How Tech-Savvy Will the Next President Be? 715
CorinneI writes "We've got our candidates. We know their positions on the major issues of the day — healthcare, the Iraq war, the economy, yada, yada, yada. But Senators McCain and Obama will also have to be concerned with tech issues. Where do they stand on Net neutrality, patent protection, piracy, broadband, privacy, and H1B visas? Do their campaign positions match up with their voting records and public statements? Here's how they stack up on the big five tech issues of the day."
lol mccain (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..
Does the President have to know about this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
How tech savy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lol mccain (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure a reasonably careful analysis of his bank records would render this a good deal more explicable.
does it really matter (Score:2, Insightful)
This is like the NRA saying I wander how familiar the new president will be with regards to the barrel modification on my new Desert Eagle.
That's why he has advisor's, who typically are leaders in their field. With all due respect in the light of the state of the economy, housing, petroleum, national security this stuff matters not. The new president will be so busy trying to clean up more important stuff that things like net neutrality will probably never come up as an issue until term two if that happens.
Nothing to see here folks (Score:4, Insightful)
Q: What would {Obama,McCain} do about $TECH_ISSUE?
Obama: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from Lawrence Lessig.
McCain: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from corporate lobbyist.
Does that about sum it up?
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain [wikipedia.org]--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.
The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.
We should really pay attention to how they vote, who their delegate these issues to, who they listen to and--most importantly--how willing they are to bow to the companies for an extra buck.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:2, Insightful)
Broadband Access (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
If the president is to have so much power, shouldn't he be knowledgeable about what he has power over? I don't want some average Joe coding my software. A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Broadband Access (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.
I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
We see how that turned out.
Having excellent advisors is an absolute requirement. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good presidency. You definitely need someone at the top who is able to digest all the inputs and provide the guidance and accountability.
Re:summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Overall, it's pretty predictable: The democrat wants more government regulation, the Republican wants less government involvement. Shockers all around. (Though the wiretapping issue is the one thing that's not so obvious.)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:4, Insightful)
JFK's advisors didn't suggest putting a man on the moon. [space.com] They were quite resistant to the idea. On the other hand, Iraq was a "slam dunk" according to Bush's advisors...
How can you identify a "well informed" advisor if you have no knowledge on the subject yourself?
Oh HELL NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.
There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.
In other words, get others to pay for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You people suck.
Specifically, its people like you that give reason for this government to run us all over.
So, since you won't or cannot pay 10 grand its okay to let to government expend that money to connect your residence?
worse, you probably don't see the problem with it from the wording of your post.
The corporations are right not doing it, the government would be wrong to do so. When people put themselves into situations they should be responsible to get themselves out.
Selfish. Let me guess, I should pay for other people being fat, lazy, and drinking too?
Karma is good when you have so much to burn, but damn your type really pisses me off.
Re:Broadband Access (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush picked cronies and yes-men above all else. Haven't we heard a number of stories of Bush refusing to listen to those who disagree, simply because they disagree?
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.
I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:2, Insightful)
Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but basing your opinion on a cartoon portrayal of what "might" happen is extreme even for /.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
All executive power stems from the president, and all cabinet members serve at their discretion. The president's views are ultimately what matter.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it fair to have different speeds for different sites based if they paid _your_ ISP for faster speed.
How do we get faster internet connections to the rural comunites.
Should software be patented if so should there be different rules.
Is outsourcing tech workers best for America.
The issues are really people and policy issue (stuff that a president should be able to make decisions on themselfs) It is not as much on the details like what routers they should use or how to setup something.
That is the problem with IT today in america IT People think they are so smart that the average joe has no understanding on what is going on. The average joe knows more then you think, and is able to make good decisions without a tech guy going to them Hey try this it is really 7337 or hey man don't be a n00b and go that way.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.
Re:In other words, get others to pay for it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The C students will rule the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, what Harry Truman said is true: people with median skills and intelligence are more likely to be elected than geniuses. The median voter is afraid of geniuses.
However, this doesn't mean a person with average intelligence would make a better president than someone more intelligent. The ideal president would be intelligent, well informed, and have good advisors. After all, if the president isn't intelligent and well informed, how will he know which advice to follow?
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the ability to throw the reset switch if all else fails. And yes, that's exactly what it's for; all the bullshit reasons about (government-controlled) militias, self-defense, and hunting is just that: bullshit. The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to explicitly reaffirm the right to do so again. Period.
On the contrary, the Iraqi "insurgents" don't have tanks, and look how well they're doing! Handguns I agree about, though, which is why I believe the ban on "assault weapons" is unconstitutional.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying GWB was a good representative?
I'm being serious. If the President should represent the average person, I'd say Bush was a good candidate. I don't happen to think he has done this country any service, much less good service, but he does qualify as "average" in most aspects other than wealth.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummm, that's a comedy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of laws we create. Common sense sometimes has something to do with the quality of laws and, unfortunately, common sense isn't.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every armed resistence in America worthy of the name, including the American Revolution, required stealing munitions from the military; Exception: the Whiskey Rebellion which was beaten into the ground in about as much time as it took to march troops to the battlefield.
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
"Doesn't "elite" mean "the best"? You applying for a position that, if you do a good enough job, people may carve your face into the side of a mountain. If you don't think you're better than us, why are you running?"
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's so sick and disgusting about the far right is that they think taking up arms ever solves anything, rather than perpetuating the problem.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Semi-auto firearms hold more bullets, and are easier to load and reload. In a self-protection need, I can slap a clip into a semi-auto, pull the slide, and be ready to go in less time than I can load my revolver (unless I have a speed-loader). Semi-autos which are left unloaded with the clip nearby are safer with children around than revolvers.
My objections to firearm limitations, outside of full-auto (which are obtainable with a license in some states) is that the limitations make little to no difference in crime prevention, and the VAST majority of gun owners - something like 99% - do NOT and NEVER WILL commit a crime with a firearm, on top of which we can't get an accurate estimate on the number of times a firearm has been used to prevent a crime. Taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding serves no real purpose.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
When we have a disagreement with one group of people, why don't we grab a gun and run off to the middle east to start a war with an entirely different group of people?
Duh. Because we're smarter than you.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I am a firm believer that Doom caused violent crime rates to drop in the United States. See, if you graph the release of several major First Person Shooters and the violent crime rate, you find that there's definitely a drop in crime. By your logic, that's proof right? Doom causes fewer crimes. So if we want to reduce crime, just re-release Doom! (It's GPL licensed now so you can go ahead and do that.)
Remember: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
Repeat after me: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
P.S.: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
I get your argument, I really do, but I get a bit frustrated when vehement opponents of the war in Iraq who try and attach a "chickenhawk" label and claim it's such an injustice don't think that their cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't want to get into a debate on whether or not guns (in general) should be legal, illegal, regulated, restricted, etc. But I will refute a point you make.
Hear, hear! Groups with small arms have never been a match for a modern mil... Oh, wait.
Insurgency or guerrilla war relies more weapons like mortars, rockets, RPGs, mines (IEDs), etc. than on small arms. This is because a symmetric battle between a trained military force with small arms and insurgent forces (also with small arms) usually is a loss for the insurgents. Explosives and other munitions are usually more valuable.
Thus I personally find the argument that firearm ownership help in any "revolution" to be dubious. More useful would be explosives and skills in bomb-making.
Re:summary (Score:3, Insightful)
So which one is right? NEITHER. It doesn't matter who you vote for, they're both interested in spending our money. The difference is whether right now you think one method or the other will help the economy more. Well, we've had 8 years of top-down and it's done nothing but hurt the majority of US citizens. That's why I'll vote Obama.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they're all scum. Even the ones you like.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Groups with small arms are great at making things so unpleasant an occupying modern military decides it's not worth it and goes home.
But for taking over the country where that modern military is based? Useless, or worse. From the examples I can think of the key is to have enough of the populace on your side that the rank-and-file soldiers are just too embarrassed to be on the governments side. Armed Guerrillas just provide a pretext to motivate a military response.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I did. I expected the case would be ambiguous, but WOW, get a new example buddy! Based on the first figures I could find, the UKs per-capita murder rate is about one fifth that of the US, and the majority of the murders in the US used guns, whereas almost none in th UK did.
"Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with."
For Gods sake why? This isn't holy scripture, it was written by men who did their best, and did by-and-large a damn fine job. The Second Amendment was muddily written, and is badly obsolete.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, these implications of wrong doing are idiotic. Mccain, though I hate him, is a champion of campaign finance reform.
Friggin morons.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like a truly ignorant kid. Guys in their twenties come to me [kuro5hin.org] for advice on computers, kid. Can you write a battle tanks game in assembly and then hand-assemble it (without an assembler) and have it run, bug-free? I did.
And there are guys twenty and thirty years my senior, now retired, who used hollerith cards in their programming and make me look ignorant about computers.
You need to educate yourself. Your hatred of those with more experience than you limits your horizons and should be a great personal embarrassment to you.
Re:McCain is spot-on (Score:5, Insightful)
And modern socialism works a lot better than you might think. Just look at Europe.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely, there are some problems that can only be solved through violence; it's just that getting us out of Iraq (at this point at least) just isn't one of them.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, do you really think Senator McCain is going to declare the income he receives from all his lobbyist buddies on his 1040? I'm pretty sure he's got a very good accountant working on his taxes ever since he got caught with the crooked Keating Five.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. I'm a liberal. I know a lot of liberals. But I can't think of anyone I know who wants to ban guns. Hell, I'm a supporter of strong 2nd Amendment rights, and a lot of my friends are, also.
Newsflash: different people are different. You'll find anti-gun conservatives and you'll find pro-gun liberals, and vice-versa. If you insist on attempting to group together everyone left-of-center and claim we're all this-and-that-and-the-other, I reserve the right to call everyone right-of-center a violent hate-fulled homophobic racist backwards inbred uneducated dipshit redneck. I know that's not true, but hey, what's good for the goose, right?
Re:Broadband Access (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Show me one administration in the last 50 that (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect you're one of those "both parties are exactly the same" types, but I'll bite anyways.
This administration is historically notable for the value it has placed upon loyalty of political appointees. Appointees in the Clinton administration, for example, were able to disagree with the President and Vice President without fear. Compare Madeline Albright and Condolezza Rice, for example. Or even better: Anthony Zinni and David Petraeus. Zinni, for example, frequently alluded to the wide latitude he was given at Centcom. Petraeus, on the other hand, is a leashed dog.
Do you really think Obama or McCain gets full choice of their cabinet or aides after the coming election?
Yes. It's called "being President." But if, as I suspect, you define choice as something completely unfettered by the opinions of others, then of course not. But that's a stupid definition.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
To continue on the subject of 2nd Amendment debate, where is the line drawn? Am I allowed to own a nuclear weapon to defend myself from a hostile government? A tank? An RPG? Am I allowed to possess anti-tank mines to protect myself from martial law? Why or why not?
Tackling questions like that are vital to the strength of the constitution, if we ignore them, dismiss them out of hand and ignore the people who ask tough questions, or otherwise fail to answer them, we have failed the people who ask them.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Deperaate people commit crimes, some of them with guns. Removing guns does NOT precipitate more deperate people, therefore, there is no logical support for increases in gun crime. Wether yopu have a gun or not in your house or business, you're still likely 1) to have other weapons at hand, 2) alarms or a hpne for 911 to call cops, who have guns, 3) won't be home when being robbed, and 4) won;t be killed by your robber (less than 1 % of roberies involve a victim being killed by the crook).
What you WILL get, that is STRONGLY supported by statistics, is a sharp drop in sposes shooting each other, kids shooting people accidentally, suicides, and more. In fact, even where gun crime has increased by as much as 20%, the number of deaths from guns dropped as much as 300% at the same time, simply by limiting who can own a gun.
Look into the numbers. There are links in my other posts, or simply use Google.
This is not an argument, FACT: gun control saves an order of magnitude more lives than it places at risk.
This is also not an arguement: It is NOT against the constitution for them to limit guns. The constitution clearly reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.
Re:McCain Never IM'ed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (Score:2, Insightful)
So for you to claim that he is ignorant for pointing out what is conceded by most 70+ year olds... seems obtuse and/or ignorant.
Re:Opensecrets.org (Score:4, Insightful)
All of Obama's money comes from individual donators. When you donate you are forced to include your employer, and are limited to $2300. So what you're seeing is the aggregate of all people that work for AT&T. Guess what? They're a big fucking company. That figure includes everyone from people on the board, to bottom level accountants and janitors.
Re:Showing his age... (Score:3, Insightful)
Define it then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its the extreme cases like this that need to be held to a real standard. Look, just like schools, its easy to throw money at it irresponsibly.
So someone makes a lifestyle choice and expects others to pay for it.
You took a wonderful tack in order to deflect the issue but I can play the game.
No one builds a home off the road and expects the government to move the road, no, they pay to have a driveway to connect them to the road. As such if this AC wants a connection but not pay for it then he is being selfish. Don't play trite games, examine the issue properly. Use a valid comparison.
Your argument is no better than "its for the children" In fact its pretty much childish too.
So.... Why are there only two candidates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems amazingly simplistic to me.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what does that tell you about what patrons of those bars want? That should be a huge clue. If there was such a huge public outcry for smoke free establishments, there would be at least one near you.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the ban if the people trying to ban smoking would just be honest. They don't give a shit about "worker's health" or second hand smoke or any other such nonsense. Those are just convenient excuses for them to impose their will on the minority with an activity that they see as objectionable. I have a lot more respect for people that favor a smoking ban because they admit the think smoking is a vile, disgusting, and smelly act. That and the fact that I worked in the bar/restaurant industry for over 10 years and guess what? Not only do about 75% of the workers smoke, every single server I know has felt the economic crunch of less business after the smoking ban. So tell me exactly how making less money is helping these workers? Especially the ones that smoke first-hand and aren't concerned with second-hand smoke? See the thing is, everybody knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be harmful to your health. The same people know that bars are smoky. And the same people chose to still work in those smoky bars. I say if you are worried about second-hand smoke, don't ban smoking everywhere - get a job where you aren't in a smoke filled room. It's not rocket science.
Re:The C students will rule the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it illegal to be a campaign supporter now?
No. Maybe it should be. Until then I can take it into consideration as I decide for whom to vote for. I can do that for any arbitrary standard I determine, including the color of his socks. I try to cast my vote on the basis of what I think to be healthy to the country--and I don't think a $160K contribution will have long term healthy ramifications for our country.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
But how does it square with a "well regulated militia"? Last I checked a crackhead with an Uzi wasn't well regulated, or a militia.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey now. Go ahead and question how heroic getting shot down really is, at least so far as whether you can base an entire Presidency upon the fact. But "made videos for the VC" is going exactly contrary to that kind of thoughtful analysis. Because in reality he was tortured until he made videos for the VC, and eventually cracking under torture does not in any way diminish his hero status (to whatever extent that may be) because any hero would crack, eventually. The human brain is simply not designed to withstand unlimited pain, and it's a relatively simple matter to inflict enough of it that anyone will say whatever you want.
Which, by the way, is why torture is really not that useful for interrogation, because that's ultimately the result you get: Them saying whatever you want them to say.
Which does bring me to a real issue I have with McCain, and that's that while I have much respect and sympathy for his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, he lost nearly all of that the moment he allowed the door to be opened even a tiny bit for sanctioned torture by U.S. forces. There's no practical and no moral justification, and he of all people should know that. Seemed to know that and say as much. That he would sacrifice that principle just to fit in with his party and to boost his "tough on terror" cred (as if he needs to) is very, very disappointing.
But that's been the trend since the last election cycle, everything I liked about McCain has been slipping away.
Re:What about the 2nd? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lol mccain (Score:3, Insightful)
Second of all, if senior officials from our intelligence community, the men and women we rely on to protect us from terrorists, come to you and say they need your help to prevent the next 9/11, most reasonable people will at least consider the request. Especially when memories of that time were a little fresher in all our minds.
So I don't think it's quite as black and white as your example would suggest.
That said, I don't think the telecoms should have immunity for anything that was clearly illegal. One, the law is the law. Two, it's a horrible precedent to set. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. The President needs to go through Congress if he thinks the laws need changing. He can't be allowed to just circumvent our Constitution and the will of the people by getting companies to break the law on his behalf. Yet that's what was done - when this was happening, there was no ongoing debate in Congress about the appropriate oversight of domestic surveillance, because the President didn't bother asking for new legislation at that time. Whatever you want to call it - incompetence, laziness, or simple arrogance - it's not the way our system works or is supposed to work. Providing immunity practically guarantees it'll happen again.
Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here folks (Score:4, Insightful)
The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.
As I noted in my other reply to one of your posts, what you call a "fraction" of the total he has received being small is actually about half (where "small" is defined as $200 or less). Now, one half is technically a fraction, so I can't say that you're incorrect.
Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple.
You neglected to mention that the bill Obama "watered down" was his own. Politicians water down their own bills all the time in order to get them to pass, especially when the minority party is against it and you cannot overturn a filibuster.
Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians--he just talks a better game.
This is the third time I've seen you repeat the mantra that because an industry is listed as having given donations on OpenSecrets, a candidate is bought and paid for. The simple fact is that when you donate to a candidate, you are required to list your employer. Everyone's donations, from the janitor to the executive, are lumped in the same category. Your $4 million figure includes everyone in the entire ****ing health care industry! Every doctor, nurse, dentist, and medical assistant is included as a "health care professional." Give me a break, and stop repeating that nonsense.