Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology? 549
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Totally Free Market is Best, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their plans would turn it from bad to worse — from the business-chosen insurance plans to the government chosen. It has to be individual-chosen instead. You'd be able to keep your insurer (who will remain stuck with your "pre-existing condition") regardless of your place of employment (or lack thereof).
That's a lie. Matt Romney — a Republican — created a workable health-insurance system in M
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Have health insurance under current employer
2. Cannot afford own health insurance
3. Therefore if starting own business, lose health insurance
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Obama is for net neutrality [barackobama.com], for increased broadband deplayment [barackobama.com] (including the use of the wireless spectrum), and wants to pass laws str
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian philosophy is in large part responsible for the failure in Iraq. After all, if the solution to bad government is no government, all we have to do is get rid of Saddam and the economy will take off and society will flourish, right? And we can have Halliburton coordinate the rebuilding instead of the State Department and have Blackwater mercenaries do jobs in place of the U.S. Army. But it didn't work
Re:Obama is for transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly what libertarians oppose
Show me five people who are libertarians, who can all agree what a libertarian is, and I'll mail you a waffle.
~Wx
Libertarianism is not anarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
None of them (Score:2)
If you need funding from companies that would shut down internet if they could, how can you possibly do anything that actually helps internet development?
Any candidate that has received money (directly or indirectly) from a RIAA/MPAA affiliate or a telco (for example) is out of the question when it comes to internet matters.
Re:None of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:None of them (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Random numbers and names pulled out of my ass as an example:
30% of the people wanted Ron Paul to win and hated Romney
30% of the people wanted Obama to win and hated Romney
40% of the people wanted Romney to win.
More people didnt want Romney to be president, yet under our system he would win.
Arguably this is what got Bush in office.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Paul, just that it isn't as simple as voting for who
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:None of them (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
If that's your concern, wouldn't the candidate getting his funding from a much larger number of small-money individual donations make more sense than the candidate getting most of her money from a smaller number of bigger donors? (Damn English, not having grammatically correct genderless singular pronouns).
It's not like receiving any mone
Al Gore (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Al Gore (Score:5, Informative)
no (Score:3, Interesting)
Check the candidate web sites (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Check the candidate web sites (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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):
(Obviously going for the "Fabulous" vote there...)
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):
(Going for the "home vote" and GoDaddy.com, while it sucks ass, is indigenous to AZ)
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):
(He's Mormon so perhaps UT has not registrars so he's pandering to the regional vote by using AZ-based GoDaddy?)
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):
The establishment candidate using the establishment registrar, I see. (Change is ... hard to find with HRC).
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)?
Awesome. Using a Germany/EU registrar. How...Godwin of him...
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)
Sounds populist. I wonder if DOMAINPEOPLE are evangelicals?
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Good plan from his point of view: once we have to all beg the government for sustenance, those in power will have really nice positions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama good, Huckabee bad (Score:5, Informative)
I imagine Huckabee is the worst on technology issues unless of course they were mentioned in the bible.
Re:Obama good, Huckabee bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's for protection from a tyrannical government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ob. Quote: (Score:5, Funny)
Barack Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
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 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 ...
ronpaul (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
30% Insightful
30% Underrated
20% Flamebait
PaulBot trollMods don't want to talk about Ron Paul's abdication of our government power [slashdot.org] to protect us from corporations. They don't even want to admit it. They just want a stampede to corporate anarchy.
Re:ronpaul (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul would let AT&T "police the Internet for pirac
Absolute Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
An excerpt:
Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)
- Only person running that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley
- Opposes the DMCA
- Opposes the national ID card
- Has never voted to raise taxes
- Returns a portion of his congressional budget to the treasury every year
- He is a Republican who opposes the Iraq War on moral and economic grounds
There's a lot of FUD out there about Ron Paul, and there are a lot of fanatics on the internet who work against him sometimes, but if you look at his voti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm divided on this, to tell you the truth. I think the market addresses most concerns, but this may be one of those exceptions where intervention is needed. On the other hand, most monopolies are government sponsored. Also, look at how the "big government" approach of the EU fining Microsoft daily. That doesn't seem to really s
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like corporate welfare, but the more you look at the airline bailout after 9/11, the more you'd understand how disastrous it would have been for the economy to have let that industry just collapse. Which proves my p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His position, as stated in the Candidates@Google interview, is that marriage is a religious issue and shouldn't be a concern of the state. He said something to the effect of "People can do what they want, and call it what they want, and the government should have no part of it".
On DoE (Department of Education), conservatives have long been lobbying for various subjects, like history and biology...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- Wants to let states ban abortions.
Ron Paul has some admirable positions, but his supporters should recognize that when it comes down to it he is effectively a social conservative and his policies if implemented completely would, if they didn't destroy the economy right off the bat, probably turn the country completely over to corporate rule.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the abortion issue, half the country wants a constitutional amendment that bans abortion and half the country wants a constitutional amendment that allows abortions. I would say this is a perfect example of a divisive issue that should be left up to the states. The grandparent said "He would allow states to ban abortion"... I would also add "He would enable states to *allow* abortion", even though he is personally opposed to it after being an obstetrician (s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics (Score:2)
I'll refrain from my opinion.
Cheers.
Internet poker (Score:2)
To that end, the Poker Players Alliance has put together a guide to the presidential candidates' stances [pokerplayersalliance.org] on the issue.
Shortsighted... (Score:2)
Barack Obama, Candidates@Google (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Rember the Web server survey? (Score:2, Funny)
but to summerise:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Paul Holcomb
Barack Obama - FreeBSD, Apache by pair Networks
Republicans
Mike Huckabee - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by LNH Inc.
John McCain - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Smartech Corporation
Ron Paul - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
Mitt Romney - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
Worth Mentioning:
Al Gore (Democra
wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
Test What You Know (Score:3, Insightful)
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation build
Trust Lessig - Vote Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
"But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, a mormon will not be president, probably ever. He's also been known to flip-flop a little.
Romney being a mormon is a plus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also I lived in Boston while he was governor and saw what an absolute overreaching fucktard he was during the whole gay marriage thing. Instead of just letting the issue make its way through the Massachusetts courts and legislature he tried time and again to interrupt the process and make it go his way. Having seen what he'd do on an issue as harmless as gay marriage, I can only imagine what he'd do with the War on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If not being blamed is your objective, Paul is you best bet. If you want to actually accomplish something, then one of the candidates who can accomplish something might be better.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Americans say they want change, but it's all bullshit. When the time comes, they vote for variants of the same old corrupt politicians. Obama may be better than Hillary or McCain, but he's still in bed with big business and his concept of economic responsibility isn't nearly good enough.
When the dollar crashes and you're left with ma
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you actually want the job. And that assumes you believe you could do
as good a job as the candidate. I'm sure neither is true for me - I *don't*
want the job and I don't have the patience to be good at it. Maybe the parent
poster is in a similar position.
Position on issues is important, but there are other things to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who backs the Federal Reserve System is in the pocket of the people that are making our lives a living hell. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this is the USA. We have a good quality of life in the USA compared to most other countries past and present. "Our" lives are not a "living hell". Since you are so demonstrably wrong about obvious, observable quality of life, what insight could you possibly have on the "cause" of that "problem"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That quote was defending Clinton after her comment implying that MLK was all talk; if you look at its context, it's surrounded by a mischaracterization of Obama's position as well.
You mean the comments which were blatently misrep [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Y'mean technologies like the internet?