Beta
×

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!

Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the trying-to-stuff-the-ballot-and-inboxes dept.

Spam 506

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."

cancel ×

506 comments

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

I don't for a minute believe this was unofficial (-1, Troll)

Archeopteryx (4648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606751)

Ron Paul is not sane.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (4, Insightful)

Butisol (994224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606811)

His voting record suggests otherwise.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607741)

His making word nosies with his sound hole confirms it.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (0, Troll)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606813)

It don't matter if your campaign is a favourite of spammers and white supremacists, as long as you make some vague promises of libertarianism that you can't possible enact without congressional support, then Slashdotters will adore you.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606895)

Paul gives more than vague promises. He has a long, principled voting record.

Will he be an imperial president? No.

Will he be able to change the USA into some libertopia. No.

He can exercise veto power.

He can issue pardens.

He can bring the troops home.

That will be more than enough for me.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607171)

-1 stupid post

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607303)

-2 i'm with stupid.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (-1, Flamebait)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606927)

It don't matter if your campaign is a favourite of spammers and white supremacists...

Because he is, of course, quite a big proponent of racism and spam (and only on /. would someone string those together.)

Please stop parroting the predictable attempt to discredit another candidate that could be a threat to the entrenched PTB. You just look silly.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607423)

you wouldn't know what racism is, if it bit you on the foot.

most people under 25 don't know what racism is....they know what they've been told racism is...

they mistake the common behavior of all homo sapiens to "prejudge".

I prejudge all the time, so do you.

I might even say something to you about my prejudgements...and it might hurt your feelings, or offend you.

You'll label it racism. And like millions upon millions of generation Y'ers and forward, you'll be wrong.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607623)

Justify it however you want - it won't change that fact that you are a racist prick.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607713)

Correct. Racism != prejudice. Racism is a belief that your race is superior to that of others. Usually this also means that you think your race should get preferential treatment over others, but that's not necessarily so. Prejudice is just that -- prejudging someone based on external factors that can -- but do not necessarily include -- race.

Supporting the abolition of affirmative action -- i.e., hiring, promoting or admitting into school, etc., on the basis of racial quotas -- as Ron Paul does is also not racism. If anything, the entire concept of affirmative action could arguably be viewed as racism since there is some underlying notion that minorities would otherwise be unable to gain schooling or employment were it not for racial quotas. I think that underestimates the abilities of minorities to the extreme.
     

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (2, Insightful)

Archeopteryx (4648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606945)

Amen.

I like their focus on the Gold Standard.

Hilarious.

There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607107)

Erm, not at $1 and ounce, no. But at some multiple. If it has to be $2,800 per ounce then people will not both exchanging dollars for gold with the government, because they can get gold cheaper elsewhere. But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Just because a return to the gold standard can't undo the last 90+ years of inflation is no reason not to do it.

Mod parent up (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607719)

Someone has actually studied economics before he posts!

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607573)

There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!
And at one point there was. And now there isn't (if you used the original prices), why is that? Who benefits?

It's sad to see the state of affairs that make people hate/fear Ron Paul so much. Is he a perfect candidate? No, of course not! Is he more perfect than the others? This internet bot thinks so.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607723)

> And at one point there was. And now there isn't (if you used the original prices), why is that? Who benefits?

To a large extent, the US and Americans do, because to many countries, Dollars ARE de-facto gold. Their currencies might OFFICIALLY be backed by neither gold nor Dollars, but when they need to buy currency for another country, nine times out of ten they buy Dollars, then sell the Dollars to buy whatever currency they actually need. Or they just trade directly in Dollars. It's one of the benefits of having a de-facto empire. Pax Americana, and all that stuff.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606959)

Believe it or not, he actually looks like a gynecologist. (explanation unknown).

Oh well, could be worse, you could get huckabee, along with all the corporate corruption that he brings.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607359)

agreed the man is a little on the wacky side.

We need a real independent candidate.

this is a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606803)

f1rst post

Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sure) (4, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606815)

I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (1)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606853)

Ahhhh!! Sweet Vindication!

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (5, Interesting)

rednip (186217) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606935)

I've said it before, but to me, as a former Republican, Ron Paul represents the party which most people believe they are voting for when they vote Republican. Trouble is that if he actually won, he would try to implement their public platform rather than continue Bush's private one. Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (3, Informative)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607011)

Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).
McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607063)

good man fall, or just showing his true colors?

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607681)

Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).
McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall.
You should watch BBC's Why Democracy Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary on allegations of torture in US terrorist interrogation prisons. It repeatedly showed McCain arguing against the use of torture, and holding the military to account during hearings (it's not a pro-McCain documentary though, McCain was only mentioned a few times). They used it to make the point that if McCain, who was a Vietnam POW, doesn't think torture works he probably knows best.

The Slashdot Moderation Game (2, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607453)

With your official host: CaptainPatent!
Hello folks and welcome to today's second round of The Slashdot Moderation game where we take the long way of saying Mod Parent Down.
We've seen a lot of trolls, flamebaiters and thread hijackers today, but we work hard to only bring you the top-tier. Tonight's guest is explosivejared,
Explosive Jared writes:

I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming.
A great start, will this turn into an Ironic statement, a joke, an insightful look into Ron Paul... mystery is afoot and my attention is gathered!

He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run).
oh, we may have a problem. Bringing religion into a Slashdot debate is a hot topic. Maybe if you give us a link to these "god tests" you won't scare your audience away!

Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper.
Well, I don't quite understand you but it sounds like you just brought politics and religion together. Warning sir, you are headed for a mega-disaster. You may not be able to bail out of this one. For karma's sake say something witty, something intelligent, SOMETHING!

I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!
Wow... I was panicked too, but man, I think you cracked wide open on that one. I tried to help, but unfortunately your Karma was just swallowed by a nuclear reaction between religion and politics. While Slashdot is currently banning your fuzzy-ass to the underside of a bridge, I will invite you and everyone else to join us for another installment of...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!

it's not like people don't play dirty (5, Insightful)

crossmr (957846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606823)

but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606887)

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, but not really a serious contender that any other candidate would consider risking this sort of thing to blacken with this type of "dirty campaigning" label.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (3, Insightful)

crossmr (957846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607019)

Done through enough channels you wouldn't know if it was you, me or George Bush who paid them to do it. Just saying that things don't always seem as they appear especially in the spam world.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (4, Funny)

Aerion (705544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607585)

things don't always seem as they appear

... Yes, they do!

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607039)

"That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. "

I agree, but it seems like there is a lot of stuff going on behinds the scenes that keep him a small player.. rigged phone polls, microphone amplified ridicule at debates, online poll result skewing...

I don't know if you have seen a lot of the bruhaha about these types of things but there is definitely a grass roots movement behind Mr Paul who keep showing these types of inconsistencies...

Also he seems to be one of the ONLY candidates who is for radically smaller government, something all the other politicians and corporate sponsors definitely don't want...

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607325)

"rigged phone polls, microphone amplified ridicule at debates, online poll result skewing..." ...his insane Fortress America policies...

"Also he seems to be one of the ONLY candidates who is for radically smaller government, something all the other politicians and corporate sponsors definitely don't want..."

The politicians might, but the corporate sponsors definitely want smaller government. I mean, smaller government inevitably means less powerful government, which means power vaccuum, and guess who's going to fill that power vaccuum?

I'd like to see efficient government, personally. In some cases this means smaller government, in others, larger. Almost universally it means that strongarming and spying on regular citizens is a waste of resources.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (3, Insightful)

Nephilium (684559) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607355)

Not really true... most small corporations want smaller government in the areas of their field... while the bigger corporations want bigger government, with more barriers to entry to help protect themselves...

Nephilium

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607767)

No one will fill the vaccuum, corporations don't have any power, per se. They can only gain power by tapping on the government monopoly of law and its ability to tax. For this, they need a big and powerful government.

You talk about efficiency, but before even thinking about efficiency you should look at ethics. Government, large or small is unethical.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607133)

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me.

So who asked you? ;-)

Haven't you heard of "push polls"? I've been "polled" by at least three of them in the past year. They never will tell you who's paying them, either. But this story is just an "on the Internet" version of the same sort of dirty tricks. It's an old, old story.

Then there was my favorite trick: Soon after I moved to Boston in the early 80's, there was a local election in which one of the candidates had an Irish name that's very common in the area. Shortly before the deadline to register for the election, several other people with the same name registered for the same office. None of them campaigned. The fellow lost to the only other candidate that did campaign.

Of course, there are limits to that tactic. There probably aren't very many Americans named "Barack Obama". Or "Hillary Clinton", for that matter. ;-)

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607301)

[Ron Paul's political enemies buying pro-Ron Paul spam to hurt his campaign?] That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me.
A little? I'd say it's way out in tinfoil country. Spam makes big money because for a certain percentage of people, it works. Anyone hoping to damage the Ron Paul campaign in this way would have to weigh the odds of the spam increasing his support versus the chance that the news about the spam would reduce it. And as a few seconds thought shows, the first thing most people think is "oh, so some internet moron was spamming people with Ron Paul ads. I doubt his campaign had anything to do with it."
  So there's little chance people are going to say "GASP! Ron Paul ads came from a spammer! I bet Ron Paul himself paid the spammer out of his own pocket! Well that does it, I'm not voting for him now!" but there is a strong probability that some of the people getting the spam are the sort to acquire their opinions from their inbox, so the net result would be a boost to Ron Paul's numbers.

  You'd have to be an idiot who's only 3 pages into "Elections for Dummies" to think that tactic would do you any good. And really, why bother, when there's tried and true methods of rumor-mongering and push-polling and outright swift-boat lying to smear a candidate with.

  - mantar

(P.S. to "Libertarian" party supporters: Power corrupts. No matter who you vote for, the government gets in.)

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607513)

While I'm way too biased in favor of libertarians to be objective about this, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest another Republican was behind this. It's no secret that a lot of Republicans are livid about his candidacy and don't like being associated with him, and therefore would be glad to tarnish him, even if he has no chance of winning.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606955)

"crossmr"...

Aren't you one of those MORONIC wikipedians that define the world within your sad little existence of fiction? I think I'm going to have to have one of my many puppets visit your wiki page for a little "editing"...

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (4, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606997)

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

Gee, I hope they clear up this nasty business! I would hate to see it affect Ron Paul's chances of being elected President.

Joe Job (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607087)

Not much more to say...

-jcr

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607241)

Probably a mis-guided grass roots effort.

I see Ron Paul signs by my house that are bedsheets with spray paint hung from overpasses. I doubt the campaign is responsible for them either.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607267)

What? Impossible. Ron paul probably hung them himself and he should be arrested for causing a possible unsafe situation. Burn him, he's a witch!

I actually hate him as much as 90% of the people on the internet and am sick of seeing stories about him, but I'm also not much for drawing loose connections.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607643)

This certainly seems like a move directly from the Karl Rove playbook. I suspect whoever was responsible was a Republican, and I seriously doubt they were a Ron Paul supporter.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607247)

I don't know how anyone could be a geek on /. and not know that Ron Paul promotion is one of those viral web things that show up a lot on YouTube, random gaming sites, blogs, basically all over the place. If college kids all over the place are putting together grassroots advertising for Ron Paul, it's pretty obvious that this was some Ron Paul fan that also ran a botnet that got a really, really, bad idea on his own and ran with it. And the media is happy to portray it as coming from Ron Paul himself.

I mean, if some random Ron Paul supporter put together this site [thisnovember5th.com] , where completely grassroots fundraising raised $4.3 million in individual contributions, it's pretty obvious Ron Paul supporters are willing to do a lot on their own, without direction from the campaign. They're doing it again, shooting for $10 million more [teaparty07.com] on December 16th.

Vote Smart in 2008 (5, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607403)

About 61% of American voters [electionstudies.org] votes along party lines. Their attitude is, "I do not care whether the position is correct. If my party supports it, then I support it." Worse, within party primaries (like the ones that will begin soon in early 2008), voters tend to choose candidates based on gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. A candidate who can crack a witty joke during the debate can easily reel in millions of mindless voters.

Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.

Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.

Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] ". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607449)

If it were anyone but Ron Paul then I'd say yes. But Ron Paul isn't someone anyone in the political establishment really believes has any chance of winning. So why risk the chance of being caught setting such a smear campaign up to discredit a candidate who poses no real threat to begin with?

The likely culprits are people with no connection to either Ron Paul's campaign or any of his opponents. Either an over-enthusiastic supporter, or else someone with a chip on his shoulder about Ron Paul who wants to make him look bad. And I'm only considering the latter possibility because the "Well, Ron Paul voted against this, unlike everyone else, so he must be a great President!" phenomenon certainly annoys the crap out of me, and I'd imagine it does the same for others.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607535)

I heard that was once done with telemarketing candidates, maybe it was done more recently too. Where you get numerous annoying phone calls saying they are from candidate "A" when "B" paid for it in a ruse to get people pissed off at "A" to vote for "B" instead. The law moves so slowly that by the time it gets prosecuted, the election is done.

Wow. Just wow. (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606849)

Fascinating stuff. I'm on the edge of my seat! Politics at work, and all that. I've canceled all my entertainment appointments for the week just to follow this important issue.

big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606859)

Cause basing your currency on the pricing of a commodity is somehow more secure than the faith and trust of the government.

Cause never, ever, ever, in history has commodity pricing shifted very suddenly.

Great understanding of economics there, pal.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (1)

IonHand (646698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606967)

So I assume you got your eduction on econmics from the Deporatment of Education?

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607053)

Two of the most typo-filled posts in this discussion are by Ron Paul supporters. You are really making your man look reputable.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607069)

'cos I'm SURE those werent intentional misspellings...

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607139)

Cause basing your currency on the pricing of a commodity is somehow more secure than the faith and trust of the government.

Had a look at just how much the currency has been inflated since the Federal Reserve was established? For extra credit, can you tell us who benefits from inflation?

Great understanding of economics there, pal.

Ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"? Any idea what it refers to?

The gold and silver clause was written into the constitution because the framers had recent, painful experience with the dangers of fiat currency.

-jcr

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607673)

For extra credit, can you tell us who benefits from inflation?

People who are carrying a lot of debt benefit from inflation, shitbrain.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard (2, Informative)

Steve Baker (3504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607457)

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you're not, then have you ever heard of hyper-inflation? It happens -- usually when a government is heavily in debt and wishes to pay off its obligations by making lots of money. Not that that would ever happen here, after all, we're only something like 9 trillion in debt -- couch cushion change.

Unfortunately... (2, Insightful)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606879)

There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap.

On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.

Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the bills and policies of the government currently in power. It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21606985)

kids under the voteing age barely able to read and write operating botnets? sure this makes perfect sense.

Idiot.

Re:Unfortunately... (3, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606999)

To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

Why shouldn't it last 4 years - or longer - and cost a large fraction of the GNP. Civil wars do.

Republics are designed to model civil wars accurately enough that they can be "fought" to their conclusion without all that nasty dying, burning of crops and towns, and so on.

They do a good enough job of it (except for assasinations B-( ) that the US hasn't had to hold a full-scale civil war in well over a century (though there hace been a few small ones when the the elections were corrupted or a significant power group was disenfranchised and oppressed).

See the "Battle of Athens" for one example.

Re:Unfortunately... (1, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607153)

That wasn't really a civil war. A civil war is two factions fighting for control of a country, not one part of a country splitting off and being re-conquered by the other.

-jcr

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607569)

oh, so it takes an even dispersion of the opposing combatants across the "country" being fought for?

And to avoid be labeled a civil war, simply declare a portion of the country "independant"?

you sir are a fucking moron.

do you also convince yourself that you're not really taking a shower, but really a bath-lite?

here's a clue, you can jackoff with the words all you want, language is dynamic...but if it wasn't a civil war, there are no civil wars.

we'll just invent a new phrase for all of them, and move on, why you play with yourself.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607649)

What you say would only be true if the Confederacy didn't start raiding Union states. It ended up being a war where each side was trying to take over the other which is your definition of a civil war.

Funding only mega-corporations can provide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607029)

Ron Paul has raised tens of millions from over 30,000 individual donors averaging just over $100 per donation.

I'm with you on our 2-party duopoly sucking hard, but lots of us who are not web 2.0 crap flooders or spammers think Ron is a great hope for change (although a long-long shot) in American politics.

 

Re:Funding only mega-corporations can provide (2, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607765)

Not saying I endorse him or his policies, but Huckabee has raised only 2 million and is actually ahead in some poles. I don't know about you, but I want a president that can do the most with the least. If Huckabee could run the government with the same financial prudence he has shown in his campaign, that would be awesome. I expect with the rise in polls that will most likely change. He probably won't turn down the money from anyone. But, it sort of shows what could be done.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

coldmist (154493) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607189)

You know, speaking as an American here, it's only the big TV news channels and the big newspapers which are agonizing over the "election" already. Unless I hear about a debate and want to watch it, or see a headline on Drudge, I don't see much of it.

It's just the press feeding the press at this point. We (the average people) know this. It's just people outside the US might have a harder time filtering it out.

Re:Unfortunately... (3, Insightful)

GradiusCVK (1017360) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607251)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. First: Yes, I am a 22 year old pursuing a Master's degree (partially fitting your description of a "kiddie ... flooding the web 2.0 sites with Ron Paul crap"... however, I have not yet met another person fitting that description in any of the numerous groups I am a part of who support Ron Paul. Everyone I know is a middle-to-late age person with a steady job and a LOT to lose by electing the wrong person. They do NOT participate a lot on the web, but they DO participate a lot in the real-world activities that support RP... just check out the straw polls: the people participating there are the ones I am describing. Second: I agree it is EXTREMELY important to argue against the policies of those currently in charge... in addition to supporting the policies of those who are running for office. Even if we can't get the people we want elected, we can hopefully prevent the election of those we completely disagree with. However, I think that getting a person who we completely agree with elected is at least as important... how can you possibly disagree? It just doesn't make sense.

To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.
I'm sorry, but this statement is a contradication... you AGREE that campaigns should not be based almost entirely on money (like Romney and Giuliani) but on popular support (like Ron Paul, who HAPPENS to also have raised a lot of money from those people), but then go on to say you are sick of Ron Paul... Ron Paul is the ANSWER to our problems... I don't need to specify the reasons (90% of the intelligent commentators, especially on the web, could do this better than I can... if you want a reason, GOOGLE RON PAUL!). I agree that the 2008 election is basically a drain on one's energy and optimism, but THE EXCEPTION IS RON PAUL. Really, it seems that your statement is not internally consistent. Perhaps you should take a course in basic logic? FYI, 2+2=4, yes!=no, etc...

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

OctaviusIII (969957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607389)

Right, right: because Ron Paul isn't the best candidate in your opinion, but he is best in fact. Logically infallible fact.

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Insightful)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607307)

It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.

After you've elected your representatives, what they do is out of your hands; the only way you can change their behavior is to elect someone different next time. Therefore, agonizing over who to elect next time is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense if you live in a representative democracy. Worrying about day-to-day policies is pointless once you've made up your mind that you already don't like the current guys.

On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607481)

Unfortunately Canada sucks...

Re:Unfortunately... (3, Insightful)

OctaviusIII (969957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607491)

First, I should say that I'm an American that has lived in Canada for the past 6 years as a political science student, so I've been following Canadian politics for a while now. Basically, the current situation in the States is a bit like how it was in Canada after Chretien left office: nobody cared that much about Martin and they just wanted to get on to the next thing, but even that's a weak comparison when examined next to the perfect storm of the '08 presidential campaign.

This year, things started so soon because of profound discontent with the Bush Administration, states moving up their primary schedule, and a field that is generally seen as stronger than we've had the past two elections: Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Paul, Huckabee.... all are either popular and, at worst, competent. Compare this with the "least bad" votes we had in 2000 and 2004. Few were really excited about Gore, Bush or Kerry, and people are excited now.

As for the rest of the premise, that we don't care about legislation, I think that's somewhat true. Americans have gotten tired of Pres. Bush's voice (although I did just hear him pronounce "nuclear" correctly for the first time that I can remember); they strongly dislike Congress; and they don't like the partisan bickering that will dominate the next 13 months. Nothing's running smoothly in Washington, and we don't have a Harper to cut the legs out from an already weak opposition. Everyone, except the candidates, are weak, and we desperately want to hold onto someone strong.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607493)

I don't see what your political opinions have to do with a report "that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."

That's not the same as reporting 'Ron Paul campaign is behind spam' or even 'Ron Paul campaign accused of being behind spam.'

Your only relevant sentence is "There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap."

Why did you write the other two paragraphs? This is about spam and spammers. Not your view of politics, or your nationality.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607497)

But what will you do when every last American with any sense runs to your side of the border? (I'm saving up for the trip). Do you have any room left in Nunavut?

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607775)

Dude, there aren't that many of us. I'll pick you up on my way up there. Don't worry my car's a two seater, plenty of room.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

thedrunkensailor (992824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607507)

what you say is definitely true if we actually had power to change the current office or policies... i personally am banking on a change coming in the future

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607665)

> On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.

Don't worry, most Americans have been sick of the 2008 election since 2006, too.

The only people not sick of it are the few fanatics who form the base of "both" the Demoblican and Replicrat parties. The system is designed to drive all but the fanatics into ignoring the campaign -- thus ensuring the Party's control of not only the candidate selection process, but more importantly, (since anyone not a firm supporter of either the Demoblicans or the Replicrats stays out of politics until it's too late to enter the race) preventing the emergence of a "third" (second) party.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607753)

But it does make sanse that we spend four years worrying about who is elected President (albiet because the system we have is flawed). Once someone is elected, they can do almost anything they want and the voters won't have a choice. The only reason most politicians have for listening to the public is to appease them for future re-election. Notice how George Bush was more popular during his first term, but now that he can't run again his approval ratings are lower. Since no one can do anything about our current President and current policy, people spend all of their time hoping that the next President is better.

Another note, candidates don't need corporation-sized funding to get by. Ron Paul has raised over $8 million from private individuals.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?cycle=2008&id=N00005906 [opensecrets.org]

as I thought (1, Troll)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606889)

They've tracked down the spammer and the software and configuration used. It's all about email and nothing about Web polls, let alone text message polls. So can the lies about "spamming the polls" please stop now? Thanks FOX.

forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote (1)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606941)

Check this out: the San Francisco Republicans cancelled their straw poll because there were too many people ready to vote for Ron Paul: http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12183556 [kcrg.com] Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.

Re:forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote (1)

HardCase (14757) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607615)

Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.

In Florida. Read your own article:

The Florida Republican straw poll, held last Saturday, became increasingly chaotic as Paul supporters sparred with those of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney over the amount of votes individuals cast.

Though individuals were allowed to purchase up to ten voting tickets for $20 apiece, Paul supporters actively displayed their single tickets while Romney supporters reportedly cashed in multiple stubs.

Real world people (5, Informative)

NEOtaku17 (679902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606897)

I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...

Re:Real world people (4, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607025)

A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

Your vote does not carry a passion multiplier.

Re:Real world people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607157)

"One man with courage is a majority."
-Thomas Jefferson

Re:Real world people (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607185)

A tiny vocal minority

He has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.

-jcr

Re:Real world people (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607345)

Which only makes them more vocal, not any less of a minority.

Re:Real world people (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607581)

A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

It does matter in a country where the large majority of the elegible voters fail to vote. It especially matters when that "tiny minority" is comprised of a large majority of people who haven't voted in the past, or haven't voted in a long time. The number of people who are tired of politics as usual but are supporting Ron Paul is pretty astounding. The fact that the media needs to vilify his supporters in an attempt to stiffle the message goes to show the power of his candidacy. I wear a Ron Paul for President pin on my jacket. Every single person who has bothered to ask me who Ron Paul is has walked away with a favorable impression and committed to vote for him in the primary. Even some Democrats have said that although they aren't going to go Republican to vote in the primary, they do think his platform sounds better than what the Democrats have to offer.

I'm not going to go off the deep end and say that Ron Paul is going to win the nomination until after we see how he does in the early primary states. I think that what is going to happen is that he is going to come in a lot higher than the media is giving him credit for.

Great, more anti women supporters. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607041)

You HAVE read his voting record, right?

Re:Great, more anti women supporters. (2, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607205)

Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.

-jcr

Re:Real world people (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607055)

Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
The problem is, very few of those "free thinkers" will take the time to actually vote, and the few that do will vote the "lesser of two evils". Unfortunately, he majority of campus voters will be "young Republicans".

Re:Real world people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607331)

Bots like you and me. We are just Internet bots like all Ron Paul supporters are. We are ugly geeks that don't have a life and are writing something on /. instead of being outside on the streets driving fast cars, selling drugs and pimping hoes like all the normal American kids do.
Just watch MTV, for God's sake!

I am just an Internet bot. But I am not a Republican bot, I am a Democrat bot, even worse...

Re:Real world people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21607601)

Well, stop and think it over. Do I see 100 posts per day online defending the fact that yes, indeed, there are Obama, Hillary, and Kucinich supporters? No, the rest of them are plainly evident. But everywhere I go in the physical world, there are ZERO RP supporters (and I was AT Arizona State), and everywhere I look online, I see hundreds of forum posts by brand new accounts on every website assuring me that the entire world, including the dogs and cats and rocks and trees and amoebas, is unanimously and enthusiastically in support of RP.

Call it the L. Ron Paul Hubbard effect. This year's Ross Perot.

Its OK, Bots can vote too! (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607603)

Just hook the botnet up to Diebold machines and you can do away with pesky human voters.

Maybe its form of spammer lobbying (3, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606913)

I mean, if I were operating a botnet and sending out spam, and I wanted to protect my business interests I'd vote Ron Paul.

Not that Ron Paul is 'pro botnets' or anything absurd like that, but his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model than nanny-states and government-monitoring of all communications.

If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?

Spammer lobbying for property rights (2, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607599)

...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model...
Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.

What was being spammed? (4, Funny)

Sensi (64510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21606921)

What was the content of the spam? Was it spamming Diggs for Ron Paul articles, comment spam, or did everyone get emails promising if you vote Ron Paul your dick gets bigger?

minor point (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607009)

Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product.

IN the US as I understand the pertinent federal laws.

Re:minor point (3, Interesting)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607441)

Political spam *IS* trying to sell a product. They are trying to buy your vote. I know this is a little pedantic, but they are selling themselves and, therefore, qualify as spam.

Re:minor point (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607777)

What about using a botnet? Is that okay if it is for political use?

russian origin (3, Informative)

Newton IV (666922) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607319)

That's interesting because Nenastnyj means something like "cloudy weather man" in Russian.

Eh? what about the donations? (4, Funny)

TekGnos (624334) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607419)

So what about all of the donations coming into Ron Pauls website? Spam as well? If so, I want some of that spam in my inbox!!

Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Yurka (468420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21607633)

I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?