Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the vote-quimby dept.

United States 1140

blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Simple (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276543)

Al Gore

Re:Simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276603)

You read my mind.

I was looking at the blank list of comments and thinking, "Yeah, Al Gore deserves to be first but I'll post anonymously because I don't like political comments going on my permanent record."

But then I did a refresh and you had beat me to it.

Re:Simple (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276953)

Gore? Not even close. Gore is an entitlement vector. Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork; worse yet, he'd push the mommy government even deeper into it's trend of legislating against consensual, victimless, informed actions [ideaspike.com] . He's your 2nd worst nightmare.

Ron Paul is by far the candidate that not only represents the "nerd", but also the actual basis for the government, the constitution. The only thing a president can really do (legitimately) is fool with foreign policy, and Paul isn't the least interested in making war on anyone - check out his positions. If we could get a congress that had actually read and understood the constitution (not to mention a supreme court), then you'd really have something.

But we all know what's going to happen: Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.

If you really want improvement, cast your vote for Ron Paul. It won't be wasted, because as the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates... so it won't make a bit of difference where your vote goes if you vote for anyone else. After all, we can't have Bush again. Unless he makes another illegal executive order, of course.

Re:Simple (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276625)

After all, he made our internet!

(Before you answer, yes, I know it's political spin, he never said it that way. But it had to be said, so now we're over with it and can go on with the show)

Re:Simple (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276669)

I agree. It's unfortunate that he isn't running, I think he would have a real shot. I think he would probably carry a lot of the vote that he carried in 2000, plus pick up votes from people that voted for Bush at that time and now regret it. At any rate, it would make the Democratic primary a whole lot more interesting.

Of course, his campaign would have to bar him from using the word "lockbox" at any time.

Re:Simple (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276965)

Of course, his campaign would have to bar him from using the word "lockbox" at any time.

Yes, they should take that word and put it somewhere it can't be used. Somewhere safe. I'm not sure what you'd call such a place...

Ok, but elaborate about Al Gore (1, Informative)

mollog (841386) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276689)

Al Gore was the guy who brought the ARPANET out to be the Internet. He's tech savvy. He pays attention to technology and business. I wish our country was enlightened enough to have a guy like Al Gore be the President, but there's still a backward thinking element that favors authoritarianism (fascism).

Al was the one who helped get toxic waste sites identified and create a mechanism to deal with it. He's not working an agenda, he's outwardly focused.

Re:Ok, but elaborate about Al Gore (3, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276879)

Dont forget that he's on the board of Apple. [apple.com] He's also an unofficial advisor to google [wikipedia.org] and cofounded something called Current TV [current.tv] which I'd never heard of before, but looks like youtube. Are there even any other politicians as tech saavy as he is, much less one that is hoped to be running for president?

Re:Simple (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276705)

An Gore/Clinton ticket would be interesting. It'll give historians and talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.

Re:Simple (2, Funny)

polar red (215081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276749)

talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.
They don't need a subject to talk about.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276729)

Here's a good article [time.com] on The Last Temptation of Al Gore in this week's Time magazine.

No Difference Between Normal People & Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276767)

In terms of what is good for Americans, there is no difference between normal people and nerds.

Use honesty as the first criteria in picking the candidates. If you cannot trust what a candidate is saying, then the validity of her political positions has no meaning because they may not be her true political positions.

Among the current set of candidates, the least dishonest persons are Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Dennis Kucinich.

RON PAUL (3, Insightful)

ThomasFlip (669988) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276825)

Is the best candidate for the U.S. Nerds... well he's popular on the net. BTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]

Re:Simple Ron Paul (1)

SueAnnSueAnn (998877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276841)

It would have to be Dr Ron Paul.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276885)

yup, wasn't it AL Gore that wrote the plans down for the intertubes on a single square of toilet paper in a public bathroom while Michael Moore & Peter Griffin were having a farting contest in the next two stalls?

It hardly matters, now, does it. (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276549)

With the existing electoral system, only those in swing states matter. Most of the other votes are essentially discarded.


Goatse! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276635)

Old Soviet Russian joke (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276653)

Sad but true, it applies...

Someone broke into a party bureau. But no damage was done, all that's missing is the manifest and the election results of the next 10 years.

So move to a swing state. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276687)

Get over there and establish residency!

Re:So move to a swing state. (1)

djones101 (1021277) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276751)

Just remember, to live here in Florida, you must be physically and mentally unable to punch a complete hole through a punchcard. Oddly enough, I wonder how many of my fellow FL voters who had hanging chad issues programmed with punch cards back in the day...

Re:It hardly matters, now, does it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19277013)

Without a significant difference between the Reps and Dems - in my opinion ALL the votes are thrown away.


Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276569)

Al Gore.... if only....

I Hereby Nominate... (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276571)


Why not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276757)

You would certainly be better than what we currently have.

Go for it! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276887)

I have no idea who you are or what you can, but you have no chance in hell to be worse than the current guy.

Tubes (5, Funny)

prod-you (940679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276573)

Ted Stevens, he understands that the Internet is not like a big truck

Right. (4, Funny)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276575)

Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about?

Because, as all the political threads on Slashdot show, Slashdot readers care about the same issues, and all lean toward the same side of each of those issues.

Oh give me a break... (1, Flamebait)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276595)

Trolls don't actually read Slashdot. They're not even PEOPLE for heaven's sake! Not even 2/5ths of a person.

None of them (5, Funny)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276579)

Please check the box for the candidate you wish to support.

Republican Stooge [ ]
Democrat Stooge [ ]
Some Wacko Independant [ ]
Non of the above [X]

Re:None of them (1)

Enzo the Baker (822444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276649)

Are you trying to inherit $300 million?

Re:None of them (1)

exi1ed0ne (647852) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276677)

Non of the above [X]
Vote Anarchist!

Re:None of them (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276921)

I'm all for Anarchy! What this country needs is a tough, strong Anarch with an iron fist!

Re:None of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276707)

Some-Guy-Whose-Name-Is-On-The-Ballot-But-Has-Since -Been-Disqualified.

It actually happened, and said Guy got about a thousand votes.

Re:None of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276963)

I'm from Missouri; I'll vote for Some-Guy-Who-Died [wikipedia.org] .

That actually happened too, and said Guy won.

Of course, he had the huge advantage of running against Some-Guy-Who-Was-Evil [wikipedia.org] .

Re:None of them (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276829)

That was marked as funny, but he's got a point: who's the lesser of however-many-evils-are-running?

Re:None of them (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276893)

Some Wacko Independant

You only think Independants are Wackos because you don't use Proportional representation [wikipedia.org]

None of the above: Vote with your feet. (4, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276991)

> Republican Stooge [ ]
> Democrat Stooge [ ]
> Some Wacko Independant [ ]
> None of the above [X]

Or the next best thing. If you can't vote with your dollars, vote with your feet [cic.gc.ca] .

"Stephen Harper, or whoever else is Prime Minister of Canada on November 5, 2008 [X]"

Anyone who can scrape together 67 points can get in, and anyone with a Bachelor's degree (which guarantees you'll get the full 16 points for English proficiency, even though your Americanness guarantees you'll get 0 points for French :) and one year's work experience and a job offer -- or one year's work experience and a spouse with a Bachelor's degree -- is going to make the cut.

Canadian income taxes aren't much more than US income taxes. US Federal tax forms don't show the extra 6.2% that's getting taken off for Socialist Insecurity, nor do they take into effect state taxes. The Canadian federal government just turned a $10 billion surplus, and you even get the equivalent of catastrophic health care insurance in exchange for your tax dollars. [canada.com]

Atlas shrugs, eh?

What gives you the impression either would be? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276587)

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

What would make us happy?

For example net neutrality. Net neutrality pisses off some money pumpers, though, and the general population doesn't care. Will we get it?

For example, no longer blaming computer games for violence. But it's a cheap scapegoat and it makes overcareful and ignorant parents happy, and it's a cheap excuse not to change a thing about education or social issues. Not blaming games cost more money and votes than blaming them.

For example, if the mafiaa didn't get whatever laws they want handed to them. Though, we're the only ones caring, there's a lot of money coming from them, so... see first example.

Do I have to go on?

Face it, as long as we don't ship more geeks into the US from somewhere, we won't get jack from either side of the political spectrum. We don't count.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276733)

If we were a proper minority, we'd get the odd politician purely chosen to represent the party cos "He'll get us the nerd vote" we're worse than a minority, we're a nonentity.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276783)

We aren't even a we.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be? (1)

Tickletaint (1088359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276937)

"Either"? Either who?

I hope you're not buying into the myth that there are only two viable presidential candidates, when in fact there are so many more [google.com] .

Re:What gives you the impression either would be? (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276943)

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

Wrong. Slashdot is a group that doesn't (as a group) have clear priorities, communicate them to politicians, and give lots of money to political campaigns based on them, therefore as a group it doesn't exist to politicians.

Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

Re:What gives you the impression either would be? (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276945)

It looks like you should be voting for Ron Paul, who's against all government interference with private lives. Limiting the scope of governmnent power, intrustion, privacy violations, and all that bad stuff.. You should listen to some of his speeches and his voting record and you`d see that he is probably right now the only presidential candidate that is AGAINST the governmnent and their current ways.

Who cares? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276591)

It's not like any of us have the money to buy enough votes anyway.

Re:Who cares? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276801)

Yes that is true. The United States is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276979)

I'd rather call it a Kleptocracy [wikipedia.org] . With the twist that the cleptocrats are not the chieftain's buddies but business partners.

The obligatory candidate (5, Funny)

tomson (100060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276597)

CowboyNeal for president!

I won't vote as a geek (5, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276613)

With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.

Can I get an AMEN! (1, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276881)

> With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.

Amen to that. Yes there is a lot of potential for bad stuff in the future if the Internet regulation thing goes horribly wrong. But patents and copyrights probably won't get any WORSE regardless who is elected President.

However all that pales into the background compared to the big issue, survival.

There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen and/or lend the terrorists aid, confort and political cover to the ones with the AK-47s and the bomb belts.

One of our major political parties, from a combination of mindless BDS and a natural tendency towards spinelessness, is arrayed from apathy through surrender with a few outright ON THE OTHER FSCKING SIDE. The other has nost major candidates paying lip service to winning the War on Radical Islam but giving off strong hints they will at best be like Bush, willing to fight just enough to piss people off but with ho hope of going all in for the win and at worst as bad as the other party.

Duh (1)

olyar (591892) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276615)


Oh. You meant real candidates?

Re:Duh (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276763)

I intend to vote for Kodos. That way, no one can blame me.

Ron Paul! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276621)

The obvious choice [ronpaul2008.com] for anyone who values liberty. Tag it: ronpaul

Re:Ron Paul! (1)

Guildencrantz (234779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276679)

I think it's a shame that Ron Paul doesn't look more presidential, because the guy really does have his values straight. Unfortunately personal presentation is more important in these elections than the mind that will be guiding policy.

Re:Ron Paul! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276691)

Not for anyone who values reproductive liberty [ontheissues.org] .

Re:Ron Paul! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276927)

His personal feelings about abortion are irrelevant, since he holds that federal laws regarding abortion are unconstitutional: It must be left up to the states.

Re:Ron Paul! (1)

Todamont (1034534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276833)

Ron Paul gets my vote, no contest. If you knew what freedom was you would already know to vote for him.

Re:Ron Paul! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276875)

The obvious choice for anyone who values liberty.

Well, maybe: "The obvious choice for upper class Christians with U.S. citizenship who value liberty".

If you believe that people should be free to make an individual choice of where to live and work and travel without government imposed restrictions then Ron Paul is definitely not your guy.

Also, if you are opposed to to the abortion issue being used by certain religious extremists to try prevent unmarried people from having sex, then Ron Paul is not exactly going to be your champion.

Re:Ron Paul! (5, Informative)

jrsumm (466914) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276959)

I'll take a stab at actually guesssing what Ron Paul's views on this are. No, I didn't read his website specifically looking for this so I could be wrong, this is just based on what I know of his philosophy and voting record.

privacy/total information awareness: He is as much a privacy nut a the biggest nut job here. Essentially, since the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to collect the data then the government does not have that power. Period. A little more unclear is his opinion on states/corporations gathering information. Corps first... my take on it is that even though he would be apalled by the practice, corporations are private entities and so the government should not prohibit then from collecting data. I really don't want to hazard a guess as to his views on state governments collecting and using data. Obviously he's opposed to it, but whether the feds should prohibit it... you'll just have to ask him.

Internet regulation and taxation: This one's easy. He's opposed to it. Period. Never voted for a tax in his life. Note that since the constitution grants the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, the question is not purely consitutional. It also means he would have no problem prohibitting states from enacting thier own taxes.(I am supposoing here...)

net neutrality: This one has me stumped. On one hand, he would support the rights of providers to run their business the way they see fit. On the other hand, they are usually government granted monopolies which he opposed. I'll have to look into this...

copyright/patent reform: This one is the one that he would disagree with most slashdotters on. While I am sure he would agree tate the current patent office is broken, I am pretty sure he will conceptually side with patent holders on this one.

the right to read: Not sure what is really meant by this? Talking about censorship perhaps? If so, then he is most certainly opposed to all forms of censorship.

the right to secure communications: I am pretty sure he would see this as a free speach issue, so yes he would be in favor of it.

the right to tinker: Pretty sure he would support this as well, despite the patent/copyright implications. At least so long it is for personal use. But this is a guess on my part.

There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances, but overall he is the one I agree with the most. I even changed my affiliation to Republican(from unaffiliated) so that I could vote for him in the primary. Do I think it would be best if he did win... not sure. But I know we need a lot more people like him in office so that maybe, a generation or two from now, we'll have the same rights we used to. It will take that long.

Re:Ron Paul! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276977)

Despite his numerous fanboys, the fact remains that he is nothing more than a corporate stooge who would sell America out any chance he got. Maybe you didn't notice that he was one of those who wanted to abolish net neutrality and allow ISPs to force websites to either pay up protection money or have their bandwidth throttled?

Bloomberg (3, Interesting)

janneH (720747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276639)

Assuming he runs - it must be Bloomberg. I have heard from people that have met him that he is a total computer geek - and really understands technology.

Isn't there bigger fish to fry? (5, Insightful)

w3woody (44457) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276655)

I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?

I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?

Zonk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276661)

Zonk for President...

Ron Paul (4, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276663)

A very clear choice -- He has stated repeatedly that he does not want to regulate the internet in any way. (Most of his other views, immigration not withstanding, are sensible as well.)

Re:Ron Paul (1)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276713)

Seconded, especially with the way he went to town on Giuliani in the second debate.

Re:Ron Paul (2, Informative)

ThisNukes4u (752508) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276789)

I 100% agree, although I admit he has a very slim chance of winning the republican nomination, at least he was smart and ran as a republican where he could not be denied access to the debates and at least got some minor media coverage. Overall, I think hes done a good job and should be commended. That said, since he likely won't be on the final ballot, I'll probably be voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul.

Re:Ron Paul (2, Informative)

eric76 (679787) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276835)

I'll take Ron Paul over any other candidate.

In fact, the only potential major party candidate I would vote for is Ron Paul.

Re:Ron Paul (4, Informative)

cyberkahn (398201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276917)

Yes, I am in for Ron Paul. Not only for Internet issues, but because he actually believes in the Constitution and Habeas Corpus.

Re:Ron Paul (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276955)

If only he would explain how he plans to provide services for society and cut taxes.

Cutting taxes, or raising taxes, is not an immediatly good thing.

Here is an idea, figure out what service you will cut, and after cutting them see if the tax revenue is greater then the nations expenses*, then cut taxes.
Doing it any other way cuts road, schools, and emergency services, but leaves pork barrel.

I would prefer a build up of cash first, say a trillion dollars. In a crisis, like Katrina, the money can quickly be allocated and sent to where it needs.

Thomas Jefferson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276671)

Who cares if he's dead? That might actually help.

Re:Thomas Jefferson (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276745)

At least he would not make so many stupid laws.

Personally, I'd already be happy with a candidate who promises he's gonna spend his 4 years in the pool behind the White House, not lifting a finger. It's actually sad when you hope for a prez who doesn't fuck up too badly and don't even hope anymore for one that actually improves the current situation.

The Libertarian candidate (2, Interesting)

Meor (711208) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276673)

No question.

Re:The Libertarian candidate (3, Interesting)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276889)

Fellow libertarian here, but there's one really tough question we need to ask your libertarian candidate. And that question is: Who are you? We need a libertarian candidate who's a self-made billionaire and can fund their own campaign.

Cthulhu (5, Funny)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276695)

Cthulhu [cthulhu.org] . "Why vote for a lesser evil?"

None of the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276701)

'Nuff Said

not bush (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276739)

He's not even running, but the "Not-Bush" candidate, the one that has the best chance of grinding the GOP into the ground, into utter irrelevance, until they're as dead and forgotten as the Whig and Bull-Moose party. That's the candidate I want.

No, I don't want single-party politics. And I don't even have anything against the GOP in general other than disagreeing with them -- but in particular, its current leadership is driving us off a cliff, and it'd be nice if anyone in the GOP who isn't a black-hearted mendacious zealoutrous hateful son of a bitch would jump ship. But it'll take driving the party into the ground before that ever happens.

Re:not bush (1)

mollog (841386) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276903)

Boy, I had to reply to this.

When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965 he said some prophetic words; words to the effect of delivering the South to the Republican Party. Before that, the Republican party was actually a bit socially liberal. They were political conservatives (small government), they were fiscal conservatives (balanced budget), but they were rather tolerant of a lot of things that the current crop of fascists has come out against.

I don't know how the Republicans are going to get rid of that fascist Southern element, but until they do, they will be the rapacious, dangerous, nut-jobs you describe. I just wish the Democrats had the gonads to expose the fascists for what they are.

Meanwhile, draft Al Gore.

Re:not bush (1)

schnablebg (678930) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276987)

I hate to break this to you, but the Democratic party is much more likely to be the one that whithers away. The Republicans at least stand for SOMETHING. The Dems, and the Left in general, these days seem to represent nothing other than "the lesser of two evils." If and when a powerful third party comes along, it will be the Dems that fracture.

Easy - Congressman Ron Paul (5, Insightful)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276741)

A person running that actually has enough integrity to stand behind what he says. Don't think you could say that about another person running...period.


Ron Paul - Voted Against Patriot Act! (5, Interesting)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276897)

A thing to note on Ron Paul, too, is that he is one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and against Internet regulation. A few other nice things about him:

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum...

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Ron Paul vs. Rudy on the Iraq War (5, Interesting)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276973)

Here is an interesting piece (source WND) on Ron Paul in the debate and his true comments about the war:

But who was right - Rudy or Ron?
Posted: May 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous - the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles - after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse - but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Online gaming (1)

thepacketmaster (574632) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276759)

While I don't have a particular favourite (because as you can tell by my spelling I'm actually not American), I think it would be good to get a president that would help get rid of that silly anti-online gambling law. I miss all my good american gambling buddies. While I'm sure Nevada/Las Vegas are trying to defend their brick-and-mortar casinos, they should realize that even with online gambling Nevada/Las Vegas will still have its attraction due to the instance weddings, glitzy shows and legalized prostitution ;-)

Spelling??? (1)

spiedrazer (555388) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276831)

FYI... No one coule EVER tell from someone's spelling that they aren't a native english speaker! We 'natural(?)' Americans can be pretty bad spellers from the get-go, so don't ever think that you'r on-line communications give anything away.

Re:Spelling??? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19277001)

My guess is that he is indeed an English native speaker, given his spelling...

No, there is another: (2, Funny)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276761)

Mitch Kapor, I choose you! http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/006 .html [pbs.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Kapor [wikipedia.org]

Al Gore should be offered a position in the administration: It would be a shame to waste all those PowerPoint and 3DSMAX skills. Plus the guy can take out a rowdy student with a laser pointer at 500 yards.

Bill Gates? Nay Bill. His first act would be to make all schools buy Microsoft, and recast the 'Best viewed with Internet Explorer' errors on all Government web sites. Then NASA would be forced to rewrite all their software in .NET. And we'd have to listen to him say "Cool" a lot. "Cool" is a cool word, but every time I hear Bill Gates use it the word dies a little.

Hillary R. Clinton (0)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276787)

Best candidate for...


it takes a gssszzzzzzOORRRTTTCCCHHH ... schhhluMPFFFFffffffssssizzle

Stevens for '08 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276797)

Ted Stevens, he understands that the internet is not a big truck, It's a series of tubes!

Barack Obama. (2)

Inakizombie (1081219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276817)

Barack Obama.

My thoughts. (4, Insightful)

macsox (236590) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276837)

I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.

1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.
2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.

If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.

Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.

Ron Paul (1)

amtpilot (1107271) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276843)

He without a doubt the best canidate but doesnt have a chance of ever being elected. His views are libertatian (good) but too unusual for main stream media

VOTE (1)

larryau (983008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276863)

Whomever you pick at least VOTE!

I pick Hillary Clinton for The Office of Supreme Commander(aka President of the United States).

There is only one... (3, Funny)

Maljin Jolt (746064) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276869)

Zaphod Beeblebrox for president!

Somehow I think its a loaded question... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276873)

...wouldn't the genuine nerd makeup want politics to be more like genuine open source, rather than politics that support hackable voting machines..

Cthulhu (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276911)

He can't be worse than anyone else who has a chance of getting elected.

Related Question (0, Offtopic)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276915)

Which is better: emacs or vi?

In reality, you know it's going to come down to... (1, Insightful)

SadGeekHermit (1077125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276919)

John Edwards Vs. Rudy Guiliani.

First of all, the democrats can't be stupid enough to actually nominate Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They have to win over the red states, and they can't do that with a black person OR a woman. If they think beating the republicans and stopping all this fascist bullshit is important, they'll go with the safe candidate, Edwards.

The republicans will go for the candidate that has the highest name recognition, somebody who has an appropriately heroic aura (even if it's mostly bullshit) and somebody they know will continue their nefarious activities. That's Giuliani.

So you vote for the democrat who thinks we should drop all this "war on terror" bullshit, or you vote for the republican stooge who just happened to be in the right place at the right time and will make it all worse. Those are your choices, guys.

Just to give you an idea of what you have to look forward to under Giuliani if he wins, he increased the police presence in NYC to never before seen levels. He also increased surveillance, and was known to crack down mercilessly on protesters and dissidents. He doesn't seem to care particularly about all those pesky "privacy rights" in your constitution, either. He's all about Big Brother. Hell, he probably IS Big Brother.

Edwards, on the other hand, seems friendly and harmless. And he'll probably turn things around and set this country back on course.

I'm a geek; I'm voting for Edwards. What do you think? Am I right or what?

Can you pick based on one policy area? (3, Insightful)

antarctican (301636) | more than 7 years ago | (#19276981)

Actually the more fundamental question is, can any candidate accurately represent any individual's core beliefs? And is the idea of voting for an entire platform really democratic?

Slashdot readers will be familiar with the debates on issues such as a la carte cable channel selection, and how hard we fight to be given options instead of a one size fits all package deal. So why do we accept it with democracy? Why do we have to pick which of our beliefs are most important and vote for the person who best represents those, while sacrificing other beliefs?

The system must be changed to allow people to vote on issues, or at the very least sub-sections of government policy. Finance, social, military, environment. Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.

So, what candidate will fight for this finer granularity in democracy?

Sadly I think the answer is none. Except for me of course (those in my geographic area, vote for me next time!)

Ru Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19276999)

A Drag Queen would make a great President.

Three Words (1, Interesting)

trisweb (690296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19277005)

Three Words: CAN OF WORMS.

Applies to the question you've asked (you have opened a ____) the politicians (their brains consist of a ____) and most slashdot readers' egos (A ____ will agree more consistently than this lot). Also the trolls and loudmouths (they take the worms out of the can, dump it on everyone, and then use the can as a megaphone).

I'd vote for the worms.

Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19277011)

Dr. Paul definitely has my vote. It's really unfortunate that the mainstream media won't even make his controversial (logical) values into an issue. The fact that he wants to minimize the fed and irs makes him a target by a lot of folks, so they ignore him even though opinion polls after recent debates show him out in front. It's nice to see I'm not the only one on /. mentioning Paul though.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?