voters. Are you all ready?
It's not just "geek" issues, it's a set of issues. If the candidate is_ for_ any of the following list of examples, he/she is anti-Liberty and should be avoided:
SOPA/PIPA/S.978
The Patriot Act
Warrantless _anything_ by the police
"Enhancements" to domestic and/or international copyright and patent law (as opposed to lessening their reach and impact)
Abortion and/or Contraception control
Gun Control
Sadly, it's probably going to be a pretty short list if you're able to find any politicians at all who are _against_ that entire list of issues. For Presidential candidates, I think the list is down to one - Gary Johnson, who just gave up on the GOP and is now running for the Libertarian nomination. And I don't yet know enough about him to be sure he 100% belongs on the "short list", either. None of the people running for national office from my Congressional and Senatorial districts satisfy all of the above criteria, although a couple of them _may_ be better than the incumbents (their main attraction is that they are not the incumbent).
I'm proud to be a "geek", but I've always thought of myself as a Canadian of Ukrainian descent.
I've never even considered adding "geek" to the hyphenation.
The technically literate are more aware of issues like copyright, piracy, internet access rights, filtering, and a host of technical concerns that most of the public doesn't understand.
But I don't know any technologists who aren't MORE concerned about the same issues as everyone else: unnecessary wars, rapacious corporate executives, job losses due to offshoring, bank executives rewarded for mismanagement and fraud instead of being prosecuted, etc.
First and foremost, geeks are PEOPLE.
We've been trying to get "The Jocks" to accept that for decades. Why would we now want to pigeon-hole ourselves as being either sub-human or elite? We're neither, just differently-abled people.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials
Maybe so, but whoever says that is wrong. Having a popularity contest to decide who should have the next turn doing things nobody should be allowed to do is manifestly a bad idea.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical
It's more that we've gone adrift and he's stayed where he was 30 years ago.
It used to be the policy of the republican party to end the Dpt of Education. Instead Bush doubled it (or was it tripled).
It used to be the policy of the US - at least in speeches - to push for a stronger dollar. It's gone horrendously in the tank for over a decade.
It used to be the policy of our free market system that if your business made terrible decisions and threw away money you went bankrupt. Now you get bailed out by the taxpayers.
It used to be the policy of the US that we allowed for free speech and peaceful protests. Today you get chained into a free speech zone or are arrested, usually with a dash of pepper spray.
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
- Creationism is a valid theory. (Nevermind fossils or the definition of scientific "theory".)
- Global warming is a hoax or not something that should be addressed. (Nevermind the data and the >98% concurrence among climatologists.)
- Vaccines cause retardation (Nevermind... facts)
- Abstinence education is effective. (Nevermind the data that show how high pregnancy rates are when it's all that's available.)
- Abortion is pretty much never a medical necessity. (That's from the ACTUAL PHYSICIAN candidate, too.)
- Being gay is a mental disease/lifestyle choice/bad decision/horrible influence on children (Nevermind that the AMA and American Psychiatric association recognize it as normal variation, and studies show gay parents are fine.)
- Sex is only for man-woman-marriage-baby-making. (Nevermind reality. And Newt Gingrich.)
It's quite evocative of that famous Asimov quote: Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
I wish sanity were something that was a little easier to parlay into support, but the Primaries are the Crazy Olympics, and it's all about who can out-God and out-blue-collar the next.
I want to like a party that espouses fiscal and personal responsibility. I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.
Why do you consider a "let the states decide" concept such bullshit?
The idea is, Federal govt. shouldn't be dictating things that are in the realm of the states to handle. They should only be guaranteeing the most basic of rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms would remain under Federal jurisdiction, since as the designers of the system itself realized, needs to be a right guaranteed to *all* citizens of the nation to ensure the citizenry retains power against government corruption.
Marriage licenses and details on how they're granted? We already allow states to handle that however they see fit, and ultimately - it's just a legal construct anyway. Two people can choose to live together and get married without involving government's permission. All people are really fighting about, when it comes down to it, is a right to file their taxes as married and a right to have the courts treat their situation as per standards used for "married couples" in case of a divorce or other dispute.
With so many "alternative lifestyles" out there, many judges are coming around and handling cases involving property division as if the people involved were legally married anyway.
You brought up constitution shredding and forgot to mention NDAA and SOPA / PIPA. The latter two of course aren't law yet, but there's a good chance they will be and if nothing else their broad support demonstrates that something is seriously wrong.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
Ron Paul would be a truly lousy president. But can you really claim that he'd be as bad any of our last five?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'd currently say I'm libertarian leaning, and that's exactly my stance on marriage. It's a religious ceremony, and the government has zero business in it at all. Straight couples and gay couples may both have a civil union, which takes care of all those tax and insurance issues but we could cut that crap too. What that federal court ban (I haven't read up on it) would do is stop the judiciary from legislating from the bench, overriding the decision made by the states. This is a crucial idea, as legislating from the judiciary has led to erosion of our Bill of Rights.
SOPA / PIPA go far beyond just being a geek issue. Breaking DNSSEC isn't good by any means, but the biggest problem they present is the trampling of freedom of speech and the automatic assumption of guilt. Your average American won't care or even know about DNSSEC not working, but they'll be rather upset when they suddenly can't post comments because sites can't afford to risk users creating a SOPA violation that will take them down without warning or input.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
[ 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. ]
Yes, important questions such as WHOM SHOULD CONTROL WHICH PARTS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM? What should the US military policy be, and what size military should it have? Should the Federal Reserve be allowed so much power over interest rates and lending? (I'll give credit to RP on that) What policy should the Federal Reserve be following? How stringent should accounting and banking regulations be? Should we get rid of Sarbanes Oxley? Should restrictions to qualify for FDIC coverage be tightened? Should the FDIC be eliminated? Should the federal government be in the home loan market (Fannie Mae)? What federal regulations should there be on health care? Should No Child Left Behind be kept around? How much should gasoline be taxed?
Compared to those, SOPA and net neutrality seem unimportant. If they do not work out, Congress can always change the law later. Lets see what damage they cause first. Frankly, people seem very hypocritical about piracy.
About the only things I can think of where the federal government is involved in marriage are taxes and green cards, both of which I believe just depend on whether or not a state has recognized the marriage or not. Other than that, it is pretty much entirely a state issue. That's why I always roll my eyes when presidential candidates talk about gay marriage stances. It's not their jurisdiction, so there's no reason to let that issue decide your vote.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Vote for a third party. Doesn't matter which one, doesn't matter what they are for or against. This is just the first step in getting rid of the two party system. You desperately need more parties so that politicians actually have to discuss things and make compromises if they want to get something done. Also more parties allows parties that focus more on specific things. When you have about 5 parties with some seats you are going to start seeing actual differences between them.
The States didn't have to follow the 2nd Amendment till McDonald v. Chicago incorporated it against the states via the 14th Amendment. The first eight amendments were never meant to apply to the states which is why they only apply via the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The 3rd amendment, for example, does not apply to the states only the Fed. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1865. The "designers of the system" as you call the founders, wrote the 2nd amendment to limit the power of the federal government in gun rights not the power of the states to regulate gun rights. Up till McDonald any state could ban weapons outright. If I remember correctly, the last case, before McDonald, to look at incorporating the 2nd Amendment was in the 30s (not sure on date or name and DC v. Heller was in DC which is not a state but a federal protectorate and so falls under federal law and so needs no incorporation) In which the SCOTUS specifically said it would not incorporate it.
To correct your statement it would be "The right to keep and bear arms would remain under Federal jurisdiction, since as the designers of the system itself realized, needs to be a right guaranteed to *all* citizens of the nation to ensure the citizenry retains power against *Federal* government corruption."
The right has now been incorporated so your statement is correct except for the "designers of the system" part unless you consider Justice Scalia a "designer of the system."
Ron Paul is not just an obvious exception, he's the only exception. Vote for him or the cycle continues. Period.
And btw - if you are not yet registered republican, even if their behavior up to this point totally disgusts you (that was the case for me), register republican and vote for Paul, at least in the primaries, or it will be your fault if the endless wars (including on drugs) continue.
It won't be mine.
Once he's a nominee, Obama doesn't have a chance. But for the record I'd prefer Obama to waste another four years than have any other republican wipe the country with his ass like bush did.
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
Then it's 1,138 instances of Government overstepping its authority. Government (at any level) has no business assigning rights because of a religious sacrament. Legal rights can be granted by legal agreements.
He's all for civil liberty, and at this time, that is certainly what us geeks should be fighting for.
All that racist and homophobic talk is just nonsense. He's for EVERYONE'S civil liberties, and he's honest and reliable.
If you think any other candidate has any merit at all your are on Quaaludes. Unless you mention Buddy Roemer, who doesn't have a chance at all!
Ron Paul 2012. Or continue our slide into abject fascism.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
We are not to blame. We did not elect our officials. They are to blame. It is they who elected those f** officials.
* (f* = failing)
How come Scott Adam's name has not been mentioned?
Really? Trading openly with nations around the world and ceasing the practice of sanctions, bribes, and bombs to achieve political goals = total isolationism?
Is that some kinda 'tard logic?
The fact that an individual doesn't believe separating every country in the world into the categories of Bribe, Bomb, or Sanction does not indicate that said person is not in favor of engaging with those nations. Believe it or not, there are other ways to interact. You don't have to bribe countries to do what you want with foreign aid. You don't have to sanction countries who are doing things you don't like. You don't have to bomb and invade countries you really don't like. Looking for other options while seeking open trade with every country on Earth does NOT make one an isolationist.
Nor does it make one an isolationist to say that we probably don't need military troops stationed in over 150 countries around the world. 150 countries. Can you even name that many? Tell me, if Ron Paul said we should only have soldiers stationed in 75 countries around the world, would you then call him a half-isolationist? It's unbelievable to me when I hear these morons in the media and in the Republican Party talking about a guy who wants to open dialog with countries where we have no relations, open trade with countries we currently sanction and embargo, and stop interfering in the internal decision making of supposed allies as if he's an isolationist.
To me, an isolationist is someone who pisses off the entire world by bossing around friends, bribing the "friends" who wouldn't listen to the bossing around to make them do as told, funding both sides of wars (Palestinians + Arabs + Israelies), propping up dictators in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran of yesteryear, etc, slapping sanctions and embargoes on all kinds of countries and groups around the world, and stationing troops all over the planet (particularly in places they're not wanted). That's someone who's ensuring that nearly every relationship we have is a strained and unhealthy one filled with mutual distrust and anger.
People are so damned backwards.
-- "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.
However, calling [Ron Paul] "not viable" is defeatist given that his numbers are significantly strong.
What is his support like among non-aligned voters, nationwide? If he's repelling them, then no matter how much his base loves him, he still predictably won't win overall and is thus "not viable". Winning the nomination is not enough.
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.
Good luck with that, but I bet the establishment will do their level best to totally ignore your vote. Alas.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
So on one side we've got the rule of law enforced by a state and on another we've got uncontrolled warlords. That's a pretty easy choice if you consider it without the naive fantasy of being the warlord (eg. Libertarians). It's a philosophy that IMHO can only exist by having aspirations of being a slaveowner or extreme ignorance of the world and a lack of awareness of what hellholes the Libertarian dream in action are - take a look at Somalia for some clues.
That probably means he doesn't have a chance because Reagan at his most senile is seen as the ideal President by far too many on that side of politics.
I got to the bottom of the page and I still can not see any post up modded enough to show me what the submitter actually asked for. Where is the list that compares candidates on specific issues?
go die of aids, faggot
Nice shift of goalposts by setting the bar to 24 month to get some sort of petty game win after you've been caught out - but yes predicting whether the next year is going to be wet or dry has been based on a working model for a very long time. You can fuck off with your arbitrary 24 months that you've thrown in just to bully those of us that have read about it but are not actual experts - I don't know and it doesn't fucking matter because I can see your childish luddite game for what it is. Those goalposts will just keep on moving won't they until you can pretend you've won some petty little game?
Just because it's not perfect to the day is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist - and it's a mortal insult to dump any science in with economics anyway even for Engineers (like myself) and not actual scientists.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else. It will be interesting to see how he does in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a true vote AND it is a state that tends to support candidates like Ron Paul. If he does not get similar numbers in New Hampshire, Ron Paul has no shot (I already don't think Ron Paul has a shot, but if he has a similar showing in New Hampshire that would indicate that his support is becoming significant).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The fundamental error in the question is that if you're trying to split all politicians into just two groups you're part of the problem.
This is the biggest problem I have with the Republican party - the absolute rejection of knowledge and science in favor of ideology. Disgusting.
Nobody in this country takes corporate contributions either. That's sooo old fashioned.
These days, all the cool kids instead have "SuperPAC"s run by "former" staffers that take unlimited amounts of corporate contributions. These in turn blanket the airwaves with vicious attack ads which the candidate himself has of course no control over, and has not personally seen. But he understands they bring up some very interesting points about his opponent...
You folks in Canada are so cute.
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates? Come to terms with it already; you`re NEVER going to have a candidate who meets you on every single view you have.
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?
And in the 1950s you'd have been saying "Christ, again with the civil rights shit" and in the 1850s "Christ, again with the anti-slavery shit" I suppose?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
One of the funniest Onion articles I've read basically claims that Republicans must actually be thinking of Eisenhower, not Reagan.
It seems to me it takes balls for a republican presidential candidate to suggest we should put our trust in science. Here's Huntsman doing just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3VkYo_crTA
While this youtube video is from an atheist perspective, any science-minded person can appreciate this breakdown of the candidates. (I haven't checked all the points for accuracy.):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lETiqZTLzCk&feature=g-all-c&context=G2b2a510FAAAAAAAAIAA
Just like everywhere else.
You should probably try educating yourself a bit before displaying your ignorance so loudly for every moderator on slashdot to mod you into oblivion.
Your statement is completely false.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions.
Because it's not a federal issue. Marriage should NOT be a federal issue, or thought of/handled in any way by the federal government. This is a power reserved to the People, not the Federal government OR states.
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates?
A better question would be, why is the gay marriage thing LESS important because our politicians have caused not only that problem, but a hundred others as well? Does that diminize the importance of gay marriage to people who are affected adversely every single day by this? Of course not.
I know this may come as quite a shock to you, but it's actually possible for our nation to consider MANY separate issues at once.
Is I can never find enough information about them. Sure the big elections for president, vice president and your state representatives are pretty easy to investigate, but when you start getting into the state and local levels you hardly find any information at all, especially for things like state judges. Most of the time I don't even know whose going to be on the ballot. If we ever do anything about voter reforms, a national election database needs to be one of the top priorities. A database that contains all the candidates current running for election in each county of every state, or does someone already know of such a database?
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
And that matters why exactly? None of a candidate's personal beliefs on these stupid wedge issues matters unless he has a bad habit of trying to force his beliefs on everyone else. There is only one candidate who we know for a fact won't, and that's Ron Paul.
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
He does have some good ideas. Unfortunately, anyone can tell from watching this guy in the debates that he is somewhat insecure and defensive. Not exactly Presidential, or even Vice Presidential material.
I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.
Yeah, everyone and their mom is all for governmental reduction, unless it affects the specific area they're interested in. The defense contractors feel exactly the same way you do about their military budget. There's billions of other people riding on entitlements and other government programs that won't be happy when that stuff disappears....but it NEEDS to happen.
Try this simile on for size.
interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
Why do you assume Ron Paul will stick to old stances when new facts come in? He has changed his views in the past, on very important issues like the Death penalty.
"in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."
Again, more marginalization that is either half- or just totally untrue.
In fact I have a hard time thinking of examples. People start running for office in their 30s and 40s. The PC founding generation is beyond that age group. The web creation generation is approaching that age.
Perhaps its because politics is mostly extroversion and most nerds are not like that.
A few scientific societies encourage some members to participate in governmental affairs. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and American Institute of Physics (both umbrella societies) are two cases. However the number of STEM PhDs or medical doctors in congress is very small.
Try this on for size instead:
Calling Ron Paul a non-interventionist is like calling your neighbor a good neighbor because he wears earplugs to bed so the screams and cries don't keep him awake.
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
This is absolutely the only sensible option. Pity that nobody takes it seriously.
Correction: Ron Paul says that he wants to.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No. Because his "reasoned and well written opinion" is not backed up by the policies actually supported by Democratic legislatures and presidents, which have also enriched a lot of people "at the top." What he ascribes to the Republicans is actually a fairly universal consensus in both parties: called, variously, "neoliberalism," the "American consensus," etc.
Lemmy Caution describes well, the policies and the power bases of the two parties. So why do we vote for either of them when neither of them represent any of the overwhelming majority of us?
/. most people realize now that the TSA is all about security theater and nothing about real security. We also have to realize that our democracy is hollow, and is there as a show to keep us from really trying to change things for the better. 2012 is looking like a year when we can really make a difference. Do sit this one out! Fuck voting, take to the streets!!
The Republicans use social issues to motivate poor and middle class religious people to vote for them. God, Guns, and Gays. This is the propaganda program they embarked on in the 1970s and it has been spectacularly successful in getting people to vote directly against their economic interests.
BR The Democrats use the mask of populism to garner votes. They claim to be the people's party and they manipulate people like me to vote for them because their economic and social policies aren't quite as terrifying as the Republicans.
When someone breaks the mold, like Ron Paul, he is vilified from both sides and huge sums of money are spent (and elections are probably rigged) to defeat such people. Paul was in the lead in Iowa, but the private money that was spent there in the last few weeks was dizzying, and there was ample evidence of vote manipulation.
Our democracy is theater. At
-- QED
Always. Other issues factor in, in small ways, but the truth of the equation in the subject line is difficult to dispute, although the wealthy will always pay someone to try.
So no candidate is "best" for geek issues. Candidates work for their employers, the lobbyists on K-street who covertly fill their offshore bank accounts or overtly give money to their campaigns. Any support for things like net neutrality are mere coincidence, because the candidate or hired hand (congressperson) was paid to do so.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
He picked Julius Genachowski an early innovator in web technology to head the FCC, and a huge advocate of net neutrality. Obama has consistently sided with science. I think it is a no brainer.
In terms of Republicans...
John Huntsman is pro science
Newt Gingrich has a long history of being pro technology. He tends to go for big government technology investment.
That's be fine if you weren't dead wrong on everything.
Marriage is a legal construct overseen by government and religions have no business interfering in legal contracts.
Civil unions are just a way of extending the discrimination against gays to the unreligious too, because as soon as we start down that path, religious groups will start campaign to keep certain rights and benefits for religiously married couples only. As will insurance companies or anyone else who might have to pay anything to the civil union spouse. They won't be able to help themselves when they get the chance to seize power and profits.
The judiciary isn't eroding the Bill of Rights, they're enforcing it. You should learn more about the history of the United States, for most of it's history, only lip service was paid to the Bill of Rights. So called "activist judges" are the very people who started enforcing it. You might want to consider the consequences of stripping judges of the ability to overrule unconstitutional laws if you want to enforce the constitutional limits on government.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Marriage is a legal construct overseen by government and religions have no business interfering in legal contracts.
Marriage is a construct which has existed for millennia. The government has only existed to recognize it for a little over 2 centuries.
Civil unions are just a way of extending the discrimination against gays to the unreligious too, because as soon as we start down that path, religious groups will start campaign to keep certain rights and benefits for religiously married couples only.
So?! Screw 'em. A religious marriage will be a piece of paper signed by a religious figure and will have no legal weight or effect, no matter what any religious groups might think or want. And if you still want a "marriage" certificate, you have freedom of religion just as much as anyone else. Create an official marriage certificate authorized by the church of FSM.
I believe you'd find that the majority of Christians would find such an arrangement agreeable. Whatever vocal minority didn't could simply be ignored.
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate.
That narrative is starting to crumble. He finished 3rd in Iowa and likely 2nd in New Hampshire, is picking up a larger portion of independents than other candidates, and only he and Romney poll as competitive to Obama.
He certainly may not win; I'd still say it's a long shot... but the constant harping about how he's unelectable has been obviously proven wrong.
So you hate him because of stated position A, because you refuse to believe related stated opinion B.
Much of what you said is incorrect, but that's pretty obvious. Nobody expects objectivity from a poster when they post a multi-paragraph rant about how a particular candidate is wrong on twenty-one separate issues.
The "National Organization For Marriage" has been blasting my Google Reader ads for a week, about how Ron Paul is the only candidate (out of Mitt, Santorum, Newt, Obama, Paul) who is "wrong on marriage". They say he "REFUSES to defend traditional marriage" (as opposed to their photo of Obama) and "RON PAUL says "Sure" GAYS should be able to marry."
It sounds like you may want to reconsider which candidates support gay marriage, since Ron Paul is apparently the only one who believes in it enough for them to oppose him. http://www.wrongonmarriage.com/
Abortion shouldn't belong on your list. Both sides view their position as pro-liberty; it's just a question of whether you consider an unborn baby an entity deserving of human rights.
The rest of your issues truly are cases of greater vs lesser liberty.
It's the only explanation that makes any sense at all.
Libertarianism (not really distinct from anarchy except in how they believe ungoverned people will act) will almost certainly lead to an undemocratic hierarchy. Power (governance) hierarchies just naturally occur in human society (and many other higher animal societies.) You don't get the choice whether to have one, but only perhaps what its rules are: i.e. is there some kind of democratic method of choosing/replacing the particular people occupying offices of power.
All power/governance hierarchies will tax, to one degree or another. They have to, to maintain their effectiveness, ability to govern, etc and they CAN since they have the authority over policing/military forces. So they will. Get used to it.
I stress, if you replace one of these hierarchies with some kind of "flattened" system, it will be unstable, because concentration of resources and power in a hierarchical control system is an energetically more efficient way of getting more and more powerful (coherent) things done.
So focus on making hierarchy as fair and democratic as possible, is my advice, or be on the losing end of macro-thermodynamics.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Well there go my mod points. You are correct in that Article IV Section 1 does make it a federal issue for recognition. The problem is that the waters have gotten muddied by the abuse of the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 otherwise know as the Interstate Commerce Clause which is why we have DOMA as that is viewed as being constitutional because everything is treated like commerce and thus has an impact on interstate commerce there for congress can regulate it. The commerce clause is probably the most abused thing in the constitution and if the court were to overturn DOMA then it would set a precedent that the federal government wouldn't like. So like it or not it will probably be held up as constitutional. Personally I think the religious concept for marriage should be striped out of our law and replaced with domestic partnerships that are between any 2 consenting adults. You would then go down to the courthouse or government center where you currently get your marriage license fill out the paper work and poof the both of you are now granted all the rights and privileges of a domestic partnership, much like you do now.
Time to offend someone
I will not take anyone who says anything like that seriously until they actually campaign for the removal of straight marriage from government recognition.
What that federal court ban (I haven't read up on it) would do is stop the judiciary from legislating from the bench, overriding the decision made by the states. This is a crucial idea, as legislating from the judiciary has led to erosion of our Bill of Rights.
That is the most retarded thing I have read so far, and it shows why libertarians simply should not be put into positions of power. Seriously? Telling a state that they have to follow the fucking Constitution is "legislating from the bench"? And this from people who appear to fucking worship the Constitution? What the fuck is wrong with you? And courts upholding this shit is what's "eroding our rights"?
Other than that, it is pretty much entirely a state issue.
And states have to follow the fucking Constitution, same as the Federal Government. Until anyone campaigns to remove the recognition of straight marriage from all governments, I won't take anyone who sees this seriously, as they are simply anti-gay marriage.
Nope. However, whether a state ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution IS a Federal issue.
Read my comment again. Actually read it. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A LAW, STATE OR FEDERAL, IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IS A FEDERAL ISSUE, DUMBASS.
It is an issue for the Federal Courts, because they are the ones that decide whether a law violates the Constitution.
Or are you one of those idiots that doesn't think the States have to follow the Constitution.
Ron Paul does not support gay marriage. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to ban gay marriage.
This verbal diarrhea from someone who's defending a candidate who is often billed as being the "best candidate for civil liberties!" and "the only candidate who will uphold our freedoms!"
No, it's not. Are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul did not introduce the "We, The People" act with the intent of banning courts from ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans?
Further, what does that say about Ron Paul's "strict Constitutionalist" stance? That he doesn't want to follow the Constitution when it clashes with his religious beliefs? Because I can't see any reason why he would think that in this issue, the states would be allowed to violate the Constitution.
WTO and the Order.
Peqoud's and Queequeg's.
All the puppet of the Illuminati.
New Economic Perspectives
Actions speak louder than words. He's introduced bills against gay marriage. I've never seen him introduce a bill removing the federal recognition of straight marriage. Until I see that, I will not believe his bullshit stance. It is merely a cover so he doesn't have to actually say he's against gay marriage.
You also forgot how he thinks sexually harassed women are partially to blame for not quitting their job to end the harassment (link posted further up by another slashdotter)
Why do you consider a "let the states decide" concept such bullshit?
Why do you consider requiring the states to follow the fucking Constitution to be such bullshit? Specifically, the Amendment requiring Equal Protection Under the Law?
The idea is, Federal govt. shouldn't be dictating things that are in the realm of the states to handle
Probably not. However, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M ADVOCATING. I am advocating that the States cannot violate the Constitution with their laws, and that the Federal Court system is the court system designed to hear questions on Constitutionality of laws.
We already allow states to handle that however they see fit, and ultimately - it's just a legal construct anyway. Two people can choose to live together and get married without involving government's permission. All people are really fighting about, when it comes down to it, is a right to file their taxes as married and a right to have the courts treat their situation as per standards used for "married couples" in case of a divorce or other dispute.
And the 1100 other some odd benefits that get conferred upon marriage. To believe that these are insignificant is simply mind boggling.
He's also not actually a Libertarian, he's a Republican.
GWBush gave us a huge drug entitlement.
Nixon gave us the EPA. Wage and price control and eliminated the gold standard.
Johnson gave us the new society.
Obama gives us an insurance entitlement and takes away our right to trial.
Who are these people ?
If all the independents could rally behind a canidate like Gary Johnson we would get a 3rd party but its unlikely the 40% independent vote would agree on the same guy http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
It would be more interesting if science was a little more.... Solid.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
Even good studies are approaching coin flip accuracy and the bad stuff is just... horrid. Meta-science in most fields looks similar. That's not a solid foundation, until science can provide one they really don't deserve to be in the debate as an authority - just another set of opinions.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Funny, because I've been following the stances he's taken, and I'd say he's completely normal and most radical Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, huh?
I'm not quite sure how you see the states doing something that violates the US Constitution in this instance, because it is a power they have been given control over. It's a state's choice whether they want to recognize gay marriage or not, whether I can marry a 12 year old or not, and so on and so forth. If you have a problem with a state's stance, then consult that state's legislature. I'm more concerned with the federal government using economic threats to exercise powers over states that they don't have, such as the National Minimum Drinking Age Act and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Personally, I am against the recognition of straight marriage as well. It is a religious institution, so it's between you, your partner(s), friends, family, and deity of choice (if any).
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else.
Yes. Also, the "security" situation surrounding this caucus required the votes be taken out of state (to Illinois, home of organized crime) and be counted in secret. So yeah, I'm totally betting the Iowa caucus represent's the people's choice. The Google Trends consistently showing a completely different picture must just be a fluke.
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.
What a moronic strawman argument. It's you who's asserting that Paul would "stick to old stances when new facts come in." Prove it. What statement has Ron Paul ever made that convinced YOU that he would have this attitude? Just because he's an old guy who's been thinking about these problems for longer than you've been alive doesn't mean he's "set in his ways."
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
Also, there's nothing stupider than people who have nothing better to do with their lives than make wild accusations and muddy the waters with bullshit, demonstrably false assertions at a time when our nation (and world) desperately needs LESS of that, not more.
Section 3 of the DOMA (defining marriage as between a man and a woman) was struck down back in July 2010 in district court in the cases Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Appeals on both by the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group are still pending after the DOJ declined to continue defending the law last February.
Section 2 (which allows states to ignore other state's same sex marriages) doesn't seen to have been addressed yet.
Also, if it stands, the ruling in the first case would complicate your suggestion, as it holds that defining marriage is none of the federal government's business under the 10th amendment.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It's too bad Paul is a terrible person and it would be a disaster if he got into office.
LOL. Wow, OK. Someone is a "terrible person" because he's been thinking about these problems for a long time (longer than you've been alive, actually) and ended up with different views than you. You're already an asset to the discussion.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception,
No he doesn't
build a fence along the US-Mexico border
Stupid, and no he doesn't
prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy
Citation needed
permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)
Citation needed
pull out of the UN, disband NATO,
Good. We should.
end birthright citizenship,
Aren't there bigger fish to fry right now?
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,,
1) Federal funding doesn't need to be spent on ANY of that, or most any of the other things it's spent on.
2) Get rid of social security? GOOD.
3) Getting rid of the "Department of Education" doesn't mean "destroying public education", moron.
and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard.
O NOES!!
He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
So the U.S. government is a hypocrite. We ban people from doing business in largely peaceful countries like Cuba and Iran, yet some politicians' buddies invest in corporations which do business in Sudan. What else is new?
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,
Who cares?
he's against gay marriage,
No he's not. Also, you're a moron
is against the popular vote,
What?
opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
For good reason
wants the estate tax repealed
GOOD
is STILL making racist remarks,
Citation needed
believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,
Who cares?
and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories,
Who cares? Half of them are probably the truth, given what Wikileaks has shown us about corruption in the world.
not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
Again. Who gives a flying fuck? How about rebutting his actual arguments instead of making a pitiful ad hominem attack based on his supposed scary "quack" beliefs and your overexaggerations/misinterpretations of such?
His opposition to the Civil Rights Act makes him non-viable. The Civil Rights Act finally implemented what we had intended with the Civil War. If you want to fight against it, you're trying to re-open the Civil War.
Know this: We won the Civil War, and we are prepared to fight it again if we have to. Those issues are settled. We will not go backwards and add racism back into the laws. We don't care if you want to do it at the State level... you were doing it at the State level before we stopped you, do you remember that part????
21.4% of the 10% of Iowa Republicans that showed up to caucus...
Lying about how few people support him is not very persuasive. If he has the support of 21% of 10% of half of registered Iowa voters that is not a lot. Certainly not enough to warrant how combative and defensive his supporters are.
Also, just FYI, there was a major campaign among Democrats in Iowa to vote in the R caucus instead, and specifically to vote for Ron Paul. Because they would switch sides if he was the candidate? Hardly. He is simply the best known of the unelectables, the one with the loudest support. You show up, and you literally register at the door as an R. They help you do it. Then you vote in their caucus. Then you send in a new voter registration card and go back to D.
walter, are you sure you're on the SCOTUS and not just blowing hot air?
I did read your first comment. Ask yourself, "Why do the Ban Gay Marriage interests consider Ron Paul their biggest enemy of all the major candidates?" All the other Republican candidates signed a pledge saying they support banning gay marriage at the federal level. Ron Paul is the only holdout. You may think states shouldn't be able to choose on marriage, and I understand that position, but Ron Paul is the least of your enemies. He doesn't support banning it nationally, like all the other Republicans do.
The real difference between a progressive party and 'everybody else' is their views on economic policy. What Americans don't recognize because of cultural unfamiliarity to other economic systems is that there are actually other ways of shaping and running economies than the 'free market' (which in reality, FINALLY, some people recognize as a corrupt group of insiders gaming the system, that there is nothing free about it).
A big part of the corruption comes from what I call 'economic brainwashing'. In that system, the only values that matter are dollars and cents. No other decisions like health, ecology, well being, happiness, fairness or justice come into play. We need to begin to be aware that there are more factors in a full-healthy life that matter. You can't eat money when you've trashed your planet because you wanted to make a buck and decided it was ok to shit where you eat. Religious people are supposed to get this stuff, but for really sad reasons in the US, that kind of stuff is not emphasised in US religious practices, generally speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism is the name for what both the democrats and the republicans have become. On economic issues, there is no difference. However, like the above poster noted, there are parties in North America (2nd place party in Canada!) that do not believe this model works long term. We see the slide to oblivion happening - we must wake up soon before the elites in our society figuratively eat our lunch, and instead get educated and choose some different approaches - like perhaps 'managed capitalism' and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesianism for example. (Socialism is too misunderstood and to extreme for most, however, regulations and democratic empowering of local communities to make local decisions seems like a healthy approach). The healthiest countries in the world use these more socially democratic systems, as explored in the book "The Spirit Level". Check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better
Remember if you are in one of the early primary states go and get your self registered and actually vote or caucus for the better candidate on the Republican side. Make it clear that you think that the others suck. Also you don't have to vote for the candidate in the general election. Be wary if you are doing this and generally are involved with one of the other parties as you won't be able to choose who is running in your party for other elections.
Time to offend someone
Only the last 5?
Time to offend someone
I didn't know total isolationism meant we quit being "Team America World Police". As far as I know his policy means we won't be wasting resources protecting Europe from themselves, protecting the middle east from them selves, protecting Africa from themselves protecting Asia from them selves. We will be trading with these countries, we would be talking with them, but we wouldn't be trying to run them or bomb them. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Related side note I fear that we will start bombing some brown people who's country sounds similar to Iraq shortly and is this something we really need? If so why do you feel we need to ship our service members half way around the world to defend other countries' trade and interests?
Time to offend someone
You forgot the other side of the equation:
Now it certainly is true that Democrats are more skeptical of nuclear power than the GOP is. But given what has happened in Japan, there is an actual legitimate debate over whether it is possible to make a powerplant safe from the corner-cutting of safety that inevitably arises in the name of maximizing quarterly profits. (The same can be said of deep water oil drilling: it's not that it can't be done safely, it's that doing it safely means a smaller bonus for the executives running the show if nothing goes wrong.) By and large, Democrats are the pro-education, pro-technology, pro-science party.
And anyone who talks about how the U.S. supposedly has an "intrusive government" has obviously never experienced a real one.
He said climate and I gave a famous hundred year+ old model that has shown good results over that time. Weather forecasting is just a bit different. I'm sure Wikipedia will help if you look up the "Southern Oscillation Index".
Anyway, the above poster is playing little games to try to pretend ignorance is a virtue and that he's better than all those scientists and technical folk. You can't just play along with such bullshit.
This country was founded by...NERDS!
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Of course Paul will do alright against a field of candidates, because he has his long-term supporters that will always vote for him. Put him up one-on-one against just the eventual nominee (you know, the one that *won't* be Paul), and you'll still see him at around 21.4% of the vote.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Stability of my government is a prime consideration for me. Governments that produce wars or depressions or recessions are inherently unstable.
Bad government is unstable government. Bad governments use inferior technology of government, e.g. dictatorship, oligarchy, or some ideology such as raw democracy, Progressivism, ...
The best technology of gov so far was the US minimal government. It understood that 'money buys power', and that therefore any power given to the government will be abused against The People by the rich. Large government --> oligarchy.
We need to get back to that superior technology of government. Since the US abandoned it, our country has regressed to the mean, and will very likely fail in the same way as all the other lousy governments in the world : we will default on our national debt and need to declare bankruptcy, the country-equivalent of which is adopting a new Constitution.
Meanwhile, given the trends in civil liberties and the growth of the surveillance state, there is a gulag in our future, wherever we live.
Ron Paul doesn't break the mold nearly as much as you think. He is something of a federalist, but that's the point: federalism is mostly friendly to resource-extraction and manufacturing industries (that are more hampered by regulations, especially labor and environmental ones.) I could never vote for him - his opposition to a Federal role in protecting civil rights for minorities is a dealbreaker - although perversely he can keep me from voting for Obama, because I won't vote for Empire, either, and Paul is the only anti-imperialist candidate in the race. But he still does have a base, a specific constituency, and an agenda. It's no accident that 95% of Stormfront members, including the founder, endorse him, "State's rights" has a rich history as a code-word. Also, when state's rights includes restrictions on inter-state immigration and commerce, as well, I'll re-consider it. Otherwise, one could keep property in a state with no property tax, rent a tiny flat and work in one with no income tax, and enjoy all the benefits offered by the most generous, etc.
I want to end the drug war, legalized taxed and regulated - starve the gangs.
I want to end people being thrown out of houses just to have them torn down.
I want to end corporate control over our elections.
I want to have my constitutional rights back.
I want the 40 hour work week something companies strive to meet, rather than carefully avoided.
I want clean water and air.
I want the government to have no more say over a marriage than the overgrown homeowners association that it is.
I want to end GITMO.
I want credit cards that are so secure that I don't hear horror stories from my friends about fraudulent charges.
I want to go a week without hearing about gross police misconduct (because it's gone not just under reported).
I want an education system that doesn't hobble the bright kids.
I want the metric system.
I want a space program.
I want farm subsidies to make decent food cheap, not make all food infused with high fructose corn syrup.
I want a path that makes hard work and sacrifice THE way to get ahead in this country.
Whoever wins we're going to be getting the same ole bs... the system is broken
Most people don't vote for who they want to win, they vote for some guy that has a chance.
It's a vote not to lose, not a vote to win.
Is 2nd place with 23% good enough for ya?
Quite good actually. He scores the most independents and has more democratic sway than any of the republican candidates. He's 2nd in the Republican field in any competition vs Obama. And the really funny thing is that he would be first in the field vs Obama if his own Republican constituents were willing to vote for him: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/
It's rather sad actually -- if the GOP's primary concern is ousting Obama, Ron Paul is the candidate to go with. He has an unshakable base and is very strong on both sides of the aisle. But since he doesn't stand for corporate handouts and unending wars, the GOP is trying their best to crush him.
Hey, the first thing in this train that even mentioned technology. OK, does anybody know where the candidates stand on PROTECT-IP or SOPA? That is the Senate and House version of the same thing which could terminate this conversion. All it would take is a filed complaint and you are blocked out of the process for weeks, if you are lucky. By the way, there are elements of a "Hate Crime" bill in it that could get one burned just for hurting somebody's precious FEELINGS. Another issue is Light Squared. This "service" could blot out patches of the USA's GPS utility. We know where our POTUS is on this since the owner is a buddy. Where do the candidates stand?
You know, most of you don't actually seem to support either the Republicans or Democrats. You are aware that the whole point of a presidential campaign is to get awareness for whoever you support, right? These politicians from both parties did not get well-known and elected by themselves. The responsibility is on the voter as much as the candidate.
Last post, so I know there will be no mods. But, I have my opinion, and then, to help answer the question asked, I wondered what Slashdot thought, combined with looking for bills that support/disprove my opinion.
> 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'm going to list the Slashdot articles I found - emphasis on actual bills put forward, mostly more recent stuff.
H.R.3261: Anti Net Neutrality (1): Stop Online Piracy Act
http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/sopa
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative, Christian Conservative
Interests that oppose this bill: Democratic/Liberal
H.R.96: Anti Net Neutrality (1): End FCC's regulation of internet
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2163-Republicans-Waste-No-Time-Moving-Against-Net-Neutrality
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h96/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative
Open-Source Textbooks (2)
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1615210/california-state-senator-proposes-funding-open-source-textbooks
Darrell Steinberg (D-CA)
Location Privacy (3)
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/15/1847256/franken-bill-would-protect-consumers-location-data
Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Pro Net Neutrality (1): Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/01/26/1820236/senators-bash-isp-and-push-extensive-net-neutrality
Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Al Franken (D-MN)
Here is my take on what /. thinks:
(1) Slashdot is vehemently for Net Neutrality, and it seems D's are for, R's against. This looks like by far the biggest issue for slashdotters, and easiest issue to see who falls where.
(2) Given the corruption of the current system, OS textbooks is a geeky, cheap solution. Not a high priority issue.
(3) Slashdot really doesn't like big companies following their location.
Some other interesting articles/discusions: ./ seems to appreciate his work. Here's a couple:
Al Franken (compared to other representatives) is often discussed and
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/20/1835204/al-franken-makes-a-case-for-net-neutrality
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tells Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for.
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN).
http://search.slashdot.org/story/10/04/27/1824236/senators-tell-facebook-to-quit-sharing-users-info
Interesting:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/27/1910219/americas-turn-from-science-a-danger-for-democracy
Although they mostly debate religion, it's interesting, and my take is that slashdot seems agnostic with an aversion away from attacki
"the Koch" was a mistake and should either be "David Koch" or just "Koch" as I intended.