Slashdot Mirror
Larry Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign, Citing Unfair Debate Rules (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Harvard law professor Larry Lessig is ending his run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lessig blames the demise of his campaign on party rules that have left him "shut out" of the Democratic debates. "The party won't let me be a candidate," Lessig said in his final campaign video. "I can't ask people to support a campaign that I know can't get before the members of the Democratic Party."
Who?
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
You think you want to know the truth...but you don't. It's worse than anything you could even imagine.
I think that we need to scrutinize election rules under the same constitutional lens we're using for gun laws.
We need to get away from the clinton's, bush's and future obama's and get actual presidential material into the white house.
That can't be done if the media and election laws shape only the rich and powerful to get elected.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
... and no one except his Mom and a few slashdot editors knows or cares.
Glad I didn't become a Harvard law professor before I figured that out.
Lessig might have actually had a chance, can't have the possibility of messing up the Royal Coronation underway!
Same reason Biden is not running.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lessig has great ideas, and we need someone really serious to fix the corruption in our system. However, I can't imagine anybody taking his platform seriously. He wants to resign after a partial term! I think people won't want to elect someone that's only serious about doing part of the job. A specialist. Unfortunately, the US has been sick for a long time and needs a specialist.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Perhaps a single issue "I'm going to pass one law and then resign" candidate just isn't well aligned with the Democratic party platform? Just a thought.
Money can't buy the Republican Nomination, just ask Jeb Bush.
I wonder if the Democratic Party is the wrong platform for the kind of reform Lessig is gunning for. It's a shame that Third Party candidates hardly have a chance, because this really is where his candidacy belongs.
HuffPo actually explains how the rules changed:
The DNC's rules for candidate participation in their debates were pretty straightforward--or so we thought. In August, before the Lessig campaign began, DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, announced the standards for being included in the debates. As she described the rule, a candidate had to have 1 percent in three DNC sanctioned national polls, "in the six weeks prior to the debate."
[...]
And indeed, that is precisely the rule that was applied in the first debate. As CNN specified in a late September memo, to qualify a candidate had to poll at 1 percent in the "polls released between August 1, 2015 and October 10, 2015." The first debate was October 12.
[...]
During that call, I was told that the DNC participation standard for the debates was for a candidate to be at one percent in three polls conducted, "six weeks prior to the debate"--not the clarified rule cited earlier by Wasserman-Shultz and the DNC political director that a candidate had to be at one percent in three polls conducted "in the six weeks prior to the debate."
So the DNC had said 1% in the six weeks before the debate and used that standard in the first debate, but in the second debate where Lessig qualified by that standard they switched to 6 weeks before the debate.
It seems odd even if you don't take the wording at face value and wonder about the missing upper bound in the range given by "six weeks before the debate".
I can see why the DNC doesn't want a candidate who is there almost explicitly as a one issue protest candidate but that's a fairly dirty way to go about it.
I stole this Sig
It was quite obvious from day one that the people who organize the party have absolutely zero interest in Larry's platform, and that they will make sure that anything like his project gets hidden from the general public.
As soon as he had any chance to be something more than a "decorative" candidate the party would make sure that he is blocked, because the system suits them just fine.
The core issue is that the sheep vote for who ever has the more shiny adverts, so there is no "short term fix", maybe something like a 10 year project starting with a general campaign telling the public to under no circumstance vote for an incumbent candidate, no matter how bad the other guys are the only way you as a citizen can be listened is by showing that you have the power to punish a politician, and you need to punish all of them just for being unable to fix the system.
Then campaign on : look at the tools that enable you to asses you representatives past performance, and future projects, ignore their adverts they are of no value what so ever...
Then maybe, just maybe for the third round people will vote for their candidates because they believe in what they are achieving, or really planning to achieve and not because they have more shiny ads and are not quite as bad as the other guy(gal).
The USA presidential election is an obvious farce. Voting between two choices preselected by the TPTB isn't a functioning democracy. Nobody feels well-represented by these clowns. The partisan back-biting is just a tactic to convince the plebes that these elections could possibly be the result of a democratic process. Smoke and mirrors for the plebians. You're NOT all cows, but TPTB would like me to believe that! As long as we're entertained and complacent we are effectively isolated from each other's common experiences and discontent but you aren't alone. People aren't asleep, they're aware of their situation however have correctly assessed the futility of their situation. Might as well chew grass then!
"The Democratic Party [machine] still didn't want him in."
They didn't even have the fake vote to block him., the way the Republicans did to block Ron Paul (2mins):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77W5OKStO5s
He was simply never in the list of candidates offered for the debate. So he could never get 1% of that vote needed to be at the debate because nobody was allowed to vote for him. And that was largely due to the backdoor deals done at these debates to exclude candidates.
Trump has a lot of money and makes a lot of noise, so not offering Trump on the debate would give him for ammo. They had no choice. But I bet they'd prefer it if Jebediah Bush was the only real candidate offered up to their party as pre-selected candidate.
If he can't handle people trying to strong arm him then he probably would have been a poor president. Life isn't fair. Learn to deal with it. Is he trying to fix the issue or prevent it from happening again in the future? No, he whined about it then quit. Certainly justified with some whining, but not the giving up.
The only odds are, will he live or will he die! Win? Haha!
I can't believe there's still a year to go in this process. We had our entire Canadian election in the span of a few of these debates...this seems just a wee bit out of hand.
Lessig's campaign started with a super-negative "I'll resign if elected".
Whatever degree he has from Harvard, it aint't in marketing.
And whatever his skills are, social media ain't one of them.
No one to blame but himself. He may be a smart guy, but like many nerds he flopperstered in the self-marketing department. In an epic fail kind of way.
Lessig didn't drop out because the debate rules were "unfair". He dropped out because the DNC changed the debate rules midstream in a way that would exclude Lessig from the debates. His campaign worked hard to meet the requirement to participate in the second debate, at which point they changed the rules to exclude again.
Note that he raised more money than Webb and Chafee, who were allowed in the first debate; and if his name hadn't been excluded from polls, it's even conceivable he would have been allowed into the first debate.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
She almost has enough superdelegates to win the primary w/o a single vote. Even if she doesn't gain the support of any more, she doesn't even need to win a single state to take the nomination:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-s-superdelegate-tipping-point
That's not democracy.
Well Congratulations for finally fucking noticing.
We are not a Democracy, we are an Oligarchy.
And before that we were a Republic, or were you not actually awake in your American Federal Government class; if you actually too one in College or even High School?
That and less clever than Trump who managed to put one over on the other Democrats.
He's in favor of government funding for Planned Parenthood and he has expressed both support for gun control and complete ignorance of the current gun laws, so he's not going to pull away any Republican voters.
He has not put forth an agenda on Income inequality, the budget deficit/national debt, union support and police misconduct, so he's not going to be able to develop a connection with the Democrat base.
His one big issue is something that the majority of Americans do not support.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
He raised the money they required. Then they changed the rules to requiring 1% in the polls. He got the required 1% in the polls. Then they changed the rules to require the 1% 6 weeks before the debate... They just keep making up new rules that will shut out just him. They are afraid to lose the ad revenue they get from corruption in politics.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Also you seem to be fine with the idea that a presidential election should be about popularity, not the quality of your plans.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Yeah, people with a brain would have a potential exit from Mrs. Bill.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lives in his little ivory tower, dreaming of schemes that fir his view of an ideal world, while living off of the single most evil form of financing available in the US - The Obama-era student loan. These student loans, thanks to the takeover by Mr Obama, are:
1. Designed to grow to make it so any kid can afford tuition no matter how much the evil elites inflate the price tag way beyond the rate of inflation. In other words: there's no economy-driven limit to how high the prices can get jacked for the exact same diploma.
2. Replacements for all private student loans. You used to be able to get loans from places called "banks" that make loans. Now, as in anything taken-over by government, there's no evil businesses trying to make a profit and students are left to happily rest in the loving arms of the federal government monopoly, from which there is no escape.
3. The one form of loan that cannot be escaped via bankruptcy. The kids taking-out these massive loans to stuff the wallet of Mr. Lessig and his buddies are going to be paying for the rest of their lives.... and as part of the new budget deal between Obama, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell and Bonehead, the old limits of loan sharks using robo-calling to hassle people over student loans have been eliminated. Hooray for the folks sucking-up all the cash for the universities!!! Hope you Lessig fans with college loans like robocalls!!! That new 2-year budget deal will and all deals between congress and Obama, since he never actually wants to negotiate and it eliminates all their leverage, so dream-on if you think some cool new bill will sail-through into law to "fix this"
Lessing is an evil troll who lives off of stupid young people too gullible to know better.
Lessig's campaign asked the DNC for clarity on the rule, and they kept waffling back and forth on whether it requires 1% in the polls >6 weeks before the debate, or 6 weeks before the debate. I have a feeling that noone at the DNC actually knows which it is, explaining the conflicting answers; the 'rule' is probably only there for show, and never actually critically applied; it is simply 'known' which candidates have enough buzz, and those are the ones that make it to the debate.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
No, his main problem was nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
This guy was less prepared to run a presidential campaign than that fucking idiot Rick Perry. And that makes him a bigger idiot than Rick Perry--now there's an accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is. Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her, and she has a lot of legacy antipathy that will make the general election harder for her. Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
Why didn't he read the sign on the side of the tree-house?
Reading his statements, it's clear he was absolutely DELUSIONAL about the effort and skills required to do what he claimed he would do... even worse than Donald Trump.
Go through the comments that followed his recent article in The Atlantic (don't bother reading his statement). Everybody but him (and I maybe TWO random commentators) could see how glaringly irrational and fraught with obvious flaws his whole idea was:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If there were not such thing as political affiliations and people ran as people, we wouldn't have this problem.
Them Democrooks already have Hillary as their queen and no one is to be allowed to jeopardize their queen's chance to become the next POTUS
Pity that Harvard Professor - obviously he does not understand that powerful beast which the Democrooks have raised
Neither the Democrats nor Republicans have anything to offer; which is why I
believe Trump will earn both the nomination and the presidency. This is not a joke.
Let's face it -- H.C. is amoral and believes that she can do things with impunity like
G. W. (both of them). J.B. wants us to believe he's no G.W., but is directly responsible
for tainting the election to ensure G.W won the second term (the "other" guy wasn't
much better).
Trump, at least, for all of the negative, has character, backbone, and is too arrogant to lie.
No one can reverse the damage done since (insert your favorite point in time), but I feel
many believe Trump will stop the slide into Hell this country has begun to take.
CAP === 'neighbor'
By not be able to convince the Democrooks Mr. Lessig already showed the world how corrupt that political party really is
On the other hand, if the Democrooks let Mr. Lessig progress all the way, smooth sailing style, how is the world going to know what those special interest groups inside the Democrook camp is afraid of?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Biden could probably have pulled it off, but my take on that is that the Clintons still have the best oppo research team, and they found some really juicy dirt on ole Joe. Dead girl, live boy, something like that. Maybe the Obama camp knows there are some chickens coming home to roost and they're happy to let a Clinton or an R be the fall guy, but otherwise I don't see them rolling over that easily.
the Republican Clown Cars or recent elections and are working hard to eliminate non-serious candidates who have zero chance.
I wonder how President Lessig would react to a terrorist attack in the US? How would he cope with Russia, China, and the Middle East in general? What were his plans for spending and funding? Did he even give any thought to that?
Did he ever consider that he might be faced with responding to a nuclear attack, and the standard US response to such a thing?
Best Slashdot Co
If a candidate can't sustain at least 1% in the polls for six weeks, then they aren't a serious contender anyway.
They don't want any discussion or policy promises to get money out of politics because the majority of that slush money goes to the media companies for political adverts on the TV.
If they let Lessig in, "Get money out of politics" becomes a way to make people vote for you. And that means less money for the media corporations.
In one poll, he needed to garner more than 1% in three, but after winning that margin in one poll, they took his name off the next polls.
Because then they could cite the rules about needing to poll to refuse him a seat.
Meanwhile, how many republican nominees did they let in, even on the same damn channels..?
when they refuse to put your name in the polls? That's what they did.
Shutting Lessig out was to stop the idea that money should be taken out of politics, because most of that money goes to the media organisations. Letting Lessig in would cut their revenue significantly.
Remember, this is an industry that wants to get skipping adverts made illegal because it might hurt their profits, and CEOs claim it is "stealing from the company" not to watch the adverts.
You don't think they'd make up rules to save the billions they get from political ad campaigns??
Lessig didn't even make the top 7 of the list of potential Democratic candidates. If anyone has a claim that they've been unfairly removed from the candidacy, it's the candidate at #4 or 5 who didn't get included in the debate -- yet no such claim has been made by any of those others.
*Some* method has to be used to gradually reduce the list of people to debate. What does Lessig propose? He could not even gather the support for that. Is that the fault of the process, or him?
Just like with Bob Dole, in his day, it's Hillary's turn this time.
They cut out 90% of Bernie's speech to be only the bit about "Stop with the Bengazi...Young people don't care about that", removing all the bit about "What we need to talk about are issues that mean something to the people of America, the young people of America, like schooling, healthcare, university".
(Quoting is not an accurate recount of the statement, merely concordant with the meaning of the content)
So of COURSE you're going to think he's soft on Hilary.
THAT'S WHY HIS SPEECH WAS CUT.
Those who don't want her now won't vote for Bernie, because they think he's too soft on her.
Those who like Hilary won't vote for Bernie because they'll be voting Hilary.
And nobody now knows what Bernie's wishes were, to converse about something other than Bengazi, because they edited out anything that wasn't about Bengazi.
Hey, don't call Rick Perry an idiot... isn't he the only Republican candidate so far with low numbers who actually dropped out of the race? That makes him a lot smarter than ten or so of the ones still running!
Lessg's key issue is imposing stricter government restrictions on speech. The party elites don't support his plan, the rank and file don't support his plan, and the broad electorate doesn't support his plan.
It's no wonder those guys don't want Lessig as their candidate.
There are other ways to get a message out to the people than the broadcast media or the debates. Remember the downfall of SOPA? He should have stuck to his guns.
The level of resignation that I read in the comments here is interesting. That the Democrats play dirty should come as no surprise to anyone; they are no more ethical than their counterparts in the Republican party, and if they ever were, it was an attribute quickly lost. Right now we let both sides get away with murder, but the reason the Democrats quashed this candidacy is because they were afraid enough people would be convinced to vote for him and so upset their chance to remain in power. The politicians still fear the voters. And they should. Because if we ever get off of our behinds, we can actually do something about the government that we find so unsatisfactory. What would motivate us enough, I wonder?
He had the bully pulpit to be a centrist, and a single issue that's of importance to thinking individuals on BOTH sides of the political fence who are getting tired of the Hobson's Choice of the two-ever-more radicalized party establishments. There is a mass of people on the right who are conservative, and who want nothing to do with the right-wing activists that have taken over the GOP. There is (I'd guess) a similar mass on the left, probably quieter as they've held the presidency for 2 terms. But these people are ready for a credible 3rd way.
Unfortunately, on the rest of his issues he was your garden-variety, quasi-socialist academic liberal meaning as a NATIONAL CANDIDATE he was worthless.
The fact that he thought raising $1 million was meaningful was laughably pathetic, and only exposed how completely naive he was about the scope of what he was attempting.
-Styopa
He should have declared a hunger strike; a fitting contrast to the rapacious greed he is fighting against.
Westerners don't use this tool nearly enough which is ironic, given that most Americans could last quite awhile before succumbing to starvation.
He is a guy running on the single issue of censorship of political speech, while complaining he is being censored from being able to speak at DNC events.
Sounds like an ivory tower idiot.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Professor. The last thing we need in a president is an anti-First Amendment fanatic.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It was just more grandstanding and self-promotion from one of the biggest narcissists to walk the face of Earth.
I bring this up occasionally -- get on the Michael Medved Radio Show. Medved is a nationally-syndicated, conservative, radio talk show host who invites debate and frequently has guests with opposing viewpoints. He is very polite to his guests and callers, so Lessig would definitely be allowed to make his points. This is an area of frequent discussion on the Medved show, so I'm sure that he'd be interested in having Lessig as a guest.
I never liked that guy from day one when he hitched his professorial cart to the Free Software movement hoping to reach academic rockstar status. I guess it worked, but he's still a scumbag.
This is what happens to all candidates that don't have strong poling numbers. They get shut out of the debates. They get hardly any questions at all. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy? I think that all candidates should get equal time in the debates. Give them all x number of minutes to make their case to the American voters. Without moderators jumping in or getting cut off by other candidates. Every time a candidate jumps in take a minute of time away from their talking time.
The current format is a circus. Nothing more than name calling and gotcha questions. Let's find out what they really have to say and let them stand or fall on their own merits.
Are you stuck in the Cold War, bro? Whites have completely dominated boxing in the 21st century. Lazy, fat, African-Americans can't even come close to competing on the same level as the disciplined and well trained fighters coming out of Eastern Europe. All those black "stars" in the 70s never had to fight against anyone from the Soviet Bloc. They would barely be top ten if they had to compete against the whole world and not just other untalented African-Americans.
If that is your only argument, you've already lost. Because assuming that Roodvlees is telling the truth, the problem isn't that he couldn't sustain 1% for six weeks, the problem is that the dems invented that requirement as soon as they realized he met all existing requirements.
If the biased media unfairly refuses to acknowledge the candidate exists, how's he supposed to get the poll numbers?
Lessig lost because the media pre-ordained it, simple as that. It's the same reason Bernie Sanders will lose: the media categorically refuses to acknowledge him as a serious candidate despite the fact that he's been polling above HRC at least part of the time!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Was there already one Lessig in the tree-house?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXjt_ZlVOE
Its unfortunate that so many of us do not see the folly of having debates in the first place. They are only useful if you are trying to figure out who is best at lying, manipulation, coming up with cleverly worded jabs at the opponents, and telling people what they want to hear. I wish that the energy that campaigns put into debates and television would transfer to the online space where they would be forced to describe their platforms in writing and where they could be analysed and weighed for completeness and logic.
Scott Walker also dropped out.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
Oh, that's just like the folks saying that Democrats were scared of Sarah Palin. I'm no Democrat, but wasn't anyone afraid of her, we just liked to have her around to laugh at.
You can't let everyone in on national debates, it just isn't practical. Even the present day overstaffed Republican debates are plain weird - at one time they were pretty funny to watch, now it just seems like people bragging about how long they've cheated on not taking their Thorazine. I suspect those will change as well - probably held in secret, as they are starting to ban networks. Hint - if you won't use Fox News any more, maybe the problem is with you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A candidate needs 1% to be in a debate, but can't get any national coverage because they are not in the debate.
That is such an obvious logic problem you have to hurt yourself in order to avoid it. We have not even gotten to the point of being over a year before the election. You know how we keep hearing that "it's a long time until election day and Trump and Carson could still lose the nomination"? Well the wey to prevent that would be to omit people from the discussion to begin with.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is.
Yes, because nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
While your basic premise for the 21st century is correct, your 1970s example fails.
Cassius Clay won Olympic Gold (as a light heavyweight) in 1960, against a Pole. Joe Frazier won Gold in 1964 against an East German. George Foreman won Gold in 1968 against a Soviet.
These were the 70s stars you were taking about.
Olympic boxing matches are 3 fucking rounds. Any fat blob can do well for 3 rounds.
All involved have "maintain the status quo" as a prime motivation.
Suck it up and try alternative means to be heard.
Requiem for the American Dream
Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her
While Bernie Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democrats. He's also trying to get the nomination of the Democratic party. You haven't explicitly defined 'viable' here, but I believe Bernie Sanders does indeed satisfy the criteria to be elected President.
Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
So you're dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds? How helpful. If only everyone thought like you -- then maybe, just maybe, we'd have a chance at implementing meaningful change in this country.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
He's not viable because the general election is going to be a whole lot worse for him than the primaries, no matter how he's polling generally now. The attack ads almost write themselves. They do for Hillary too because of how much is anti-Clinton on the right, so neither of them are great for a general, but she's already been through all of them and her general numbers now are the result of that, whereas Bernie will see a hit once the general public has seen more attack aimed at him. Things like "socialist" may not matter as much on the left, but that label alone will cost him points on the right. And some of his lines in debate will kill him on the right. In reality he *might* be a better president than HRC, he'd certainly care about Americans more and try to make better policy changes, although HRC might get more done even though being much less trustworthy, just because she's a good politician. Most of Bernie's more leftist ideas would be blocked by Congress, but he'd probably get some good things done. It's really hard to say who would ultimately be better.
But either will be better than the Republicans, because the next president gets to appoint major voices to the Supreme Court for the next several decades.
Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her
While Bernie Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democrats. He's also trying to get the nomination of the Democratic party. You haven't explicitly defined 'viable' here, but I believe Bernie Sanders does indeed satisfy the criteria to be elected President.
Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
So you're dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds? How helpful. If only everyone thought like you -- then maybe, just maybe, we'd have a chance at implementing meaningful change in this country.
I find it unlikely he wins the primary. I'd be happy, I think, if he won the general. I'm not dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds, I just think that he was allowed to run primarily because somebody decided he didn't pose a threat. Being outside the classic party establishment may also have made it practical.
So you can only get known if you're already known?
Honey Boo-Boo for President 2020!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
And nobody still knows who Lessig is.
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
Did he have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination for the upcoming 2016 election? Probably not. Could he win somewhere down the road? I don't know.
But, to me, what's interesting about this story is that certain people in the Democratic Party really didn't seem to want his message about the corrupting influence of money to be heard. And when you look at all the millions of dollars that the Clintons have been given by dictatorships with terrible records on things like religious freedom and women's rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia), it's not hard to imagine that it wasn't just a few rogue Democratic Party outsiders who wanted Lessig's message to be suppressed.
Lessig started out his campaign by saying he was going to quit after 1 bill was passed; so the DNC had good reason for changing their rules; they wanted a debate for candidates who were serious about getting elected and didn't want to waste valuable time with joke candidates like Lessig who weren't serious about winning elections.
Lawrence Lessig- the Real Obama.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
Stop him from what? Wasting people's time? Because that's all he was doing.
Nobody was afraid of him; there was nothing to be afraid of.
You want to know which candidate the brass is afraid of? Bernie.
Biden tried and failed to get his party's nomination TWICE already. In this business, the third time isn't the charm, and two strikes is out. His 2008 campaign was effectively over just moments after it started, as he unloaded a half-dozen controversial statements about his opponents that went viral, and never recovered.
His continued poorly-considered statements after becoming Vice President prove he hasn't learned anything, and any Biden campaign is going to be peppered with video of him telling the viewer to "Get a shotgun" followed by usage tips which would get anyone else arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm. Combine that with his advanced age and recently-deceased son, and it's obvious why he wouldn't and even shouldn't run, without resorting to crazy theories.
There's no major animosity between Obama and Clinton that would cause either to set-up the other for failure. Clinton was a close second in the 2008 primaries, far ahead of Biden, and the obvious presumptive nominee next time around.
And just because Biden was Obama's choice for VP doesn't indicate any particular preference or connection. VPs are generally chosen to fill-in and balance out voting blocks, not because the administration has any particular preference for them. In fact quite the opposite (disdain and animosity towards their chosen VPs) seems to be more common.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Oh well, guess I'll go back to my original choice:
Snowden for President!
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
DHI at it again...
How does Mr. Lessig's adventures coinside with News for nerdz?
no wonder /. is up for sale again..
Whats even more shameful, that people like me whom have enjoyed the content on here for many years, have to suffer under the heavy hand of ignorance, stupidity, and clear dis-regard to the community that it attempts to service..
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run. He declared his candidacy and then quickly and effectively put out a message that the majority of the country agrees with in a way that caused a lot of people to start talking about him. He forced his way into the Democratic contest, he was not "allowed" in. If they would have tried to push him away then there either would have been a lot of people asking questions about why some candidates aren't allowed to debate (which neither party wants to answer), or he would just run as an independent.
He wasn't "allowed" to run, he made it happen because people agree with his message. The reason why there is so much doubt around his candidacy is because the media and the parties keep telling the public that he is a fringe candidate. He's not fringe, he's mainstream. The media is trying to push fringe candidates like Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz on people and call them mainstream, but the polls show that the majority of the country supports Sanders when people aren't being shoved loaded terms like "socialism", where they think it means something that it doesn't. You can see that in polls where people say that they agree with Sanders' positions, and also that they wouldn't vote for a socialist. The media is controlling the dialog, which is why you think Sanders is a fringe candidate or does not have a realistic chance at getting elected.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Actually they kept him out because of how sharp he is. Afraid he would reveal how corrupt they are and the whole system is. Or are you saying he should never have tried something because it might not work?
No, they kept him out because he is a fucking idiot. His statement on day 1 of his alleged campaign, (I say alleged because I'm not convinced he was serious), about resigning after getting a single bill passed not only showed that he was a fucking idiot, but also made him unelectable.
And just to explain why that was so stupid, because you seem both ignorant and gullible: You don't apply for a job while stating that you are going to quit because you don't want to deal with the responsibility. The POTUS has hell of a lot more responsibility than simply passing one fucking law, that would probably get shot down by the SCROTUS even if he did manage to pass it. And yet here we have a jackass who is publicly stating that he doesn't want to do the fucking job before he even got it.
Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Yes, the man is an idiot because he publicly stated that he didn't want to do his damn job after getting it.
If the polls won't sustain a candidate at least for six weeks, then the polls aren't a serious contender for information anyway.
The pollsters changed the rules when Lessig got more than 1% in the polls, the pollsters then removed Lessig from the polls.
The U.S. political system would have to be completely overhauled in order for one person to make a difference. Especially as President. If someone actually did a study on the mechanics of our 3 branches of government and the usefulness of them, I'd guess every positive change is matched by at least 10 parts obvious corruption, and who knows how much unadvertised corruption.
I don't want Lessig to waste his time in that clusterfuck because I think he's too good of a guy and doing too much good from an outside perspective. I think the best thing for the Republicans is that the Dems make him the president - and absolutely nothing would get done for 4 years, at least until there was an anti-American impeachment hearing. The only thing he might have direct influence over *might* be Executive Directives, and they'd get put right back in after they shoved him out (if anyone ever stopped following the current ones).
In "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) Jennifer Connelly's character said (approx): "Leaders? [The President and the UN] aren't our leaders - I'll take you to one" and she takes him to a Nobel Prize winner in "cooperative biology" - a brilliant, thoughtful person.
Exactly.
Lessig is more than just a thoughtful person, and rather than seeing him get beat down by the political system - ESPECIALLY if he were to win the Presidency! - I hope he continues making more and more of a difference as a professor, private citizen, and activist.
Best of everything to you, sir!
Only the dumb ones.
in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
Uh, this is the U.S.A. "moderate" is almost worse than "liberal". The only candidates with suitable voter appeal are between far right and far far far right in the political spectrum.
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run.
It's a democratic primary. If the party really didn't want him to run, he wouldn't be running. They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal. They would kill his media coverage more than they have. Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time. That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
And nobody still knows who Lessig is.
Nobody knew who Ben Carson was before either, but they do now.
Except you are wrong, because you're omitting all those appearances he was making on Fox News as a pundit.
Even I knew who that jackass was before his campaign, and I don't watch Faux News.
This is to me the fundamental flaw in America's notion of democracy. We have all these guards at the gates to filter out who is allowed to have a legitimate shot at being considered for office. The blame lands on both the party leadership on both sides and with the news media. They all conspire to maintain control and to make sure the American people do not truly have free will in the election choices. I really hope the day comes soon that the American people stand up and demand more than the illusion of choice. I hope we stand up and demand more than our pick of the rubber stamped celebrity politicians who have enough name recognition to walk in with good poll numbers before the race has even begun. I'd like to see the news media try some actual journalism and show us the details of the relevant candidates rather than just shoveling more from the constant flow of pseudo news of the life and times of the most interesting celebrity candidates.
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
Sanders is not viable to the oligarchs. And that's who runs the country now. We peasants and bourgeois need to get back in our places, and let the two faces of the single party rule.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal.
...and then all of the supporters that he has been very effective in attracting would be asking questions that the DNC and the RNC do not want to answer. It would be very bad for the DNC to deny him access to the primary. Once he started spreading his message so effectively, and people started listening, then he ensured that he would have a place at the table. The DNC didn't help him get his message out, either, that was all his campaign. The DNC has opted out of putting up their own tables outside of his rallies to sign up voters, because those voters would just vote for Sanders. Think about that one for a second.
They would kill his media coverage more than they have.
"More than they have?" His campaign has survived and prospered despite, not because of, media coverage. He has never had good coverage. The media shows him as being fringe. You could see it in the first debate. The "political insiders", talking heads, networks, etc all declared Hillary the winner. The focus groups on both CNN and Fox, as well as data from Google, Facebook, Twitter, and any number of online polls, all suggested that Sanders had won. The media has been pushing the Clinton narrative since day 1, and Sanders has survived despite the media following the DNC plan, not because of any DNC support.
Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time.
Which is probably why he has only 1 endorsement from Congress.
That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
No shit.
The DNC missed their chance by killing his campaign before it started. Once his message was out and people were paying attention it was too late. They can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. They, like everyone else, underestimated the appeal of his message.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Didn't stop ol' Jeb from trying, and hell, there's always the example of Nixon. As for the Clinton vs Obama camps, do you really think she was happy with the SoS nod after Obama found the weakness in the caucus system and used it to take what would, definitely, have been Her Election? Obama was the only reason that was even a contest; Hillary would have slaughtered McCain, not just beat him. He could have been the 2016 nominee, and in all likelihood would have been a better and more effective president if he'd spent another eight years learning how Washington works (although eight years in the governorship would have been even better, except for Illinois governors' unpleasant tendency to end up in federal prison).
Look, maybe you know some people on the DNC, and I sure don't. But that's how it looks out here in flyover country.
They're only asking for 1% of voters, though. I'll bet that you could get "None Of The Above" to poll well above 1% for a few weeks if you had decent write-in social media campaign.
assuming you meant investment bankers (the Wall St sort who are rich and help other rich people get more rich without ANY of them doing a single productive thing), rather than regular bankers (the small town sort who financed houses, cars, local businesses and farms etc and helped build the country).
This does, however, fall into the category of distracting from one person's bad behavior by pointing to somebody else who is doing worse - something most of our mothers taught us not to do (smile)
The republocrats might have enough ammunition due to Nader's age
If we made him king with his two first ministers being lessig and sanders, that is a thought and something to hope for!
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
No, his main problem was nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
This guy was less prepared to run a presidential campaign than that fucking idiot Rick Perry. And that makes him a bigger idiot than Rick Perry--now there's an accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is. Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her, and she has a lot of legacy antipathy that will make the general election harder for her. Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
For the first time in 10 years, I feel that the Democrats will not elect a president. Hillary is not a shoe-in.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
choice in the democrat party is fiction anyways because of the "super" delegates