Slashdot Asks: Whom Do You Want To Ask About 2012's U.S. Elections? 343
For the next year, it will be hard to escape the political season already in full swing in the U.S., as candidates aim for the American presidency (and many other elected positions). There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided. But there's a hitch: we need to know which candidates or other figures we should attempt to track down for a Slashdot interview. So please help narrow the field, by suggesting (with as much contact information as possible, as well as your reasoning) the people you'd like to hear from. It doesn't need to be one of the candidates, either: if you know of a pollster, a campaign technical advisor, an economist (or even a politicians's webmaster, say) who should be on our list, make the case in the comments below. And if you represent or are affiliated with a particular campaign, that's fine — but please say so. We'll do our best to find a number of your favorites in the year to come.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, that's because he is radical and crazy.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, when compared to "arrogant and stupid" or "two-faced and disappointing"
Andrew Tanenbaum (Score:5, Informative)
Not only does Andrew Tanenbaum have a good handle on polls and vote-projection [electoral-vote.com], but his nerd credentials are excellent [minix3.org].
NOT elections (Score:5, Informative)
Elections are where free people can choose who they want in public office.
In America, the government, corporations, institutions, organizations, and political parties choose what rich stupid b*stard gets to be put in front of you to get "voted" into office.
You do not have a choice. Whatever party you vote in, you will still get scr*wed by a lying, cheating, bribed b*stard. You get the same sh*t. Just different public "statements, promises, and claims"
If we were electing someone to represent our interests in government, they would be representing our interests. Instead, they are representing the interests of lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups, corporations, institutions, and the rich and famous in general.
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%? I do not think so. How many jobs has Obama created? 1, for Michelle's brother, the basketball coach in Oregon.
Tell me again how anyone, Democrat or republican, got anything they voted for.
Liar.
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)
I've always found Ron Paul tells it like he thinks it should be based on his theories. Personally, I've always found his theories don't match up well with reality.
Elizabeth Warren (Score:4, Informative)
Sixty-two year old babe running for Senate from Massachusetts. Straight shooter, smarter than me and probably you, too. Also tough as nails. If you like Senator Franken, you will like future Senator Warren.
As a matter of fact, he already did! Back in 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
And I am sure his positions have not changed since then...
http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/ron-paul-campaign-answers-slashdot-reader-questions [slashdot.org]
Paul B.
Re:To all candidates (Score:4, Informative)
What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.
The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.
And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.
Regards,
dj br