Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government United States Politics

Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions 551

Posted by kdawson
from the good-start dept.
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions

Comments Filter:
  • by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@nOSPam.phroggy.com> on Monday January 28, 2008 @02:45AM (#22205378) Homepage
    "Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
    • by User 956 (568564) on Monday January 28, 2008 @02:49AM (#22205398) Homepage
      What's on his iPod: "Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.

      That's not what's on his ipod. That's a question he really wants the answer to. Mitt Romney wants to know who let the dogs out, because Mitt Romney believes the dog(s) should be firmly locked on top of his station wagon, and covered in feces. [time.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by VValdo (10446)
        Dude, his dog just likes fresh air [msn.com], that's all.

        Who woulda thought he could hear NPR all the way from outside the car?

        W
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by raddan (519638)
        Oymygod. He hurtses teh puppies?!?!

        I'm no Romney fan (and that's saying something-- I live in MA), but come on-- this article seems to be mostly speculation. Where did Time get this information? Did they find the dog excrement themselves and then deduce the rest of the story? It's such an obvious smear piece (no pun intended) that I am skeptical. They couldn't even goad the MSPCA officer into saying much.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Eddi3 (1046882)
          Actually, this story is true. [snopes.com]

          He even made a small windshield for the dog. It's not like he wanted to do it; he has 5 kids, and had no more room in the car.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nschubach (922175)
            Maybe it's time for a lesson in parenting and/or raising a pet? If there's no room in the car, either you have too many kids, or too many pets. Time to put up some money to have some of them taken care of while your on vacation. I know many boarding kennels that take excellent care of your pets. Sometimes better care then they get at home.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bazman (4849)
      Actually, he says that his iPod has those clean-living, drug-free, god-fearing Mormon boys, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

      oh wait...

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday January 28, 2008 @09:21AM (#22207082) Homepage Journal
      Q: What's on Mitt Romney's iPod?

      A: His instructions.
  • Who cares if he uses a PC? Mitt Romney may be well organized, smart, and have a great telepresence...but middle America will never get around his being a Mormon. Of course, Middle America is never going to vote for Hillary or Barack for that matter, so whomever gets the Republican nod will be a shoe-in for the Presidency. God/Allah/Buddha/RMS help us all.
    • by Divebus (860563) on Monday January 28, 2008 @02:58AM (#22205448)
      At least Romney hasn't advertised he'll put Steve Ballmer on his cabinet [wsj.com] like McCain has. Gak! You think we have it bad NOW?
    • by AuMatar (183847)
      Funny- it looks like they voted for Obama in Iowa. But in the end it doesn't matter- middle america doesn't decide the presidential election. The battleground states do that, and none of them are in the bible belt. If anything, if you want a democrat to win you should be rooting for Romney- he's a carbon copy of Bush, and people realize that. He won't win vs either democrat.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032)
      middle America will never get around his being a Mormon

      I don't think most people would have a problem with that if he were a decent human being, but he's not. [youtube.com] So, when he loses, whether it's in the primaries or in the general election, he's got a ready-made excuse for failure.

      -jcr
      • by Moonpie Madness (764217) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:39AM (#22205634)
        Fair enough. I'm not a big Mitt fan, but he's a economic genius and an experienced leader. And fixing this economy and handling the war are much more important that medical marijuana, though I agree with a prescription there is no reason not to permit its use. One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people (if you use this kid as your argument).

        I don't think it's sensible to pick one issue and judge everyone who disagrees with you a monster. Of course, I also don't have that kid's disease so it's easy for me to feel this way. Still, single issue voters miss the boat these days. Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna.
        • by Bottlemaster (449635) on Monday January 28, 2008 @04:12AM (#22205794)

          And fixing this economy and handling the war are much more important that medical marijuana... I also don't have that kid's disease so it's easy for me to feel this way.
          Issues like this separate folks into three different kinds of people:
          1. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, therefore we should persecute those who do exercise it."
          2. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, therefore it is not important."
          3. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, but it is a right and therefore must be guaranteed."

          Apparently you are in group #2, and your apathy makes it easy for you to completely disregard the liberties and lives of your fellow human beings. Would you change your mind if your survival depended on medicinal marijuana? Regardless, I envy your apathy; some of us don't have it so easy.

          One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people
          The criminalization of drugs in this country affects roughly 300 million people - a bit more than "very few" in my book. 300 million Americans are being deprived of basic human rights, and their money is being stolen to fund this oppression.

          While this is certainly fewer people than are affected by our economy and our war-centered foreign policy, I find your dismissal of 300 million souls as "very few people" disturbing.
          • by Moonpie Madness (764217) on Monday January 28, 2008 @04:59AM (#22205980)
            You didn't answer my question: who is your candidate?

            We are in a representative republic and do not vote on issues, but rather people.

            300 million people are not affected by this. That's absurd. I say fewer than one thousand people really have a legit need for medical marijuana, at least to the severe degree the example needs it. I agree his rights are violated.

            Also, 300 million people do not pay their share of taxes, or even near their share, so you can't say this kid's money is being stolen, when he probably pays no federal income tax. You're just trying to goad and troll, I guess. I'm very sympathetic to this kid, but your lack pf perspective is very high.

            Pot does ruin lives. It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. It should not be legalized. Those who have severe medical problems that a doctor says mandate smoking pot have a right that the rest of us 300 million people do not have.

            You think this issue compares with the war on terror? Whether you are pro-war or anti, thousands of people's lives hang in the balance. Thousands were killed on 9/11, and Saddam killed millions of people, while our effort has probably killed over 100k people. That's somewhat more important, right? You claim I dismiss "basic human rights" with no idea what basic human rights are. I wish banned smoking pot was the biggest problem in human rights in this country. While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security. Then the elderly may go without food and restorative medicine. Millions of people will actually suffer, as opposed to hundreds at most (I imagine in many cases, Romney is right and other drugs can take pot's place).

            You're extremely judgmental. And compared to you, I do have it easy because I understand that other people can disagree with me and not be morally inferior. You live in a simplistic jingoistic world and must hate the vast majority of Americans (who would ban a lot of drugs and repeatedly support candidates that do). I don't have to hate them, even if I disagree with them and wish doctors could prescribe pot.
            • by Moonpie Madness (764217) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:19AM (#22206250)
              Someone says I have dismissed the rights of hundreds of millions of people, and I'm the troll? How can someone troll when there are simply replying to a personal attack? And the fella who demagogues in the most ridiculous terms possible is insightful?

              Moderator: go fuck yourself, please. You're what's wrong with this society where both political factions think the other is 100% inhuman.

              You should use your moderator points to determine if comments are interesting, etc. Not to upvote crap you agree with in the most childish digg-style possible. By validating the parent poster's simplistic and stupid attacks, you're fueling the fire.

              Mitt Romney isn't being attacked for his view on drugs: he's being attacked for being a republican. Everyone knows it. Hillary's view on the War on Drugs is identical. Obama actually talks about ramping up the War on Drugs. But they aren't republicans so they aren't subject to the same level of attack.

              Romney is showing some awareness of technology that people like Bush "uses the google" fundamentally lack. It's refreshing. Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish.

              I'm not even a republican, and I'm getting sick of this crap. Every election year I have to listen to trolls validate each other's existence while hating huge segments of society. For whatever reason (likely Bush's fumbling presidency), Slashdot leans left, so Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack.

              Well mods, if you really want to, go ahead and moderate down every single thing I have ever said. Because I disagree with you. Call me a troll for issuing obvious and relatively polite self-defense. slashdot can be another digg.com.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Hellad (691810)
        You actually fell for that plant? Lets, for the sake of argument take the position that this is actually an ill person. What exactly was he supposed to say? He stated that he didn't support medical marijuana. Beyond that, besides trying to make a federalist argument that it isn't the president that would arrest him but the state government he is pretty much SOL. It would be no different than if someone who had a child die at 23 weeks going in and demanding that (insert pro-life candidate) justify there
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by zigziggityzoo (915650)
          You've convinced me to nullify my mod points on this article to post. Where do I start?

          The Federal government has no right to define what I can or cannot do to my body, so long as I do not infringe on another citizen's rights. If a state defines something as legal for persons to do, then the federal government is not allowed to say otherwise. We have the U.S. Constitution to thank for that.

          In addition, The FDA, while useful by nature, is unconstitutional as a federal entity (because they define what
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Entropius (188861)

          What exactly was he supposed to say? He stated that he didn't support medical marijuana.


          He could have said that he did support medical marijuana, which is the only sane position to hold.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Hellad (691810)
            I think that you get into dangerous territory when you start believing that only one side has a sane argument. But cheers to you if your world is so absolute.
      • by pkulak (815640)

        I don't think most people would have a problem with that

        No, just the people he's trying to get to vote for him. How far do you think Mitt is going to get if all the nut-job Christians vote for the only Christian running, Barack or Hillary?

        • by arth1 (260657)

          No, just the people he's trying to get to vote for him. How far do you think Mitt is going to get if all the nut-job Christians vote for the only Christian running, Barack or Hillary?

          Mormons like Mitt Romney are Christians too. Even though your typical Lutheran might not see them as the same as themselves, seen from the outside, Mormons are very much Christians. The differences are, from an objective point of view, trivial.
          Mormons have a 19th century prophet? So do the Seventh Day Adventists.
          Mormons have

      • I think this [youtube.com] is a better (less biased) illustration of a lapse in basic ethics. I don't claim to know much about him or what he really truly believes, but I don't think that anyone who claims to be opposed to torture but is unwilling to identify waterboarding as torture (when it clearly is) ought to be president.
      • by weave (48069)

        He also hates his own dog. [time.com]

        Read that linked story made me ill.

    • by polar red (215081)
      >God/Allah/Buddha/RMS

      you realise God = Allah ?
    • I don't think even mac users want a mac-using president.. that whole fun-machine mentality just doesn't fit the image of a President-Elected of the United States of America..
  • And we know that Romney's answers aren't just microtailored to his Slashdot audience, because he never does that. He isn't just another CEO who'll say anything, anytime, for power. He's honest.

    Hell, we don't even know that it's really Romney answering, and not some minimum wage nerd he's to phoning in the answers.

    In fact, if I built a slick robot with perfect hair, I think "Romney" would be a good name. Welcome to the Romney 101.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:24AM (#22205570)
      Romney is the greatest USA Presidential candidate ever. Think about it.

      Look at someone like Ron Paul. What if you don't agree with Ron Paul about something? Bad news... ...he'll still hold an opposing stance.

      Mitt Romney, though, is the true candidate of hope. He likely agrees with you. He might not now, but he probably has at some point in the past and might again in the future.

      In this political season where the candidates are talking about change, the change involves growing the size and roll of government (which isn't change at all). The REAL candidate of change is Mitt Romney. Sure, he'll expand government too, but his positions change often. And change is change.

      Vote change. Vote Mitt Romney!
      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        /usr/games/fortune for president!
      • by polar red (215081)
        What is it that Americans have with big government ?
        Big business is much worse than big government, you are being deceived by all these people that say big government is bad ... only governments can reign in the power of the corporations.
    • by arth1 (260657)

      And we know that Romney's answers aren't just microtailored to his Slashdot audience, because he never does that.

      No, we know that because this wasn't Ask Slashdot, but a 3rd party interview. RTFA.
  • Wishy-Washy on H1B's (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Monday January 28, 2008 @02:51AM (#22205416) Homepage Journal
    He's basically saying that *if* there are skill shortages, then H1B's are fine. But the problem is that there is no real burden for companies to show a skills shortage: the loopholes are huge. Government inspectors (the very few of them that exist) don't know a software engineer from locomotive engineer.

    A more relevant question would be: "Are you for more stringent verification by employers of alleged skills shortages before H1B's are brought in?"
         
  • BS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by noiseordinance (1149049) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:03AM (#22205474)
    I still can't figure out why slashdot never posted my submission for Ron Paul's article at http://www.news.com/Technology-Voters-Guide-Ron-Paul/2100-1028_3-6224161.html?tag=st.num [news.com] which is much more interesting.
    • by djpolaar (1218446)
      Try Digg - they love anything about Ron Paul there.
    • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      Because people hate Ron Paul supporters?
    • by pkulak (815640)
      Because this isn't Reddit.
    • by owlnation (858981)
      I think it's because the Paultards are shooting themselves in the foot.

      I am not American. I do not live in America. And yet... I see Paultard spam every single day all over the Internet. It is everywhere. Mercifully Slashdot is one of the few places where it is effectively controlled (nota bene, by consensus).

      I do not care what his policies are, nor if Ron Paul is personally guaranteeing making me a millionaire, I not only would never vote for him, I want him in prison for the spam. Paultard spam is
  • by educated_foo (93255) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:26AM (#22205574)
    As an automaton yourself, what rights do you think our constitution grants to humanoid robots?
  • Bah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:26AM (#22205580)

    The areas we were able to cover include technology growth policies in the U.S., Internet taxes, H1B visas, venture capital tax issues and renewable energy.

    We were not able to cover net neutrality, the digital divide, mobile spectrum allocation issues, identity theft, China censorship or intellectual property issues on this call.
    They missed the really good ones! If the congress vote on internet tax was 402-0 I think it's pretty obvious where that issue is going to go, and is a pretty dumb question. Net Neutrality, IP, censorship - those are all things that are very easy to feel one way or the other, or the myriad ways in between, especially since he already hinted at imposing trade sanctions or the like on China for IP problems. Poor choices on the editors, IMHO, but H1B was a good question as were the follow-ups. Here's hoping for round two!
  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MadUndergrad (950779) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:33AM (#22205612)
    It's impressive how slow those pitches were. There wasn't a single hard question among them, and the interviewer clearly spelled out the answers he wanted to hear (and knew Romney was going to give).

    On another note, his idea of alternate and sustainable energy seems to be coal liquefaction and "maybe even" nuclear. Forward thinking guy much?
  • by hawks5999 (588198) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:43AM (#22205658)

    What I typically download is country music as well as 1960's music. I'm a baby boomer, so the Beatles and the Stones and some of the old groups from the 1960's are my favorites, I listen to them and I listen to country. I might have some inspirational music as well, but those are the highlights for me.
    So, could he be in favor of P2P so he can get his Beatles fix because we all know that isn't coming through iTunes.
    • by mwvdlee (775178)
      The Beatles catalogue may be on iTunes right now, AFAIK (I don't use iTunes or even have an MP3 player), but it sure as hell wasn't back in november 2007, when the interview was taken.
      Earliest articles indicating talk about this deal are dated medium november and even those stated "early 2008" as the intended date.
    • Could it be? (Score:4, Informative)

      by NEOtaku17 (679902) on Monday January 28, 2008 @05:22AM (#22206054) Homepage
      Could it be that he *gasp* ripped one of his CDs and loaded the songs onto his iPod?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by loconet (415875)
        Except that he said "I typically download". And even if he did rip his own CDs, if those CDs have copy protection, we already know it can be frowned upon by the DMCA. There are a lot of ways to step into one of the legal mines setup by the the MAFIAA.
  • by ringm000 (878375) on Monday January 28, 2008 @03:48AM (#22205684)
  • by Myopic (18616) on Monday January 28, 2008 @04:07AM (#22205764)
    Loosely related to this political thread, here is Obama's technology policy page [barackobama.com] which is very exciting because it is reasonably in line with general nerd opinion. So here I am, shilling for Obama during a Romney thread. I might be Offtopic but I hope I'm Informative! Here are some exceprts:

    Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.

    Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

    Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.

    Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
  • by damburger (981828)

    Ultimately we're in a competitive battle with the rest of the world; a battle where we need to stay the most powerful nation in the world. And the only way our nation stays ahead forever is with superior technology and innovation.

    Well, first of all, as I mentioned a moment ago, the way a nation like ours stays ahead permanently from other nations is having superior technology and innovation

    Woo! Go USA! Thousand year empire!

    I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such bel

    • Doubt it (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dobeln (853794)
      "I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world."

      He is talking about science and innovation, while acknowledging the obvious - the US is the most powerful nation in the world. Wouldn't call that "belligerent". In the Republican race, I much prefer him over "100 years in Iraq" McCain.

      Mandatory preemptive strike: And no, Ron Paul won't get the Repub nomination.
      • Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Informative)

        by damburger (981828) on Monday January 28, 2008 @11:46AM (#22208594)
        As I have patiently explained many times, America does not lead the world in most areas of science and technology. Or free speech. Or social mobility. Or even per capita wealth. The only thing the US leads the world in is military power, and as Iraq has shown that doesn't seem to help you much anyway.
  • Where are the questions on copyright and patent reform, open standards and open source software, investment into maths and sciences, net neutrality and telecoms industry regulation, etc...
  • I sure hope someone told Mitt that if he didn't buy all of that music from an online music store and instead ripped a few CDs he purchased, he is guilty of making unauthorized copies -- according to the RIAA.
  • by sethstorm (512897) * on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:27AM (#22206280) Homepage
    Aside from the usual "don't believe a politician", you might as well just ask this guy [blogspot.com]. They seem to care very little about national sovereignty, and would gladly hand the whole nation over to hostile countries such as China and India.

    No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
  • by curmudgeon99 (1040054) <curmudgeon99 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday January 28, 2008 @08:41AM (#22206870)
    Romney is just another rich guy looking for the cheapest labor no matter what. This guy is no friend to the United States' tech industry. No thank you.
  • by peter_gzowski (465076) on Monday January 28, 2008 @10:19AM (#22207584) Homepage
    He's likely changed at least half of these positions since then...
  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday January 28, 2008 @10:27AM (#22207660)

    MR: What I typically download is country music as well as 1960's music. I'm a baby boomer, so the Beatles and the Stones and some of the old groups from the 1960's are my favorites, I listen to them and I listen to country. I might have some inspirational music as well, but those are the highlights for me.


    So he downloads music, but he doesn't mention paying for it. Is he a dirty, rotten music pirate? Perhaps the RIAA should sue him to find out!

    Just kidding, of course, though I'd love to see one of the Presidential candidates wind up somehow accidentally involved in a RIAA lawsuit just to see the RIAA squirm.

"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." -- A Kurt Vonnegut fan

Working...