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!

Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the since-you-can't-build-robo-reagan dept.

Republicans 1481

A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.

cancel ×

1481 comments

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

Ron Paul? (5, Funny)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290324)

No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?

Re:Ron Paul? (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290360)

What's the big deal with Ron Paul? And what kind of libertarian votes?

Re:Ron Paul? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290808)

What's the big deal with Ron Paul? And what kind of libertarian votes?
Ron Paul isn't running as a Libertarian, he's on the the Republican ticket. That's what the big deal is. Malda is as guilty of media bias Fox News, CNN and all the rest. Congrats, Rob. You've managed to sell out and join the mainstream media. Isn't that something you swore you'd never do when you started Slashdot way back when?

Re:Ron Paul? (2, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290362)

You sound confused.. This is for discussion of candidates who having a chance of winning the nomination.

Re:Ron Paul? (5, Insightful)

dlsmith (993896) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290388)

By that standard, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant, too.

Re:Ron Paul? (4, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290514)

Polls a few days ago showed Huckabee leading in a few southern states. Granted, it's highly unlikely that he'll carry enough to actually do anything.... but he's splitting the conservative vote with Romney and handing the nomination to McCain in the process. Paul is not affecting this race.

Huckabee? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290600)

Huckabee is a creation of the media. Look at his donation totals plus after IOWA they stopped plastering his face everywhere and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.

Re:Ron Paul? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290412)

Then why include Huckabee?

Re:Ron Paul? (1, Insightful)

kabloom (755503) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290526)

Because Huckabee won some primaries.

Seriously, somebody's got to mod all of these Ron Paul complaints -1 REDUNDANT. Not that I have anything against the discussion of his merits, but these aren't posts about his merits. There's like a thousand people here who all posted the same complaint that he wasn't included in the summary, and that's it.

Re:Ron Paul? (2, Insightful)

SpartacusJones (848951) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290684)

Some? As in more than one? Which ones?

Re:Ron Paul? (4, Insightful)

Helmholtz (2715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290782)

Actually, the post says "...discuss the best presidential candidates...". Granted, you may define "best" as having a chance of winning the nomination, as judged by your personal criteria. Perhaps other people define "best" differently, such as a candidate that actually talks about _why_ the current policies are not working and _why_ his policy recommendations will help to fix the problems caused by the current (and past) policies. I consider that kind of candidate to be "best". Much more so than ones that seem to be more concerned about keeping the mentos tooth sparkle at full gleam, while their sycophants kiss their glove.

Re:Ron Paul? (5, Insightful)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290682)

It's a ploy by the slashdot editors. By omitting Ron Paul, they ensure he's the only one people will talk about.

Ron Paul? (0, Redundant)

mc moss (1163007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290326)

Why not Paul?

Re:Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290418)

Beacuse the slashdot overlords decreed so?

Re:Ron Paul? (1, Insightful)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290578)

Another fine example of how the media is trying to decide for us who we should vote for. By not providing full and equal coverage of all the candidates they are able to influence the massive flock of mindless sheep who the best person for the job is.

Re:Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290708)

I agree. I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul on Tuesday.

Typical! (0, Redundant)

Svippy (876087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290340)

Yeah, why should we not mention Ron Paul? So much for "freedom of speech". Apparently this is not Finland.

Re:Typical! (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290452)

Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!

Fucking moron.

Re:Typical! (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290540)

Freedom of speech applies to the government, not Slashdot. You are free to open your own discussion forum with its own rules.

That said, I don't see Slashdot censoring any of the asinine Ron Paul comments, so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind.

hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290344)

When did Ron Paul drop out?

dare i fill the shoes of a spam bot? (0, Redundant)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290350)

I thought Ron Paul was still in the race?

Re:dare i fill the shoes of a spam bot? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290606)

I thought Ron Paul was still in the race?

He is. Rudy Giuliani put him on the map. ;-)

-jcr

Re:dare i fill the shoes of a spam bot? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290652)

He says he's still in the race - that does not make it so. Alan Keyes is under the same delusion.

Seriously, Ron Paul MIGHT have 6 delegates. Maybe. How does that make him "in the race"?

3 ... (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290352)

I 3 Huckabee.

Wait...

I fear Huckabee. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290426)

Huckabee makes me nervous; he sounds like a dominionist [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I fear Huckabee. (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290498)

After 2 terms of Bush Jnr, I'm kind of hoping Americans have learned their lesson and will vote more wisely and that includes not voting for a president whose name is perilously close to hick - I can imagine more than one or two people slipping up and calling him president Hickabee.

Re:I fear Huckabee. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290580)

I'm kind of hoping Americans have learned their lesson and will vote more wisely and that includes not voting for a president whose name is perilously close to hick - I can imagine more than one or two people slipping up and calling him president Hickabee.
I call him "Schmuckabee", and I suspect that he'll win the primary and get a respectable chunk of the popular vote as long as he keeps up the God talk and doesn't get caught soliciting gay sex in a public crapper. Unfortunately, too many Americans are willing to vote for anybody who claims to be a Christian and hasn't gotten caught having extramarital sex.

This should be settled (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290356)

By a slashdot post-off, with the entire party submitting to the first poster.

This isn't a poll, so I can complain about options (0, Redundant)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290358)

No Ron Paul?

Terrible.

Re:This isn't a poll, so I can complain about opti (1, Redundant)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290720)

Actually, by omitting him from the list, Taco ensured that nearly all of the discussion would be about Ron Paul.

Thanks, Cmdr Taco!

-jcr

My candidate is not allowed? (0, Redundant)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290368)

He's running on the Republican ticket.

I plan to vote for him in the Republican primary in my state.

But you've specifically disallowed his mention in the Best Candidates - Republican thread?

Quite an oversight, CmdrTaco. I would have expected better of you than of the typical CNN/Fox News media that have done their best to ignore him. I expected that from them. But from you? The one candidate that most values our freedoms? You specifically forbid us from discussing him?

*That* is lame.

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (4, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290460)

ENOUGH with the Ronulans...

Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.

He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.

I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290566)

Ron Paul has a fanatical support base

More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.

-jcr

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (2, Informative)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290584)

Hmmm... 2nd in Nevada and Louisianna.... Nah that's not strong support.... not to mention Roe of Roe V Wade endorsement, now that she is a pro-life advocate, American Conservative magazine endorsement, Barry Goldwater endorsement, Mark Larsen (Talk Radio - Florida) endorsement, and after Mark had a conversation with Romney which resulted in him calling Romney an elitist F*..... And second, you are annoyed by the supporters who agree with him, but choose to discredit him because of this? Damn how easy it is to not have any conviction and sell out... My God, If enough of us loved your mom you would probably want her crucified....

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (4, Funny)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290594)

Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!

Re: You need to RTFA more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290758)

Quote="However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits"

Hmmmm, IOWA, MAINE, NEVADA, Louisiana that is just off the top of my head. He has gotten Double DIGITS TONS. More states than Huckabee has or Fred Thompson and especially more than that FRINGE candidate Giuliani. There is this thing called the internet where you can read results of ACTUAL voting before you insert your foot in your mouth.

Ask yourself, IF George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were alive today. WHO would they vote for?

Quote="Crazy ideas"
Yeah the Constitution, REAL CRAZY. Thomas Jefferson called and he wants to Bitch Slap your momma for calling him a nutbag!

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290784)

Some states do Caucus' instead of Primaries. Your information is also incorrect. Maybe you should look into why people are excited about this candidate that was considered the long shot, and has so far beat out most the front runners. Not bad for a guy that got the least amount of face time. Check your facts though.

Re:My candidate is not allowed? (4, Informative)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290814)

>However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.

He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote [yahoo.com] . He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason.

He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates.

What about Ron Paul? (0, Offtopic)

robhall (148301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290370)

Not that I'm a huge fan but if I had to vote for a Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul.

Re:What about Ron Paul? (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290570)

Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:

Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.

(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)

Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only? (0, Offtopic)

KIngo (168933) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290376)

Did Ron Paul drop out?

Re:Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only? (2, Funny)

boisepunk (764513) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290530)

The vocal minority was snubbed by reality. Deal with it.

Ron Paul ftw (0, Offtopic)

pilotlicense (930170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290380)

I agree! Ron Paul ftw!

Incoming Flamewar in 5... (1, Offtopic)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290390)

You had to leave Ron Paul out of the summary so all of his insane, techie fans could turn this thread into a giant flamewar, right? Right?

Incoming "Media Bias Against Ron Paul" anger in 5... 4...

What about Paul? (0, Offtopic)

Reinfire (1095379) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290396)

You do realise that Ron Paul IS on the Ballot? He may not be very likely to win, but, by those criteria, Huckabee shouldn't be discussed either.

For Reps: McCain (4, Interesting)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290424)

Huckabee - Caters to the religious nuts - no way.

Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.

McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.

Re:For Reps: McCain (3, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290762)

I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness

If you like what McCain says, then you'll love Ron Paul's voting record.

-jcr

Re:For Reps: McCain (4, Insightful)

jdunn14 (455930) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290764)

There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture. It's nice to hear someone just flat out say torture is bad and we shouldn't be doing it. Don't hem and haw about how what is torture and what isn't. <nancy>Just say no</nancy>. It doesn't get you reliable information and it's kind of hard to hold moral high ground with some guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room.

Re:For Reps: McCain (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290822)

There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture.

Man, talk about a low bar to clear...

-jcr

Those candidates are lame (0, Flamebait)

namulator (884638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290430)

What is up with that?... Come on people. Ron Paul!! He needs more attention. Which candidate wants to get rid of the IRS? Which candidate wants to bring the troops back ASAP? Which candidate wants to abolish the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor reserve)? Who wants to restore the republic, and the constitution? Who wants to stop policing the world? Come on, there is really only one good candidate... And that is RON PAUL!! Vote for McCain, and you'll probably be in another new war within the year. I think that was very low to limit the discussion of candidates. What happened to freedom of speech, expression, and the PEOPLE choosing their president?

Re:Those candidates are lame (0, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290534)

Which candidate will never, ever be elected? Ron Paul. Discussion of this lost candidate is pointless.

The people are not choosing Ron Paul... (1)

dpjax (1232830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290592)

you'll get further clarification tomorrow.

Re:Those candidates are lame (1)

Reinfire (1095379) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290602)

He also wants to abolish the Department of Education. I don't know about you, but I don't want the responsibility of my children's education going to the lowest bidder.

Re:Those candidates are lame (4, Insightful)

Helmholtz (2715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290694)

Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.

Re:Those candidates are lame (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290768)

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I can't really object to the department of education going away. Until very recently, no money actually flowed from the department of education to schools - and now that it does, you have nothing but complaints from teachers and parents. Even the supporting democrats of "No Child Left Behind" have run from it (Ted Kennedy).

Unless there is a specific need for such a department, what is the purpose of keeping it? At the very least it needs to be completely re-thought.

Indeed! I've been brainwashed! (2, Funny)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290622)

He needs more attention.

After my post above, I saw all the Ron Paul posts. WTF is my problem! - I'm not being sarcastic either!

That's our media for you - /. included! All I see on Yahoo, Google, and radio, (No TV anymore) are the above candidates for Republican. And when you consider that I pass a huge billboard for Paul all the time, I'm pathetic! I've been brainwashed by the media into thinking there's only 3 (Three) Rep candidates.

We as a country are in sorry shape if I'm the norm!

Ron Paul? (1, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290454)

The discussion about Ron Paul on the internet is very interesting. It seems Ron Paul fans are not fans of Occam's Razor, as many seem to think there's some massive conspiracy keeping Ron Paul away from the public discussion, when there's a far simpler explanation - he's not going to win - he's not even going to get close to being chosen, so any discussion about this losing horse is wasted effort. Normal "what about Ron Paul??!?!??" service resumed in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Ron Paul? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290598)

But we all know the race is going to be between Obama and Romney. Hillary and McCain are early front runners who will run out of steam in the back stretch.

Why bother discussing anyone besides these two canidates?

Re:Ron Paul? (4, Insightful)

nido (102070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290608)

he's not even going to get close to being chosen
Last I checked, Maine [cnn.com] came out with 56% for Romney, 21% for McCain, and 19% for Paul.

McCain should hang his head in shame and drop out right now. 2% better than the dark horse candidate? That's pathetic.

The establishment hates Ron Paul because his platform is to take their toys away. The economic collapse we are now experiencing makes the likelyhood of Paul running away with the Republican nomination increasingly likely as spring turns to summer.

 

Re:Ron Paul? (1)

DCGaymer (956987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290786)

LOL...if this were digg I totally would have dugg your comment. I feel sorry for the Paulettes. What happen to them when political reality comes crashing in. They've been working to elect the unelectable rather than working to change the obvious choices.

Ron Paul? (0, Redundant)

somecoder (252793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290462)

The last I checked, he is in this race as a republican, has raised more money than Huckabee, and just beat him in the Maine caucuses.

"Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers."
-Ron Paul

Yeah, why disqaulify Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290468)

I'm not interested in discussing anyone but Ron Paul. For me the campaign is Ron Paul VS Other. I will vote for Ron Paul, period. I choose Ron Paul over Other. End of story.

I'm disgusted with CmdrTaco for buying into the corporate fascist mentality. Congratulations, you just lost whatever credibility you ever had. I'm tempted to stop reading Slashdot entirely.

Re:Yeah, why disqaulify Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290596)

I'm tempted to stop reading Slashdot entirely.


Please do. And while you're at it; can you stop posting too?

Ron Paul (0, Redundant)

CooKiEz (542990) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290470)

Huckabee is nuts: http://youtube.com/watch?v=D08Dq_iNMRk [youtube.com]

McCain knows jack shit about politics. He was asked an economics question in the last FL debate by RP and couldn't answer it.

Romney is a freaking warhawk.

Ron Paul is the only valid candidate.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290664)

You're complaining that one candidate is nuts, and another knows jack shit about politics, but you're saying Ron Paul is the only valid candidate?

old, mormon or bible thumper...hard choice. (1)

dpjax (1232830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290474)

one might die of old age in office one is a mormom (golden tablets - need I say more) one wants to edit the constitution to his religious beliefs I thought Ron Paul was running for president of the internet against Al Gore?

I'm voting for Ron Paul (0, Offtopic)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290482)

He is the only candidate who defends Federalism.

He's still in (3, Insightful)

SwansonMarpalum (521840) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290486)

Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.

Ron Paul (5, Insightful)

Speedy8 (594486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290508)

I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.

Pro and Cons (5, Informative)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290522)

McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents

Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)

Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President

Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image

Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")

Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right

Clarification (5, Insightful)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290528)

Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?

The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*

Gun Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290546)

If you are in favor of strict gun control, vote for McCain:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm [gunowners.org]

If you don't want the constitution swept under the table with your guns, then vote for someone else.

Two halves (1)

Tilzs (959354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290556)

The Ron Paul half and the non Ron Paul half.

Vote for Ron Paul (-1, Troll)

sgtron (35704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290574)

Fuck these choices, those other 3 idiots are idiots. Ron Paul is the clear choice.

McCain FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290576)

First off, for those of you spouting Ron Paul nonsense, either you're mildly insane or have clearly not read more in depth about what the man really wants. Secondly, Romney gets flustered over someone asking him about his religion... which he can't explain with words other than "you're misinterpreting that"... how will he hold up in a much graver and serious situation? McCain sits more middle of the road and is clearly the only solid choice at this point.

To all those complaining about Ron Paul (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290588)

Look. Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas...abolishing the drug war, his tech policy, etc...but come on. You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose. I'm all for getting government out of our lives as much as possible, but he is a complete loon.

I know, I know...the "he is going too far" label tends to be applied to revolutionary thinkers whose ideas just aren't ready to be accepted by the masses. I have nothing against "different thinkers"...I like that in a person. I would agree that he is just ahead of his time if many of his ideas weren't based entirely in a fantasy world.

Like I said, I'm all for getting the government out of our lives as much as possible, but what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom. Who knows, maybe that is what we need...I just don't think that we need it in the way that Ron Paul is proposing that we do.

Re:To all those complaining about Ron Paul (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290670)

You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose.

Not for me to deny it, it's your assertion so it's up to you to prove it. Give it your best shot.

what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom.

Resuming the rule of law, and actually following the constitution is "restructuring the entire nation"? I'll admit we've got a lot of things to fix, but I don't see that our situation is quite as hopeless as you seem to.

-jcr

Re:To all those complaining about Ron Paul (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290818)

Resuming the rule of law, and actually following the constitution is "restructuring the entire nation"? I'll admit we've got a lot of things to fix, but I don't see that our situation is quite as hopeless as you seem to.


Perhaps I was a bit too strong...still, while I agree with many of his ideas (ending the Patriot Act, Drug War, returning many decisions back to the states) there is just something about him I don't like...most likely, he really is the way that he presents himself and is a patriot and just wants his country to get back on track. I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us.

See? Things are so bad that even when a politician says what I want to hear (and in a sincere way), I still can't trust him.

Ron Paul is my Choice (2, Insightful)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290618)

Ignoring the missing option like we do in the Slashdot polls all the time..

Ron Paul I think is the best choice because it would be a return to someone who actually thinks that the Constitution is relevant to today as much as it was 200 years ago. He also wants smaller government, less intrusion into our privacy, bring the troops home and stop our "police the world" policies of interventionism. Yes, some of his supporters are a bit odd and can be zealot at times, but there are many others who are normal people who support someone who sticks up for their positions (just look at his voting record over 10-terms - he does not waver from supporting the constitution!).

Huckabee (1)

seanfast (980924) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290630)

would never get my vote. I'm sorry, I agree the religion of a candidate should not influence your vote. But their religious beliefs certainly can and should. Any person who doesn't believe in evolution, and that we are sitting on a planet that is only 6000 years old, doesn't have the proper mental capacity for reason and logic that I want in my next president.

On that matter, neither does a current president who believes, "the jury is still out on evolution."

There is no such thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290642)

As modern-day Presidential Candidates go.... voters are stuck with choosing the greater of two evils, none of which can be called "Best". No sane and educated person would subject themselves to the rabid and vicious environment that is the USA Presidential Election process. Candidates certainly aren't doing it for the $$, so why are they running?

While I believe Ron Paul should not be in the list (1)

dasbush (1143709) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290644)

It may have been a good idea to leave him in to prevent the discussion from completely revolving around him anyway. Then again, it probably would revolve around him no matter what. This being the internet and all...

sEVOLashdot (0, Offtopic)

e03179 (578506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290646)

sEVOLashdot

Question about McCain (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290650)

When did he get his jaw wired shut? And will it be unwired before the election? Sure makes him sound funny.

Huckabee's faith-based approach is refreshing (3, Funny)

victorvodka (597971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290656)

I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.

Viable... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290680)

...please only discuss the viable republican candidates in this story.

Mitt Romney (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290686)

He's the only Republican left, running. And who gives a flying rat fart if he's Mormon. It's quite unAmerican to put him to a religious test.

Taco is pulling a Dvorak here... (2, Interesting)

frankie (91710) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290688)

He obviously left out Ron Paul to get a rise out of the large libertarian contingent of /.ers. And it worked! IOW, YHBT, HAND.

I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week, but let's face facts. He's not going to win, and votes for him are valuable only as an indicator of dissent. He has good views on war, small government, and the Constitution, but he's also a creationist wacko, plus either a lying racist or so atrociously lazy and irresponsible about reading papers before signing them that it's hard to trust him.

Unless a vast number of voters in Super Tuesday states have been systematically lying to pollsters, it's going to McCain vs Clinton. So, will Ann Coulter do what she promised, and campaign for Hillary?

See also: Who's Nuttier: Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts? [wired.com]

The US bizarre fascination for religion in politic (5, Insightful)

Etyenne (4915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290710)

I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.

In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?

Should be Paul, but I will vote for McCain (1)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290712)

I really have liked Ron Paul's ideas. He speaks to ideas and concepts that we all have hold in our hearts... Unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to be the candidate to beat Obama/Clinton. Those two loons are dangerous to our liberties. McCain is closer to meeting my ideals. He is a straight shooter and does what he says. I do not like people who want to hang themselves on the cross (Huckabee or Romney). This is not a theocracy.

We can't discuss Ron Paul? I wish I were dead. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290716)

Not because we can't discuss him, but I've got other problems in my life.

Ron Paul is the best candidate (0, Redundant)

beatmania (1136353) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290732)

Talks about and swears by the constitution. Thinks that free markets and true freedom will lead to prosperity. So do I, and lots and lots of other people. Fuck Romney, McCain, Huckabee. More government is bad, mmkay? Can't you see this...? Ron Paul is who I'm voting for, and you should be ashamed of yourself for excluding his name. You're as bad as Fox News and CNN. Die in a fire.

Dupe! (1)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290734)

Dupe... oh wait...

Ron Paul is out, time for Huckabee (1)

kevgaxxana (1197617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290742)

he never had a chance to begin with, the obvious choice then is Huckabee, because he will treat people like they should be treated. Christans, as a general rule, will treat most people like they are equals.

Ron Paul is an idiot (0, Flamebait)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290744)

I'll bite, since you're obviously waiting for this...

The only people voting for Ron Paul are internet bots. His rating is so low it could actually be caused by the polling margin of error. The guy is a joke and his platform is a joke. I doubt he could garner more votes even running as a Democrat (which is what he should have done).

As for all the so-called people voting for Ron Paul: his ratings show how marginalized your views are. If you'd spend half the time and money you did on Ron Paul on Human Rights issues in the middle-east you would have actually made more of a difference in the world. Everyone is tripping over themselves trying to show they hate their government more than everyone else (apparently it's the "in" thing to do nowadays), and not just in the US. Meanwhile billions of women are being oppressed in the Islamic world and millions of them are being raped and killed in Darfur. What is being done about it? Nothing. Why? Because it's easier to criticize a government that won't bash your skull in then do the *real* work of criticizing middle-eastern dictatorships and make a difference where it counts. Anti-war activists say they're against war but their actions actually ensure that wars will get worse in the future. Yesterday they were protecting Saddam Hussein's right to torture his people. Today they are protecting Iran's right to wipe out Israel using nuclear weapons. Who knows what wonderful policy they'll dream up of tomorrow :) I'm not necessarily advocating a gun-ho approach to the world, but I note with cynicism that no leftist group has tried toppling these governments before the US did. Like I said, it's much easier for them to criticize governments that won't bash their skulls in.

In 2003, when Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested, raped and then beaten to death in Iran where was the public outcry? How can you spend a week making noise about Zahra Kazemi and *years* making noise about the US government? That's not advocating Human Rights!

I really hope Romney pulls it off (1, Insightful)

footNipple (541325) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290754)

Professionally and intellectually, Mitt Romney is probably the most qualified presidential candidate the US has had in over a century. I'd have to hit the history books to figure out since when.

I say this because my group/company had done quite a bit of consulting work with Bain Capital many years ago. Having sat in a couple of meetings and presentations with him, and looking at what he has accomplished, I have a high degree of confidence in his ability and sincerity.

As for Mormonism: Well, it's not my cup of tea, but I've NEVER met a Mormon I didn't like :-)

I'm not voting... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290760)

...but that might be because I'm not American and not in America.

I'm not sure that I'd vote anyway, both parties seem as bad as each other.

Make more than a million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290788)

I'm so confused about how Ron Paul got his base. Surely, no one that's posted in favor of this dude here on Slashdot makes more than a million dollars a year so why do these folks continue to support him? All you have to do is listen to the dude talk and realy dive into his views to understand he's about zero government regulation. This guy fully supports robber barrons and all the evil that DOES TEND TO HAPPEN with little federal regulation. Humans are bad, local governments are bad, and without proper oversight this country will go to hell with the rich getting richer and the poor getting screwed. Ron Paul is George W. Bush on steroids. The only difference is that Ron Paul will keep the war in the states, and not in Iraq.

"None of the above" (3, Insightful)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290796)

Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.

And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.

The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.

*Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?

Ron Paul Filter (2, Funny)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290800)

I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>