Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology?

Petey_Alchemist writes "With Super Tuesday coming up and the political field somewhat winnowed down, the process of picking the nominees for the next American President is well underway. At the same time, the Internet is bustling through a period of legal questions like Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment. All of these are just a few of the host of issues that the next President will be pressured to weigh in on during his or her tenure. Who do you think would be the best (or worst) candidate on Internet issues?"

A Good Reference

[longacre (1090157)]

Popular Mechanics' Geek The Vote '08 [popularmechanics.com] has a nice rundown of each candidate's tech policies.

Re:

[Stradivarius (7490)]

News.com has candidate interviews [news.com] on technology policies.

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

Obama has flatly stated that he supports maximum transparency at all levels of government

Which means absolutely nothing as far as any of the issues mentioned in the summary: "Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment".

No wonder you posted as an AC - your answer is the same any politician would give when asked a question - use a lot of BBBs (bullshit bingo buzzwords) to avoid actually giving an answer.

Re:

[fictionpuss (1136565)]

"No wonder you posted as an AC - your answer is the same any politician would give when asked a question - use a lot of BBBs (bullshit bingo buzzwords) to avoid actually giving an answer."

I don't think that that is entirely fair, not least because you go on the attack before actually stating your case as to why transparency of stakeholder interests has absolutely no affect on the mentioned issues.

Science and Technology aren't (or at least shouldn't) be about which agendas are popular at the moment, but e

Re:Obama is for transparency

[tomhudson (43916)]

Its entirely fair - the magic phrase "transparency in government" isn't going to fix the housing bubble, the deficit, the lack of universal medical care - heck, it avoids every single concrete issue the article blurb mentions.

Take the issue of net neutrality ... those who care can find out everything they need to know. We don't need "transparency" in government - we need some common sense.

A good example is software patents. Making the process completely transparent won't fix that - only a change of law will.

Ditto for health care. Only a change of law will fix that - not transparency.

The housing bubble bust? Only house prices deflating to their historic norms (2.5 to 3x local income) will fix that. "Transparency" won't. And if it means that a couple of big banks fail because they got too greedy, that's their shareholders' problem, not the government, nor the taxpayer. Throwing a trillion bux at it won't fix the underlying problem - overly inflated housing values. "Transparency" sure won't fix it.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who don't tell it like it is and think we're stupid, which I guess means pretty much all main-stream politicians.

Transparency is a good thing, but it will not solve any of the problems currently facng the US and the rest of the world. Only concrete actions. For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it. Specifically, what laws you intend to pass. Ditto for health care, the deficit, etc. Not "policy" - which can change, but LAW. That would be real transparency.

For example, if its the intention of the government to inflate its way out of the current bubble bust and deficit, tell us. (7 years of 10% inflation per annum should about do it - but you'll end up with a US dollar worth < $0.20 on world markets).

Re:Obama is for transparency

[fictionpuss (1136565)]

If you've never worked for a Government, ask someone you know who has. They'll have plenty of examples of bad decisions, blatant abuses, borderline (and beyond) criminal actions which pass due to an order or ethos coming down from above, which cannot be questioned or publicised.

Software patents are a good example: Of course only a change of law will fix that situation, but without the transparency to see who is lobbying who on the issue, where the money flows, it won't even be debated.

"For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it."

Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.

Re:Obama is for transparency

[Flavio (12072)]

Bush and his neocon buddies are completely opposed to Libertarianism. They've hijacked the Republican party, and they'd rather have Hillary Clinton than a libertarian like Ron Paul.

Iraq is a contractor's wet dream. Big government contracts are awarded to US companies, while soldiers die to protect American assets. This is exactly what libertarians oppose, and it pisses me off that you've tied the one group of people who've consistently opposed this war with the mess that is Iraq.

Iraq doesn't show that a free market needs government(*). It only shows that under a civil war and illegal occupation nothing works.

(*) Besides, libertarians aren't anarchists. Libertarians favor SMALL government.

Libertarianism is not anarchy

[volkris (694)]

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

Your comment talked about how the lack of government ended up being a bad thing... well of course it was! The markets that libertarians embrace rely on a functional legal system and other services of government to provide the foundation on which they operate. Then, libertarians spend all this time talking about the enforcement of rights, enforcement that would be provided by governments.

The solution to bad government is not no government, but a fixed government, one that keeps people from screwing with each other but largely stands out of their way, allowing people the freedom to make of themselves what they want.

Libertarians recognize this. The lack of a government is often as bad a failure as a bad one.

Re:Libertarianism is not anarchy

[ameoba (173803)]

I've never actually met a self-professed Libertarian that wasn't primarily motivated by greed - it only takes a little questioning to get past their parroting of the party line and realize that their core belief isn't "government shouldn't be involved with..." but "I don't want to pay for that".

Re:A Totally Free Market is Best, but ...

[wellingj (1030460)]

Therefore, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to lead our nation.

But not the best candidate to get rid of the nanny state. I don't want to be led by my president.
I want to lead my own life and my own endeavors. I don't want to be spied on by the Government,
and I don't want to give it a 3rd of my income so it can redistribute it however someone in
Washington sees fit. Redistributing my wealth is my own damn business. Not the Governments.

Re:A Totally Free Market is Best, but ...

[Anarke_Incarnate (733529)]

Why is this moderated as Flame Bait? This is the truth. We are supposed to be the enterprising free. We can't be that if the government tells us how much milk to drink, how to live and who we can marry. On top of that, we get to pay them 30% or more of our paycheck for them to say things like "Hmm, where DID we put that 9 billion dollars?" Say what you want about the current crop of Republicans. All but one of them are pandering old school politicians. Hillary and Obama (yes, him too) are both part of the political machine. Check out his record. He is about changing the guard, but not the message. Wow, the stormtroopers get new uniforms, but they are still building the death star, folks.

Al Gore

[ryanisflyboy (202507)]

He did create the thing, you know.

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

Re:Al Gore

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

And Vint Cerf agrees [umich.edu] with [politechbot.com] him.

Check the candidate web sites

[polin8 (170866)]

I was impressed by Obama's technology issues page:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ [barackobama.com]

The summary points are:

        * Ensure an open Internet.
        * Create a transparent and connected democracy.
        * Encourage a modern communications infrastructure.
        * Employ technology to solve our nation's most pressing problems.
        * Improve America's competitiveness.

The list is pretty much "policy speak" but the detailed initiatives indicate a good grasp of the issues and a reasonable stance on the direction we need to move.

Re:Check the candidate web sites

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

Technology is part of culture, too. And I believe Obama is probably the best candidate from the perspective of overcoming a lot of the old blue-state/red-state cliches and antagonisms. It may sound hackneyed to say this, but I actually did feel stirrings of patriotic (in the sense of commitment to a community, not in terms of jingoism, nationalism, or "national branding") feeling after his South Carolina speech. So much of the divisive rhetoric we see in forums are really perpetuations of crude stereotypes and tired arguments which rely on them.

If there is anything Obama connotes to me, above and beyond his policy positions (which I am generally OK with - though I'm also OK with a lot of HRC's positions, but can't stand her) its the return of a culture of listening, of not seeing conservatives or liberals as "the enemy", but as fellow citizens. It's an idealistic position, but maybe I'm a little tired of cynicism. "Cynicism is the only form in which base souls can approach honesty." - F. Nietzsche.

Re:Check the candidate web sites -- and web hosts

[rjamestaylor (117847)]

Let's check the candidates registrar, web hosting provider and server platform. This should be interesting. Maybe not meaningful, however. (Speaking of not meaningful...the lameness filter doesn't want lists of facts for comparison so I have to add length to the lines.)

First, let's look at Obama (he's the magical negro, the man not from Hope but offering hope to America, the ethical campaigner compared to ruthless Clinton):

Domain Name: BARAKOBAMA.COM
Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.

(Obviously going for the "Fabulous" vote there...)

Web host: Saavis
Server: Apache

Saavis -- expensive. No game playing here. Says Apache, but doesn't say what the OS is. Smart move.

Now, McCain (the Hero, the maverick republican who shares a platform more like Clinton than other Republicans, he's the anti-establishment establishmentarian):

Domain Name: JOHNMCCAIN.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

(Going for the "home vote" and GoDaddy.com, while it sucks ass, is indigenous to AZ)

Web host SMARTECH CORPORATION.
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

Never heard of them... Bold move, Mr. McCain -- using a web host no one's heard of.

Now, Romney, the Northeastern governor (the Mormon who was, until recently, pro-choice; son of a one time popular Republican; good-looking but flip-flopping candidate):

Domain Name: MITTROMNEY.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

(He's Mormon so perhaps UT has not registrars so he's pandering to the regional vote by using AZ-based GoDaddy?)

Web host Rackspace.com, Ltd.
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)

Rackspace! Heavy advertiser on Slashdot, employer of more RHCEs than Red Hat, ... tech savvy move! And running on LAMP. Nice.

Now, Clinton (the Senator who offers 8 more years of old-time change-- huh? A return to the future that was 1992-2000. Another opportunity for Bill to get some intern love in the Oval Office; a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden and correct a mistake from the last Clinton presidency):

Domain Name: HILLARYCLINTON.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

The establishment candidate using the establishment registrar, I see. (Change is ... hard to find with HRC).

Web host Rackspace.com, Ltd. - sub-assignment of IPs to Paul Holcomb
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

So, also Rackspace, but made to look like Paul Holcomb...kind like a lot of the positions HRC takes -- looks like this but really is that. no surprise. Oh, even though at Rackspace using a Microsoft solution. Always playing both sides doesn't she?

And, of course, what about Ron Paul (he's the Libertarian that is really, really a Republican this time, Ok?; the pro-legalizing drugs, anti-war on terror candidate; the one who says things worth cheering and jeering in the same debate)?

Domain Name: RONPAUL2008.COM
Registrar: SCHLUND+PARTNER AG

Awesome. Using a Germany/EU registrar. How...Godwin of him...

Web host Rackspace.com, Ltd., with IPs sub-assigned to Terra Eclipse Media Design
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)

Also at Rackspace! And, obfuscating the netblock owner like Hillary. Interesting...but boldly announcing Apache and Red Hat as the platform.

Let's not forget Huckabee...(oh that we could, though, forget this Kevin Spacey look-a-like)

Domain Name: MIKEHUCKABEE.COM
Registrar: DOMAINPEOPLE, INC.

Sounds populist. I wonder if DOMAINPEOPLE are evangelicals?

Web host HostMySite
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

Sounds...like a $5/mo web host. Huh. And running on IIS. Wonder if its a s

Re:Check the candidate web sites -- and web hosts

[rjamestaylor (117847)]

As the AC pointed out, it's BARACK (not BARAK) OBAMA.

Registered at GoDaddy, hosted by Pair, running Server: Apache/1.3.37 to redirect http://barackobama.com/ [barackobama.com] to http://www.barakobamaa.com/ [barakobamaa.com] which is running Server: PWS/1.2.18.

PWS is supposedly Win98's Personal Web Server... which probably means Barack's web admins have a rich sense of humor.

Re:Check the candidate web sites

[cduffy (652)]

Lack of universal, affordable health care [...] Is Obama going to toss out the HMOs?

No, but he's going to give them competition [barackobama.com]. Private healthcare plans will remain available, but a publicly funded healthcare plan will be available in addition, providing competition. Individuals will be able to get rebates based on their income level to help pay for whichever healthcare system (be it a private company or the public one) they choose. This may not be "tossing out" the HMOs, but it's surely not going to make them happy.

Foreign policy in a shambles

Yup, it's a mess. However, Obama has a great deal of credibility in the foreign press [ruralvotes.com], and being a relative newcomer to national politics (having most of his experience state-level and below) helps him disassociate himself (and his administration) from the US's disastrous policies of late. Indeed, his stated intention to avoid some of the US's more longstanding and counterproductive policies (like refusing to even talk to folks we disagree with) is likely to do some good.

As for economic issues -- yes, the US economy is a mess. Obama has a plan, of course -- every serious candidate claims they do, after all -- but I haven't looked at the details well enough to support it here.

Obama good, Huckabee bad

[abburdlen (131870)]

If Obama is good enough for xkcd [xkcd.com] then he's good enough for me.

I imagine Huckabee is the worst on technology issues unless of course they were mentioned in the bible.

Re:Obama good, Huckabee bad

[urbanriot (924981)]

I agree, Obama actually understands technology, patent issues and creative rights. I'm Canadian, so my vote doesn't matter however I've noticed other candidates seem to be less educated in these areas, or relying on basic knowledge; however Obama seems to have personal knowledge in these areas.

Re:

[cduffy (652)]

would take away your gun

I don't have a semi-automatic, which is what he's mostly opposed to -- and he's certainly much less extreme on the issue than Clinton. Consider the alternatives.

he IS a lawyer.

A civil rights lawyer. Don't you think that makes a difference?

Re:

[daeg (828071)]

Luckily, gun rights are something that are easily re-granted through the court system and by future administrations. Economic and foreign policy, on the other hand, are much harder to fight for and to correct past mistakes.

Ob. Quote:

[earthbound kid (859282)]

Don't blame me, I voted for Cowboy Neil.

Barack Obama

[Doug52392 (1094585)]

Check out the Technology section of his website. He knows what's up with net neutrality and privacy laws, and vows to change it (although that's what everyone says, I think he could really help the tech world)

Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy. She wants to crack down on violent video games, which, due to the pins and needles the economy is on right now, could devastate the economy if a major sector of the gaming industry would collapse. She even supports "media literacy" in the United States (aka censorship).

In my opinion Obama could do a lot of good for America. He is not a conservative, so he would be more likely to reform and change stuff that is in dire need of it.

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy.

Too late for Clinton to claim that - Bush has prior art with the housing bubble.

Housing prices have fallen every month for the last 11 months [ft.com]. Predictions for the next 3 years are more of the same - with the bottom anywhere from 25% to 50% from their peaks.

That's a lot of people who will be upside-down on their mortgages, with a trillion dollars of bad debt still to work its way through the system.

This isn't news - for more than a ye

Re:Barack Obama

[tomhudson (43916)]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Economists have been critical of Greenspans 2003 decision to cut interest rates which, they argue, helped create the housing bubble, the collapse of which provoked this summers banking crisis.

So Bush wasn't president at that time?

Or here back in 2004: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/overcoming_the_bubble_economy.php [tompaine.com]

The damage from the overvalued dollar threatens to be even more dangerous. With President Bush largely maintaining the high dollar policy, the trade deficit and foreign debt have continued to rise at a rapid pace. The current account deficit hit an incredible $660 billion in the most recent quarter, more than 5.7 percent of GDP. This deficit will push total foreign debt to more than $3 trillion by the end of this year. On its current path, it will exceed $7 trillionapproximately 50 percent of GDPby 2009.

The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"

And I guess Bush never said this back in 2002, which was the signal to lower loan standards http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html [whitehouse.gov] - my comments in italics ...

But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We now know that not everyone who wants a home should be able to get one just because they can fog a mirror.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

this was the initial go-ahead by Bush for the private sector to eas up on lending standards for mortgages

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

so the mortgage industry came out with all sorts of snake-oil financial schemes, to extend the "dream" everywhere - ev

ronpaul

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").

Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.

Re:ronpaul

[vertinox (846076)]

Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

Umm... I though RP wanted to kick corporations out of the Federal Government. Hence, there would be no NSA ATT wiretaps or kickbacks to the telco/cable monopolies or FCC regulations as we know them now.

I think people forget that empowering the Federal Government just means that it leads to corporations investing more control over it. Although I disagree on Paul on many social issues, I will agree that the current situation in DC is pretty much forgone. The problem is that the Federal government is being used to solve problems which ends up being lucrative to a subset of parties.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you will never acheive a neutering of corporations without fixing the root core of the problem which is "corporate personhood" which Ron Paul is highly against.

So yes, in theory Ron Paul would never support network neutrality legislation, but don't you think its very strange that many Google employees are highly supportive of him [youtube.com]?

Simply arguing over who is going to pass bills that support technology or wedge issues is ignoring the 9 trillion dollar white elephant in the room along with the billion dollar war that appears to have no end in sight.

Unfortunately, neither of the major parties seem to acknowledge that we are in for some hard times and that the current economic and political system has some major issues that might be insurmountable in the near future.

I'm tired of people saying "I like 'X cannidate's' message! It inspires me!"

Not to goodwin this, but Hitler inspired people too and we really need to be pragmatic about the next leader. If not Paul, then someone else who at best is nothing more than good technocrat and not an ideologist who's going to drag us down even further.

Absolute Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

You do not understand Libertarianism. You are confusing it with anarchy. They are very different things.

Others here have confused Fascism with anarchy ("corporate anarchy"). They are very different things.

Libertarians support the FREE MARKET. Free markets do not operate where monopoly or oligopoly exist. Libertarians do not support a corporate-run, completely unregulated economy! That is simply not a free market.

Also, a truly free market accounts for real costs as part of its operation. Therefore, in a real free market, producers bear the cost of the societal problems they cause (pollution, etc.), rather than that burden being borne by the taxpayers. Is there anything wrong with that? And the reason things are not done that way NOW, is because of corporate interests being too involved in government and thereby subverting the free market process. Contrary to what many people are saying, Libertarianism addresses and strives to solve that issue. It is the current corporate-state that preserves and worsens it.

I could go on for quite a while... but I strongly urge you to do some real research about a topic -- especially if it is a major political party -- before you go around spouting such nonsense as the above. I am not trying to say you are an idiot, but it sure makes you look like one.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?

I am not trying to say you are a liar, but blanket assertions about the Ron Paul your personal version of "libertarianism" imagine him to be sure make you look like one.

BTW, if Paul were a "Libertarian", he wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party. Even when he ran as the LP nominee, he didn't leave the RP or join the LP, and that was 20 years ago. He's at best

Lessig supports Obama

[damiam (409504)]

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html [lessig.org]

An excerpt:

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.

Barack Obama, Candidates@Google

[at.splat (775901)]

I was on the fence last summer and fall as to whether Obama was "the real deal." That is, I was until I saw the Q&A portion [youtube.com] of his November 2007 talk at the Google campus. This was my true turning point.

It is a typical question and answer session with some pretty advanced questions lobbed by the Googlers and moderated by Eric Schmidt. It is, beyond any combative debate or stump speech, a truly (+5) insightful conversation about his views on technology.

(As others have mentioned, Senator Obama's Technology [barackobama.com] page is also a helpful peek at what he stands for in case you don't have the patience for the ~20 min. video)

wrong question

[bcrowell (177657)]

It's disturbing to me that anyone would even think of basing their vote in this presidential election on tech issues. My god, we're involved in a ruinous war, and when it comes to civil liberties we're sliding down the slippery slope into fascism.

Trust Lessig - Vote Obama

[mrfibbi (695943)]

Not only does Lawrence Lessig endorse Obama, he's actually advising him on copyright policy. This could bring about the single biggest policy shift in Washington on copyright, IP, and free culture that we've seen in years.

Re:

[Kohath (38547)]

This will be quite the political discussion if everyone who doesn't say they love socialism and hate corporations (and hate the rich, religious people, the military, etc, etc, etc) gets modded to -1 Flamebait.

Why even ask the question if there's not going to be a serious discussion? Just make it a poll so the "moderators" can say "Ron Paul" or one of the socialists instead of voting to censor other perspectives with their mod points.

Ron Paul

[Roger Wilcox (776904)]

Paul understands economics better than any of the other candidates, in my estimation. While I'm sure Romney knows all about microeconomics and running a business, the debates have not shown that he knows anything of economics on a national or global scale.

Paul does not look at business in the way you describe either. He detests taxes that redistribute wealth to anybody - be it the lobbyists that are in bed with congress or through nanny programs that sustain a welfare state. He believes that free markets are the best thing for technology. While it's nice to think that the government spends money on research, you have to remember a few things: a) they have to get that money from somewhere (taxes) and b) by subsidizing technological research, unsubsidized programs suffer. As you mention, the government is likely to favor subsidies for politically-connected unproductive folks, so Paul would say: don't subsidize it at all.

Re:Ron Paul

[nido (102070)]

If you want to actually accomplish something, then one of the candidates who can accomplish something might be better.

In Arizona, like many/most other states, only registered party members can vote in their party's presidential primary election.

I look at the present election as-if it's already November: who could possibly beat Hillary or Obama? Based on the numbers [opensecrets.org], 'dark horse' candidate Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a snowball's chance in Phoenix. In comparison to Clinton and Obama, McCain has no money and no support for his "100 years in Iraq" platform, and Romney is just spending his own money to try to buy the nomination.

So, if you're registered as a Republican, a vote for Romney or McCain is a vote for Obama or Clinton. A vote for Paul counts for something.

Ron Paul is the best candidate because he tried to prevent the housing bubble, by introducing bills to abolish the Federal Reserve system. He gets no coverage from the Media-Political Complex because his platform is to take their toys away.

As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has done nothing to distance herself from Bill Clinton's 'free trade' policies (NAFTA, GATT, WTO), which made the housing bubble much worse than it otherwise would have been. Clinton's recession arrived the first time in March, 2001, which was too late for him to get credit, and too early for it to be Bush's fault. Bush tried the standard Keynesian "stimulus" recession remedy, but all the stimulus flowed into Chinese factories [slashdot.org] and non-productive units of housing. Now the economy's goose is cooked, so we should be thinking about who best to lead the country's reindustrialization. Obama may lack experience, but he's not evil.

Re:Ron Paul

[Mattwolf7 (633112)]

You know what they say: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Ron Paul isn't a leader or a follower... I believe Ron Paul and for the same reason, Dennis Kucinich aren't ever fit to be President for what you said. They both have never accomplished anything. I was talking to a state level Democrat in Ohio earlier this week about Kucinich, and what she said was something to the extent: "Dennis is a great man, and has never compromised himself, yet he hasn't ever accomplished anything. To me it is more important to make some progress than none. I'd rather go 75% towards my goal and be only 25% away than have gotten nowhere." I think that applies directly to Ron Paul, he may have never voted to raise taxes, but he hasn't ever accomplished anything. Politics is accomplishing your goals and improving your country, but it is also requires a great art of compromising, not to the extent that it compromised your character, but far enough that it will accomplish most of your goals. The President of the United States needs to be someone who can reach a compromise.

Re:Ron Paul

[Kohath (38547)]

I'm still not persuaded. For maximum persuasiveness in communications, can you please try using more all-caps text and putting in a lot swear words and additional information-free accusations? Everyone loves that stuff.

Romney being a mormon is a plus

[rcb1974 (654474)]

The mormons I know are very friendly, caring, family oriented, smart, and law abiding. I'm paying close attention to Romney this election because I think it will be good for America to have someone with those qualities in office. Running a country isn't that much different from running a business. It all boils down to doing cost/benefit analysis on a bunch of huge multivariable problems. I think Romney has the best brain for that compared to the other candidates. He has already proven he can do succes

Re:None of them

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

The talent of a political candidate is proportional to the strength of the reality-distortion field s/he can maintain during the whole campaign. An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.

Re:None of them

[cduffy (652)]

An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.

Yes, I agree that Ron Paul has no chance.

However, there's a different between being unbending in one's ideals and being unbending in one's understanding of the world; the latter leads to an inability or unwillingness to understand or empathize with the motivations of one's opponents, and that leads to the political environment we have today. Much of what makes Obama appealing is his willingness to think things over from perspectives other than his own and strike considered compromises that still accomplish his intended goals while making people who disagreed feel like they weren't completely steamrolled. Hillary strikes me as the win-at-any-cost type -- but winning at any cost means making the other side lose, and that leads to still more division and partisan hatred.

Re:None of them

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

If Paul has no chance, it will be precisely because of all the otherwise well-meaning people who keep saying "Paul has no chance".

The "wasted vote" is a myth, or at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not vote for who you WANT to win, then someone you do not want will win. Period. It is as simple as that. Thinking about it any other way is nothing more than second-guessing, or mental jerking off.

Re:None of them

[cduffy (652)]

Support IRV [wikipedia.org] and there really will be no such thing as a wasted vote. Right now, however, the spoiler effect [wikipedia.org] is very very real.

Re:None of them

[7-Vodka (195504)]

You know, I'll bite on your cointelpro bullshit.
Nothing that Ron Paul has ever said or done is in anyway supportive of racism. He has for many decades supported individual Freedoms and Liberty which are concepts that are diametrically opposed to racism. Racism cannot exist when you have Freedom ideals that treat individuals as such and not as part of a group. Racism comes from creating groups of people and judging likewise.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is the republican candidate with the most support from minorities. It has been pointed out time and time again and unless you start accusing non-caucasians of throwing their support behind a racist candidate in some uninformed way (yeah right) you have no argument.

Everything that Dr. Paul has ever done and all the ideals he stands for seek the end of racism. The entire accusation was constructed by professional counterintelligence personel. The same types who run scenarios on stealing elections and what would happen if they were to assassinate Ron Paul.

Unfortunately for them anyone who actually looks into it or even just hears his side of the story [youtube.com] will realize it's a joke.

Also, calling a respectable candidate who's served in congress for 20 years and has a respectable record a "batshit crazy racist loon" is quite possibly the worst ad hominem attack I have ever heard in my life. It shows you have no ground to stand on to debate his views without distorting them and have to focus on attacking the man.

But it's ok, the vast majority of people see through your games little cointelpro agent and we'll be knocking on your door soon demanding you pay your dues to our society.

Re:Ron Paul

[Improv (2467)]

For every problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. That's Ron Paul, who would dismantle vital institutions of our society.

Re:

[Brandybuck (704397)]

Monopolies are nearly all caused by big government. Without the special privileges government gives them it would be extremely difficult to get into a monopoly position, and once there they would have to keep prices low and provide good service, lest new firms arose to compete for that pie.

Big government encourages big business with regulatory and tax structures that encourage bigness. When it takes an army of accountants and lawyers to do business, only those firms large enough to afford an army of account

Re:Ron Paul

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

Don't you think it's telling that the one sector of the economy on which you have the most knowledge and interest is, for you and many libertarians, the one place where you conceive of an "exception" to the presumption of the optimality of non-intervention?

Perhaps if you had as abiding an interest in agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, you would see more "exceptions" to the idea that regulation is bad.

Re:

[bcrowell (177657)]

Yeah, I'm a libertarian, but Ron Paul makes me shudder. It was an interesting exercise to go through the US Libertarian Party platform [lp.org] and compare with all Ron Paul's positions that I think are way wrong. On every single one (abortion, free trade, anti-immigrant xenophobia), his positions are the opposite of the party's planks.

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

He is the only one with hands off approach to government. And the best technologies emerge and evolve just so.

Y'mean technologies like the internet?