×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the strange-bedfellows dept.

United States 116

30 Republicans and 14 Democrats are running for president in the New Hampshire primary this year, the largest number since 1992 when 62 candidates ran. Among other factors, the meager $1,000 fee to get one's name on the ballot makes New Hampshire an attractive place for unusual candidates. This year we have home-builder John Davis who "has budgeted $500,000 to visit all 3,143 counties in the U.S. in a 43-foot live-on bus emblazoned with a photo of himself brandishing a femur-size wrench and the slogan 'Let's Fix America.'" The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American. From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

one (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297272)

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary and only one to restore sanity.

Re:one (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297450)

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary and only one to restore sanity.

That on its own doesn't mean shit. You want us to read your signature? Maybe you should actually say something in your message. Or is one of your hands too busy since you're thinking about your messiah candidate?

You really should stop phoning it in like this. You make people who actually want to say something look like screwballs by being associated with you.

Re:one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297780)

What does that mean? In English?

Is Unique Candidates a party? Why is it capitalized? What one? Since you seem to be using and as a conjunction, what does "The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary" mean on its own?

Re:one (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297810)

So that's what it comes down to!

First they stopped reading the fucking articles.
Then they stopped reading the fucking 'Scoops'.

Now they don't even bother with the title.

Do you even know what site you are on?

Re:one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297836)

What what comes down to? How can you say that? What are you talking about? Site?

Re:one (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297842)

this way for you. [youtube.com]

Re:one (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298708)

Got any links I can read?

Re:one (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38304122)

Video's nice and all, but I'd usually much rather READ something than watch it. So write down whatever happens in your video and post that somewhere. You might have something interesting in the links in your signature, but I'm not following tinyurl links. They're a necessary evil on twitter (if you find links in twitter necessary), but they have no place outside of that. Find some links that tell me where I'm going. And then title your links better. If your link is about Ron Paul, make your link text "Ron Paul, a Real POTUS". Then maybe I'll read your link.

Re:one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38303024)

It's Jesus, for sure!

Let see one implement their motto... (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297314)

I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die". Extra points if he (or she) can get away with appending it to "Live Free Or Die, Bitches"

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297460)

How about just, "Live free." http://garyjohnson2012.com.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297476)

As a New Hamshirean (born and bred) I would object to such obscenities. That motto refers to the willingness to die fighting for freedom and should be treated with proper respect.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (5, Funny)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297940)

Citizen

You are hereby declared to be not Living Free Enough

As per NH criminal code LFOD2012 this is a summary captial offense

Prepare for immediate execution

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298402)

You're not free.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298872)

As a resident of New Hampshire I see the motto as a joke. Sorry. We don't have to wear seat belts, big deal. The Governor of this state is a joke. I see lots of people thinking they're free...... The state in which I was raised has the motto "Don't tread on me". That doesn't mean shit either, anymore. I'm sure the NH motto at one point had meaning, as did the other states. But guess what suckers, corporations rule the feds, the feds rule the states. And they all rule us.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38304164)

Good thing to bring up when the GOP campaigns in NH. "Our slogan is "Live Free or Die." Are you a candidate brave enough to let us do that? Will you restore our freedoms and let us take the tiny risk we might die in a terrorist attack?"

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297490)

I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297646)

I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on?

Not any libertarian I've ever heard of running for anything notable. Every self-proclaimed libertarian I've seen lately who has been able to bring attention to their campaign is just another conservative who finds it advantageous to run under a different label.

When you are tethered to corporate everything the way the likes of Ron Paul wants people to be, you are less free than we are now. And when you continually roll back anything resembling controls on large corporations, you inevitably give them the power.

I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298094)

Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul? The one who is against corporate personhood? This is not correct. Also, the ginormous corporations use the political system to bring about huge regulatory bills to virtually kill any competition or severly limit it to anyone but them and the rest of their cartel, no matter what the industry. It is the regulations you so desire that CAUSE the problems you are trying to fix. They know the people are easily lead to believe these regulations are called for by those who care... but the dirty secret is, these regulations were constructed by those the people think these laws were to protect them against. It is a con game. Same way the bankers got together to create the FED, which was supposed to protect the people from the big bad bankers. It was the bankers that crafted it and pretended to be upset about it. This is fact. Cause a problem, incite a reaction by the people, then give them your pre-crafted solution. Sheeple buy it every time.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298366)

Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul?

Wow, another slashdot message in blind support of Ron Paul. Shocked, I am not. Said message didn't bother to read all of what I said; also not shocking.

The one who is against corporate personhood?

Saying you're against corporate "personhood", and then removing regulations that prevent corporations from effectively owning people and walking all over both those they do and those they do not own, are a conflict that Ron Paul has no apparent problem with. He is fine to strip out government regulations that keep our water, air, and food safe. That's not libertarianism; that's just extreme pro-business action.

What a shocking surprise, that you wrote up a message of nonsense, in reply to a message that you didn't read in its entirety, and yet you got moderated up because you praised Ron Paul. Next you're going to try to tell us that there is a secret enclave of far-left slashdotters holding you down.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299732)

"Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want people to be high all day. To the contrary, it implies that it's a completely inappropriate role of the federal government, just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302424)

The market comes with very strong regulations:

The Libbies want to dismantle those regulations.

You can't defraud people,

You must be new here -- in the country, I mean. You've never been cheated by business? You're either really young or really lucky. Ever heard of OtherOS? [wikipedia.org] You don't consider Sony removing a feature you've paid for to be fraud?

you can't pollute,

No? [wikipedia.org] Why is no one in prison for that? You can bet your ass if you, a person, negligently did something like that you'ld be in prison for life.

you can't enslave people,

Tell that to anyone dependant on a paycheck when unemployment is 9%. Tell that to migrant farm workers.

you can't steal,

Ever heard of emminent domain?

What about negligent homicide? [businessweek.com] A mass murder and nobody went to prison for it.

Wanting to dismantle the federal EPA is brain-dead stupid. Pollution doesn't honor state lines. Wanting to dismantle the FDA si similarly moronic as most of your food and medicine comes from out of state.

just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!

Huh? You're batshit crazy, son. Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business! Take your meds and then a nap.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301544)

Have you actually read Ron Paul's writings? You kinda have to keep looking at what he actually says and not what he seems to say.

He is not against 'corporate personhood'. Quite the contrary in fact as he is defending the corporate right to 'free speech' inasmuch as it pertains to corporations being able to buy advertising time to promote their favorite lackey...er...candidate.

He's also not against regulation pushed by corporate lobbying. His 'solution' for lobbying and corruption is, and I'm paraphrasing, 'less government is less to corrupt' which is not a solution at all just more bullshit that sounds good but doesn't actually FIX anything.

Auditing the fed is a good idea but ending it would be much worse than having it. Look at things before the fed existed where boom and bust were not the exception but the rule.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Quothz (683368) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301700)

Man, I hesitate to reply to ACs but I see this meme a lot. The simple truth is that truth isn't simple: Some regulations are good and useful, like the ones that say food distributors can't poop in the food; others are anti-competitive or purely fee-driven, like requiring licensing to practice interior decoration; and some are both, like requiring banks to have a certain amount of cash on hand. The only way to avoid the bad and keep the good is to elect honest, thoughtful representatives instead of demagogues and fools. Which is t'say, it can't be done.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (5, Insightful)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298274)

The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

The same Republican Party that gave us massive expansions in Medicare, the Department of Education, and the national debt? The same Republican Party that has shown no interest in eliminating any Federal entitlement programs, the Department of Energy, the aforementioned Department of Education, or much of anything else? The same Republican Party that's been fighting for the same absurdly broad definitions of the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suited their draconian drug policies? The same Republican Party that took the country to war against Iraq despite having no evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States or its citizens? The same Republican Party that continued and supported US troops being stationed in over 150 countries around the world? The Republican Party that supported the likes of George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Child Left Behind? Massive Federal land grabs? FCC censorship? Support for Federal marriage restrictions and Federal abortion limitations? Support for banning flag burning? Indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil like Jose Padilla? No Fourth Amendment protections for Americans returning to the United States? Invasive and dangerous searches at airports by security which became forcibly Federalized? Bailouts and takeovers of private businesses?

It just goes on and on and it's been going on for decades. The Republican base and the GOP itself are -NOTHING- like libertarians. Most Republicans I've seen don't have a clue what the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments are, why we have them, and why they should care about them. Democrats are certainly no better when it comes to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments. President Obama picked up exactly where George W. Bush left off pulling the same kind of garbage, only with a more articulate spin on why shredding the Constitution is the right thing to do. Where's your hope and change? It's in Guantanamo Bay, the Obamacare insurance company giveaway, the Federal Reserve trying to run the economy behind the curtain, and the continued bailouts and stimulus that have kept us barely treading water while adding the weight of debt to our ankles and threatening to drown us all slowly and painfully.

Let me correct your statement for you:
The people who call themselves the Democratic Party - at least in the US - are functionally identical to the Republican Party on >99% of all matters.

Not a one of them gives a damn about you or me. Neither of them has our interests at heart. Neither of them has or cares about solutions. The only thing they care about is selling you a promise to get your vote so they can take your money and sell your ass for a carton of Lucky's the first chance they get once they make it through the next election. They've got you playing these stupid games of blaming this group or that when all the while it is they who tug on your strings like expert puppeteers making you put on a show for their benefit.

You see, what you're missing is a very simple fact of life almost universally lost on folks thinking that government can be a force for good: government IS politicians. libertarians don't want small government because we hate the poor or because we don't want to do our part to help those around us. libertarians want small government because all governments are inherently populated with these kinds of self-serving scumbags within a few years of their formation and we want to limit the amount of damage they can do. The larger your government is, the smaller you are by comparison in the eyes of the egomaniacs who seek that kind of power. You're a tool for them to use to build a machine that enriches them and their cronies. Any good that comes from their actions is purely for PR purposes and the sheer level of damage caused is truly unimaginable.

50 small, accountable governments which become one under very special, limited circumstances is what the founders intended with the US Constitution. That wasn't by accident. It was because they saw the true nature of government and they didn't trust themselves anymore than they trusted future generations of politicians. When I look at a candidate like Ron Paul, I don't see a guy I can trust to have my best interests at heart. I see a politician who wants to limit the amount of damage he and others like him can cause. He's been asked several times why he wants to be President. He's refused to answer and I tend to suspect the reason is because he doesn't want to be President; it's just that everyone else has screwed things up so badly and the rest of the guys running would only make things worse.

We need to get past all this Democrats vs Republicans vs third party crap and come to the realization that we're being auctioned off to ANY bidders by EVERYONE in office so we can work to take away their power. We CANNOT TRUST these people; ANY of them. Not President Obama, not Ron Paul, not . None of them will put you first. None of them will improve your life or the lives of your children. None of them have answers. Most of them don't even care about the questions. Simply replacing one set of lying, cheating, thieving, egomaniacal scumbags with another at the voting booth doesn't work. Eventually we're either going to come to the realization that we have to work directly to limit the power and influence of Washington, DC politicians or we're going to wonder how the Hell we ended up with 90% of the people barely surviving in what USED TO BE the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38299438)

The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone, and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

You're mostly right about many of your other points, especially Obama and the "change" (or lack thereof) he brought. But your idea of what libertarianism is, and what real national-level politicians who call themselves Libertarian or espouse Libertarian principles consider to be libertarianism, are two different things.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299810)

The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone,

What they advertise has changed; what they actually do has not. The Contract with America was virtually nothing but hot air. The only reason we got close to a balanced budget was that the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic President couldn't agree on what to spend tons of money on.

and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

I would strongly disagree. The current Republican candidates (minus, to an extent, Ron Paul) give a small amount of lip service to cutting taxes and regulations because - quite frankly - it's not an issue where they can distinguish themselves from President Obama. They'll mouth some words about it to sound tough, but I don't think there's a sane person alive who actually believes Rick Perry would start dismantling major sections of government. The flub he had in that debate was not one of having the 'senior moment' we all have once in a while. The guy couldn't remember what some writer stuck on an index card for him as part of a pathetic attempt to get his name back in the news to regain momentum. Mitt Romney will happily tell you the sky is purple and he wears women's underwear if it'll gain him +1 net vote. His positions don't change; he doesn't have positions, and if you put him in a debate with President Obama it's going to sound like a damned echo chamber. Gingrich would rather tell you what 74 people have written about a topic over the last 300 years than give you anything original or firm. And quite honestly, when you look at President Obama, you can't begin to claim he hasn't bent over backwards to the point of forming a pretzel shape when it's come to big business and corporations. He's even fought for tax breaks for people up and down the line. There's nary a candidate for President in the 2012 election who isn't for tax-and-spend-but-sound-like-you-care-about-deficits-by-giving-lip-service-to-microscopic-cuts-that-keep-Washington-politicians-firmly-in-the-driver-seat-of-the-country. The only one of the bunch who's really come up with a firm position is Ron Paul in that he's strongly and consistently against both regulations AND subsidies and special government perks for big business. And again, I don't think that's because Paul is such a great guy and I don't trust him any further than I can throw him. The last guy who came into a presidential race talking about how government was the problem and not the solution ended up blowing up our deficit in a way not seen since WWII with both military and discretionary spending programs. But at least he's claiming and appears to sincerely believe that his goal is to cut down on the power and influence of the politicians in DC.

You can't begin to tell me that someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich believes or has any intention of implementing libertarian principles of small, limited government. You can't begin to tell me that someone like George W. Bush had a clue what those principles are. I'll bet you anything that Newt can recite the Constitution and all the Federalist papers from start to finish; but he doesn't give a damn about what 90% of says or means because he's just as power-hungry as any other egomaniacal scumbag seeking to control us little people. I'll bet that after four years of Mitt Romney, you'd be hard pressed to pick out much of any differences from the previous four years. Hell, I have a hard enough time picking out real, meaningful differences between Presidents or Congresses in the last 40+ years. They all seek to grow power, influence, and control. They all seek to expand their authority and their wealth. They all seek to do what's best for them and the people they golf/ski/drink with on a regular basis. Find me one among them who sought to truly reduce the overwhelming power and might of the Federal government. Find me a President or a Congress since about ten years after the formation of the nation who truly understood and followed the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments. Any one from any time gave lip service to some small thing here or there to keep PR high enough to keep the American people from rioting in the streets. Not a ONE of them seriously went about large scale, fundamental changes to reduce their own power and influence. Not a ONE of them put the country on a path toward ensuring that they and the jackals who'd come after them couldn't sell out or abuse us little people.

That's what politicians do; they increase their own power and control behind the scenes of a spectacle put on to divide the masses and make them believe there are principles and ideas at stake. It's what they've always done in every country around the world. We're not special and we're not different. Our Constitution may have prolonged the process and given our politicians difficulty at times, but it's the same process that's taken place everywhere, every time, throughout the history of the globe. The cliche is that power corrupts, but it's wrong. The fact is that the type of individuals who seek a political life are already corrupted. With far too few exceptions to have any meaning or influence, the only people who appear on a voting ballot on election day are broken beyond repair. The issues, stances, debates, and records they talk about so much are naught but political theatre designed to placate the masses into checking a box.

But your idea of what libertarianism is, and what real national-level politicians who call themselves Libertarian or espouse Libertarian principles consider to be libertarianism, are two different things.

That was precisely the point of much of my post. There's a paradox at play: why would any person whose driving philosophy is individual liberty seek a position in which they can exert a massive amount of control over an enormous amount of people?

The best thing we can do for ourselves is to ensure that no political office has any significant power or control and that all the limits we choose to put in place are strictly enforced. The US Constitution was an attempt at doing something like that, but it couldn't answer the question of how to police the actions of clever, well-funded sociopaths who've spent decades learning to adapt to beat the system of checks and balances put in place. By explicitly splitting the power among a lot of potentially power-hungry egomaniacs, the Constitution pitted politicians against one another in enough ways to confound many of their efforts to exert ever-increasing control over the citizenry. But it couldn't completely stop the inevitable creep of cash-fueled politicians toward the construction of a political machine that turns the citizenry into cogs churning out wealth and power for the select.

What we need to do (and what we've needed to do for a long time) is to strip that machine down and turn it back into something far easier to see and understand so we can ensure it's doing only what benefits the nation. We then need to ensure that the inherently corrupt people we're going to send to work the machine don't rebuild it into what it is today.

When we recognize the simple fact that anyone who would seek power is inherently corrupt, it becomes obvious why it is vital to our nation and our people to ensure those who seek power are strictly observed and limited in what they can do. There is nothing worse for a people than for them to place trust in their leaders; elected or otherwise.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298602)

You must not know the joke.

A Libertarian is a Republican with a conviction for possession of weed.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302208)

I thought that a Libertarian was a Republican that wanted to get laid, hence why so many on /. claim to be Libertarian.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298750)

The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

You must not hang around very many libertarians . . .

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Sean (422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299162)

Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government. He is a true libertarian.

http://youtu.be/qWxaGRZ7Nrs [youtu.be]
http://youtu.be/BnPV2xea2ro [youtu.be]

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299432)

Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government

Except that he will give them a lot more than he will take away from them. He plans to abolish most of the regulatory agencies that large businesses are always bitching about - you know the agencies that are tasked with keeping our air and water clean; silly things like that. Taking away their privileges is trivial in comparison to the mandated blind eye that we will be forced to turn towards them as they kill us off in the name of profit.

Not true. (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38300260)

As far as I can tell, what you've said here is not correct [wikipedia.org] .

You see, the way the system works right now people are granted protections from liability and lawsuits as long as they meet standards set by regulators. And beyond that, corporate shareholders are granted many protections from liability in general, regardless of a corporation's compliance with regulations.

So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

But on top of that, he has not proposed eliminating the EPA, or any other regulatory agency. So you are completely wrong about that. He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. The departments that regulate businesses in the way you've described are the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry, but it is generally understood that those regulations need a serious overhaul, and if you'd worked with them the way I have, you would probably agree.

Re:Not true. (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302556)

So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

... which is a pipe dream. There is no disincentive for short term profits, that is strong enough. And strong property rights (whose property will be strengthened anyway?) will solve nothing e.g. when it comes to contamination. If you poison your own property, no one can hinder you without regulations forbidding exactly that. If later the borders break that were designed to limit the intoxication, and people get sick or die, how will you solve that problem with property rights? Paying for the lower value of the poisoned property?

The property rights of home and land owners are very strong, but there are still burglars and trespassers. How will you solve that problem with even stronger property laws? How much money do you get out in a civil court from someone who steals? If he has no money left to pay, he can't be made paying more. But he could still break into the next house and start stealing again. How do you hinder him with strong property law? What disincentive gives an even stronger property law?

People who think that property laws will solve anything always forget the most important part of the law: the ability of the intruder to actually pay. If a company can get away with setting up a shell company doing the contamination which will be dissolved or defaults as soon as the work is completed, then what use is a stronger property law?

Re:Not true. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38303434)

So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would - if they could afford it - sell their houses and move. At that point, of course, someone else would buy the polluted property (at a loss to the seller) and the cycle starts over. The polluter continues to make money, the victims continue to lose lives and money.

He has talked about streamlining and eliminating regulations to reduce their burden on industry

Which generally means a lot more of the latter and very little of the former. Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry". In other words, it is recognized that there is a very good reason to have the kinds of regulations that Ron Paul wants to throw out. This isn't a matter of "civil liberties", because reasonable people do not see slowly killing entire populations as a "civil liberty" that should be granted to companies.

He has proposed eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education.

Have you considered what the dept of the interior does? Or for that matter what elimination of the dept of education will do in the long term to the uneducated and underemployed people who end up buying the polluted properties because they can't afford to live anywhere else?

Re:Not true. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38306554)

Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry"

Why would you say that it's fallacious? I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing contract work for manufacturers by helping them comply with environmental regulations. How can I make all this money with it, if it doesn't cost them anything? And environmental regulations are just he tip of the iceberg. Also, the money they pay me is just the tip of the ice-burg, because they often have to make changes to the way they do business to comply with regulations. And regulatory agencies tend to write regulations as conservatively as possible (for political and ass-covering reasons) in a lazy, one-size-fits-all manner that really doesn't make sense in the real world. And then, to top it all off, they give exemptions to existing businesses! The result is regulations function as a barrier to entry to new businesses.

I don't know if you've ever worked with it or not, but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. People who work with it don't really wonder why new factories are rarely built in the US.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297662)

Yes, so long as you redefine the word "free" to mean whatever they claim it means. Which seems to have no bearing on what the rest of the world considers it to be.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297698)

'Live free and die' would be more apt. Freedom for the rich. Death for the unterschicht.

deregulation of food, medicine, and so on should add to the death count, too.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (4, Funny)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297736)

Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

Yes that's what the Libertarian Party stands for when you boil it down. When you boil down the Republican party it stands for "vote for us if you hate poor people". If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money". Isn't it fun to over simplify complex political ideas even though it's ultimately what's destroying this country.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299470)

If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money".

The problem is that their platform is rather different from what they do when they're in power. The Dems promise nice social programs and such when they're on the campaign trail, but as soon as they get elected they look for as many ways to give free money to giant corporations as they can, and happily screw over the poor and middle class people who voted for them.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38299980)

...and insider trading, lobbyist driven IPOs, shit that will get you and me locked up like Martha Stewart but is perfectly legal for them because they write the laws to exempt themselves.

Both parties are guilty of that shit, and those that participated in it should be investigated and tossed in jail like anyone else that games the system with insider knowledge.

Time for term limits, if it's good enough for the office of the president, it's good enough for the rest of those clowns.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38300048)

What they really need is much harsher penalties for politicians found guilty of crimes, with the penalties going up with the level of their office (i.e. a small-town mayor convicted of a crime gets a lesser sentence than a US Congressman convicted of the same crime, though still much worse than a non-politician). So US Congressmen convicted of things like insider trading or corruption, for instance, should be drawn and quartered.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38306216)

What they really need is much harsher penalties for politicians found guilty of crimes, with the penalties going up with the level of their office (i.e. a small-town mayor convicted of a crime gets a lesser sentence than a US Congressman convicted of the same crime, though still much worse than a non-politician). So US Congressmen convicted of things like insider trading or corruption, for instance, should be drawn and quartered.

Just strip them of their assets and force them to live on minimum wage.

Re:Let see one implement their motto... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38306284)

The problem here is that they're frequently able to stash assets in foreign accounts where they're difficult or impossible to get to (if they don't tell you they have a numbered swiss account, how will you know?). But yes, any assets they have that can be seized, should be seized.

But no, I don't agree with the minimum wage thing. That's too nice. They should be made felons and be ineligible to have a normal job, just like they do to thousands of non-violent drug offenders in their stupid War on Drugs, and forced to live under a bridge.

I still think a public execution (with disembowelment, just like in the middle ages) is a fitting punishment for those convicted of corruption. Corruption is the Achilles' Heel of democracies/republics, and anything that can be done to deter it is fair game IMO. I do think capital punishment should be eliminated, however, for normal people, but politicians aren't really human so I think an exception should be made for them.

And this is how (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297348)

you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

Re:And this is how (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297378)

That is necessary but not sufficient. To be sufficient you'd also have to replace first-past-the-post elections.

Re:And this is how (2)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299586)

I would mod this up if I had points. Plurality voting sucks. At least go with Approval for single-winner races, if you think Condorcet is too complicated.

Re:And this is how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301156)

How do all those other countries with First Past The Post systems manage then? Hell, the UK currently has a coalition government, and they've had FPTP for centuries!

Re:And this is how (2)

monkeythug (875071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302398)

The UK has a coalition government precisely because it has more than two parties! However it is also the first coalition we have had in decades, and it (arguably) only happened this time due to very particular circumstances that are unlikely to happen again any time soon.

This is most likely the reason why the LibDems were so keen on switching away from FPTP - it represented the only way they were likely to get another bite at the cherry in 2015. Sadly it was not to be, which is a shame as having more than two parties with a fighting chance of being elected would not only have been good for the LibDems, it would have been great for the UK.

Re:And this is how (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297568)

you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

Not only that, but remove primaries.

Re:And this is how (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297826)

I wish. This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction. But it's nice to see there is some hope left elsewhere.

Re:And this is how (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302580)

This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction.

What state? The only state I know of where Senate seats are sold is here in Illinois. You did hear that Blago was sentenced yesterday to fourteen years in the federal pen for that very crime, didn't you? Likewise, our previous Governor (the one before Blago) is still in prison for selling commercial drivers licenses to unqualified drivers.

Re:And this is how (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38306286)

Yup, I'm from Illinois. And yes, I've been following the Blago news. It seems that part of the problem is that people become career politicians, and so they start looking at everything as a potential for making money.

If you had normal people running for office, and only serving for a few terms, I think the corruption would be drastically reduced.

Re:And this is how (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302260)

How about also removing the party label for each candidate from the ballot. We already have multiple parties running in various elections but there are probably too many people who look for the D or R label and vote based off of that. This would at least require that people be some what informed as to who the R and D candidates are since they couldn't just vote down the ticket unless they knew all of their party's candidates.

Re:And this is how (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38304332)

I'll go one step further. Remove the names from the ballots. Seriously, if you can't even legibly SPELL the person's name (physical disabilities aside), don't vote. This is not a poll tax, or a way of keeping the "disenfranchised" from voting. It's a way of keeping the uninformed from voting.

Re:And this is how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38302412)

Why the hell does it cost anything anyway??
All you should need is enough signatures. Period.
There are virtually no costs to having an additional candidate, and anyone with enough signatures is supported enough to deserve that paid via taxes anyway. In the name of an actual democracy!

But hey, in a country where government is solely decided by who gets bought most (aka. "campaign financing"), things are FUBAR anyway.

Shoot that horse already!

Re:And this is how (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302518)

you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

There were five parties on the Presidential ticket in enough states last election that they had a mathematical chance of winning. The trouble is, media are controlled by the corporations, who have convinced everyone that a vote for a Green or a Libbie is a wasted vote. That way they only have to bribe two candidates.

Re:And this is how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38304266)

I live in New York, so any vote I make is a wasted vote. The state's going to the Democrat no matter what I do. I voted Green in the last presidential election for that reason.

But seriously, the focus to getting third party acceptance shouldn't be on the Presidency. Third parties should be concentrating on getting their candidates into state legislatures and Congress. There's much less money involved in those races, and lower turnouts so you'd have less heads you need to turn.

Re:And this is how (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302814)

No. The history of this country has quite clearly demonstrated that there will not ever be more than two viable parties. Every time a new party has arisen, the weaker of the other two quickly died. Two parties is quite clearly the stable state for the system our Constitution has given us.

Poly-party systems only exist in parlimentary democracies that allow minority representatives in their government. For example, if a party gets 20% of the vote nationwide, they may get to make up 20% of the representaves in the legislature. We have a system where you have to get majority support somewhere to get any representation at all in government. The top two parties have a shot at that. A third place party has no chance.

Vermin Supreme? (4, Funny)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297432)

Vermin Supreme sounds like a pizza in some dystopian future. "Includes all toppings, with rats, cockroaches, and maggots. Dung Beetles are extra".

Re:Vermin Supreme? (-1, Flamebait)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298128)

Vermin Supreme describes the contents of the White House now. Why vote for no change?

Re:Vermin Supreme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38303818)

Because the replacement is a downgrade.

Don't forget... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297526)

to add obama to your list of incompetent candidates for the job.

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298698)

Ohhh....don't criticize The One here. Slashdot is filled with Obama sycophants and anarchists.

Yeah, Barry would be able to put on one hell of a bukkae party with Slashdot users.

mod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297528)

everyday...We mire of decay, METADISCUSSIONS of FreeBSD Usenet Fear the reaper all servers. Coming have left in keep, and I won't another charnel over a quality wasn't on Steve's over a quality In addition, current core were Usenet is roughly Fortunately, Linux states that there may do, may not as fittingly From a technical All 8ajor surveys of challenges that counterpart, YOU CAN. WHEN THE thing for the cuntwipes Jordan

Ponies? (1)

Wandering Voice (2267950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297552)

If Vermin Supreme runs again in six years or so he may really have a chance at winning. As long as these kids keep the internet Pony meme going. Though he may even have a chance in this election. I know several adults who would support his zombie preparedness platform.

And really how much worse can he do than what we've seen over the last 30 years.

Re:Ponies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38297930)

I somehow doubt there are 300 million ponies out there that can be given. Steer & cows maybe. I guess maybe if you dye one purple, lop off a horn, and brand it with some stars....

Re:Ponies? (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38300804)

Then there's only one answer: an effort to build a massive pony cloning industry during his mandate. Not only would it fix unemployment, but it would give the USA valuable know-how in high tech like cloning and... PONIES!!!!!1!!

Re:Ponies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298050)

Um, I don't want my pony. You can have it.

Re:Ponies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38306362)

It's time to vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!

Oh, that kind of primary! (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297558)

I thought you were talkinga bout primary school and gifted students, and therefore was interested. As soon as I realized this was about politics, I became very bored.

Oddly enough (4, Interesting)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297854)

I find it hard to tell the difference between those candidates and the "actual" Republican candidates.

From the article... (2)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297878)

From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

...and he was probably talking about the front-runners, not the gadflies.

And he should be at the Donald Trump debate (4, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38297964)

The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American.

Still saner than Michele Bachmann.

Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298224)

If my anniversary wasn't coming up, I'd have the $1000 to enter the fray..

I'd probably have at least an equal chance as 90% of the other candidates.

But I'd move the White House to Fiji (after buying Fiji, of course..)

meh..

Sounds like... (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298368)

...a good place for the Pirate Party to start running candidates.

Re:Sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38298826)

Mod parent up, but please not "funny". This is really a great place to bring the "Digital Privacy" and "Copyright Term and Enforcement" points to the table.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38299460)

Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38299594)

Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

Re:Sounds like... (2)

Agripa (139780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299734)

Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

The established players have no worries. Plurality voting is sufficient to crush all newcomers.

Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38298648)

This place is overrun by Ron Paul zombies. If a potential candidate can find a way to control them, they'd certainly win my vote.

Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38299776)

Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38299932)

I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately, a lot of what they know is Internet memes about these two guys, as opposed to actual facts. Don't worry though. We all know Snopes is controlled by radical statist Leftists...

Re:Fighting zombies? Start with slashdot! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301574)

Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

Clearly, you are trying for a (+1, informative) or (+1, insightful) mod there, although based on some of the rabid, uninformed Paullowers [slashdot.org] here the proper mod would actually be (+1, funny). Too much of anything, even the anointed Ron Paul, can make one into a raving lunatic over time.

Yes, he's the crazy one. (3, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38300284)

The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness.

As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.

Bob Greene (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301930)

Did NO ONE READ the article???

Why is no one excited about an ENGINEER for President who is talking about Thorium??

I officially Endorse Bob Greene for POTUS

http://www.greeneforoffice.org/Home_Page.html

Re:Bob Greene (2)

JazzLad (935151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38303438)

I'm sure the AC endorsement will make all the difference!

Kidding aside, I agree completely. Finally a candidate the "nerds" can & should care about & he is the only one not discussed. I'm not new here, so not surprised. Still disappointed.

Re:Bob Greene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38306172)

I do too!

Resume Builder (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38302378)

I know what I will be doing in 2016 as I will finally meet the constitutional requirements to be president. This way I could truthfully add that I was a 2016 presidential candidate. I would even make a reasonable platform centered around my areas of expertise. Why not its not like it is that expensive. At worst (most likely) it would make an interesting story and at best (extreme remote) I elected and I could probably do a better job than the current crop of clowns.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...