posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:44AM
Then there's the following, where they claim that these evil "collectivists" want to limit "private property rights on the internet" and are saying that "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded." Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, you would think that the two of them understood how copyright law is massively abused and how beneficial the public domain is. But apparently not. To them it's all part of this "collectivist" plot. Earth to the Pauls: copyright is a massive government-granted monopoly privilege. That's the kind of thing we thought you were against, not for. In this document, you seem to be arguing for one of the largest programs in the world of a centralized government handing out private monopoly privileges.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:48AM
> Reading the link, it appears that no, the Rands aren't copyright maximalists.
> ...
> "what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded."
No, you have that backwards. That is not one of their tenets, it is a belief they are criticizing. They want to do the reverse of that.
Here's the manifesto itself [campaignforliberty.org] (unpublished at the time the linked articles were written).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:00PM
Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy, and intellectual property.
Yes, "intellectual property" (a propaganda term) is truly an example of the free market at work.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:03PM
What is your preferred term?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:25PM
I prefer to speak about whatever is under discussion, whether that be copyrights, patents, or trademarks. The term "intellectual property" makes it seem as if it is similar to real property, but this is mere propaganda designed to confuse those that haven't researched the matter (the general public).
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:48PM
The term "intellectual property" makes it seem as if it is similar to real property
Which is an accurate thing to say.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:23PM
Real property is both rivalrous and excludable. Intellectual property is not.
The entire concept of capitalism rests on those two characteristics of property.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:20AM
Real property is both rivalrous and excludable.
Except when it's not, of course. A sign, for example, is real property, but use by someone doesn't prevent use by others (hence, is not rivalrous) nor is it excludable, if it happens to be in public view. And it's worth noting the obvious that a lot of intellectual property is both rivalrous and excludable. I can't just go write my own Lord of the Rings sequel and profit from it like the Tolkien estate could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:52AM
Where's the -1 Dense as Dogshit mod option when you need it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:03PM
To recap this thread, an earlier AC poster claimed that "intellectual property" was a propaganda term because it wasn't "similar" to real property. I merely note that IP is real property for obvious reasons. Why argue something that with a little thought you can see is false? There is no point to the argument.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:14AM
The meaning of the sign is neither rivalrous nor excludable, in the same way the red color in your car is neither rivalrous nor excludable to others. The object (sign in one case, car in the other) is rivalrous and excludable.
As for intellectual property being rivalrous and excludable, I think you are wrong: Just by writing your Lord of the Rings sequel you haven't taken anything away from Tolkien state. You could theoretically harm it by distributing your sequel, but even that is dubious (see fanfic, for example, or how modern covers also increase sales of old songs) and that reasoning is a dangerous path in its own way: An argument that your sequel harms Tolkien state's sequels could be used likewise in other industries to quite over the top results, like from an automaker about other automakers (by making good cars they harm my chances to sell my average cars!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @09:40AM
The meaning of the sign is neither rivalrous nor excludable
The correct term here is "use" not "meaning". We thus eliminate your first argument.
As for intellectual property being rivalrous and excludable, I think you are wrong: Just by writing your Lord of the Rings sequel you haven't taken anything away from Tolkien state.
First, note that I will subject to lawsuits from the Tolkien estate which can have a penalty large enough that I can't profit from the endeavor. That creates the rivalrous and excludable nature of this particular copyright. Focusing on the degree of harm that my efforts can cause, is a different matter than consideration of whether something is effectively property or not.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:58AM
A sign is useless unless there's and associated meaning to it like "Stop", "Emergency exit" or "Beware of the dog" for example, but given that you are dismissing the whole argument with just a reference to incorrect use of terms I think you are just deflecting the matter entirely, and that your debating process seems to contain little sportmanship.
So your argument is that it is property because the law says so, and the law must say so because it is property. I detect a small chicken and egg problem...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @11:05AM
but given that you are dismissing the whole argument with just a reference to incorrect use of terms I think you are just deflecting the matter entirely, and that your debating process seems to contain little sportmanship.
It's not my job to think for you. The problem here is that you need to up your game. Come up with a reasoned argument that can't be dismissed so easily.
So your argument is that it is property because the law says so, and the law must say so because it is property. I detect a small chicken and egg problem...
The law exists so the chicken and egg problem is resolved.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @12:52PM
I've already presented an argument and you dismissed it solely because for you the correct term is "use" and not "meaning", so I rest my case. I'm not going to change it just because you don't like my words. You are not debating, you are just trolling.
No, it's not, it's just a statement of fact (the law exists) and not a rational cause for the existence of such property (IP). Otherwise, slavery should still be legal, since there was a law that said that some people were property and so it wasn't correct to abolish it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @01:12PM
I've already presented an argument and you dismissed it solely because for you the correct term is "use" and not "meaning", so I rest my case.
And you rest your case why? My point destroys your argument. A sign's meaning is in its use which is what I've been speaking of all along.
No, it's not, it's just a statement of fact (the law exists) and not a rational cause for the existence of such property (IP).
Exactly. Chicken and egg is resolved when the fact of either's existence is determined. Since the law exists, the chicken and egg problem is resolved.
I really don't get what you are trying to argue here. The issues you brought up have been trivial and uninteresting.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @01:55PM
Then follow up and show how the use of the sign is rivalrous or excludable. Unless you show how it can be, you haven't destroyed anything, just nitpicked about words.
Since you seem to be so away from the discussion, I'll use an schematic:
You (in response to an AC): "And it's worth noting the obvious that a lot of intellectual property is both rivalrous and excludable. I can't just go write my own Lord of the Rings sequel and profit from it like the Tolkien estate could."
Me: "You creating a sequel wouldn't deprive Tolkien state of its belongings, so it doesn't fit the nature of property"
You: "The fact that Tolkien state would sue me creates the rivalrous and excludable nature. Also, focusing on the degree of harm that my efforts can cause, is a different matter than consideration of whether something is effectively property or not."
Me: "So you are justifying IP with the argument because the law says so"
You: "Yes"
Me: "That's not a justification, that's just a statement of current law. It could be used to justify anything, as long as somebody gets to put it in a law".
You: "Since the law exists, the matter is resolved"
Both me and the AC don't need you to know that IP is in the law. What both are arguing is if it should exist at all, given its radically different nature from physical property and that any similarity is brought by enforcement of arbitrary rules to cause scarcity in what would otherwise be an infinitely available good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:01AM
Then follow up and show how the use of the sign is rivalrous or excludable.
I already stated at the beginning that it wasn't. In other words, we have real property which isn't rivalrous or excludable in its intended use. That was the whole point of my example.
Both me and the AC don't need you to know that IP is in the law. What both are arguing is if it should exist at all, given its radically different nature from physical property and that any similarity is brought by enforcement of arbitrary rules to cause scarcity in what would otherwise be an infinitely available good.
So what? You just acknowledged that IP is at the least similar to real property due to these rules (which aren't arbitrary BTW). And property as a whole tends to require a lot of rules in order to exist. Most people can't maintain their own bands of thugs to protect their property from all the other bands of thugs. To create property and other "civil rights" one needs some sort of "arbitrary rules" and sufficiently negative consequence to breaking those rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:18PM
Dense as dogshit is right.
Even if your specious logic were actually a coherent proof that a sign is not rivalrous or excludable ... at best you've found a minor corner case that says nothing about the general case. No economist in the world would agree with your side of the argument. Assburgers does not make you good at understanding economics because economics is a field of psychology.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:02AM
Even if your specious logic were actually a coherent proof that a sign is not rivalrous or excludable ...
Which it is for its normal use. Hence, why I used it as an example.
at best you've found a minor corner case that says nothing about the general case
A corner case which happens to be considered real property and which is really common in today's societies. A person who isn't blind or living on their own in deep wilderness can't go a day without running into a number of such signs.
No economist in the world would agree with your side of the argument.
I don't need their agreement, I just need to be right.
Assburgers does not make you good at understanding economics because economics is a field of psychology.
Economics isn't a field of psychology. Psychology shares some aspects with economics, but you are attempting to anthropomorphize economics. I can come up with a number of economics examples from the natural world, such as pollination or carcass feeding which usually don't involve humans and hence, for which psychology (of the traditional human-oriented sort) is of very limited usefulness in discussing the motives and behavior of the participants. Similarly, I can look at examples from the computer world such as high frequency trading which involve humans distantly, but which happen at scales that can't involve human psychology.
Further, economics activities are fundamentally objective. We may not fully understand the motives or valuation beliefs of the participants in an economic system without understanding their psychology, but we can observe their actions. And an economics system is far more than the behavior of the individual participants. It's also the infrastructure and rules of trade, negotiation, production, and consumption.
But the psychology argument is just another non sequitur since it doesn't matter to our argument whether economics is a subfield of psychology or not. An assertion was made that IP was not similar to real property. The assertion was backed by the claim that IP was not rivalrous or excludable. That right there excludes the need for psychology. We're just discussing an objective, non-human behavior aspect of IP.
When I pointed out that the assertion was false, then you continue to insist otherwise. I don't know why since IP laws do create the necessary conditions to consider it similar to real property. Some of your other arguments are particularly nonsensical, such as claiming that the meaning of the sign is somehow more relevant to property classification than its use is which is just a pointless semantics game. Or claiming that there is a "chicken and egg" problem when neither the initial chicken or egg are hard to come by. We can actually look at the past few centuries of the evolution of such laws and such IP to see how they came about. And creating the intellectual property or the rules to protect that intellectual property just aren't that hard.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @01:20PM
First, the AC is not me. I'm still trying to have a discussion and not namecalling.
Second, as I have already stated, that a law says something doesn't mean that it is that way in the real world. Some state laws saying that Pi was exactly 3 are a prime example of what I'm trying to say: Laws don't change reality, they just stablish rules, so the fact that there already are IP laws does nil to justify the moral standing of such laws and are just a "Because I say so" kind of argument, like they were in other times for slavery or other matters.
Third, since we can't even agree about what we are discussing, I see little reason to continue this back a and forth. Have a nice day.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2015, @01:41PM
Second, as I have already stated, that a law says something doesn't mean that it is that way in the real world.
In this case, it does. The rules matter because there are large financial liabilities associated with violating IP law. A nimble, nothing-to-lose pirate can work around that. A major corporation which owes its exists to the confines of law can't.
so the fact that there already are IP laws does nil to justify the moral standing of such laws and are just a "Because I say so" kind of argument
An enforceable "Because I say so" satisfies the preconditions for my arguments. Moral standing is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. IP doesn't become more or less rivalrous and excludable just because the moral standing is not as justified as you would like.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @04:23PM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South. That fact doesn't justify slavery.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion. Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:59AM
Like I said, that was the case with slavery, too. There were large financial liabilities associated with slavery in the South.
The financial liabilities of violating IP law scale with profit. If I make a billion dollars by illegally selling a song for which I don't have the copyright, I can be fined for the full amount of my profit and then some. That renders the effort unprofitable except for those with little to seize by a court. Meanwhile early 19th century slavers just had to cover the costs of their holdings. They were quite profitable.
That fact doesn't justify slavery.
If you're looking for a justification for slavery, you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't care about it since it is completely off topic and irrelevant.
Moral standing is everything in this discussion.
Of course, it's not.
Otherwise, it's just an example of "Those who own the guns make the rules".
And this is why. The rules were made by people with guns. Since, we have the example of the latter, we don't need to care whether it is an example of the former "moral standing" category.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @01:09PM
Sigh... The item you have (the sign) is rivalrous and excludable. If I take it away, you don't have it anymore. It doesn't matter that you can get another sign with the same use. A $100 bill also has a use, if you lose one you may get another and even in that case it's rivalrous and excludable. That's why your example makes no sense and why I was arguing that whatever words you use the facts about physical items remain.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2015, @01:23PM
What makes the sign analogy relevant is that I notice a conflation of use with ownership. The sign like IP has use that is not rivalrous and excludable. But like IP ownership is rivalrous and excludable.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday April 13 2015, @04:21PM
So your example of a physical item which is not rivalrous and not excludable was a sign, I showed you that what is not rivalrous and not excludable about it is its use (per your words) and not the item and your response is to avoid the matter and return to IP. Seems like your example backfired badly, IMHO.
An attorney's bar can also be taken away and that fact doesn't make it more property-like, just shows the fact that it is a state issued permit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:35AM
No. It is someone claiming ownership over a mere idea, or an implementation of a specific idea. It's when someone tries to control *your* physical property because they think they can own some idea. No harm comes from copying 'their' data, either. Lack of gain is not harm. How can certain bits on a hard drive that belongs to me not also belong to me? Why can I not use my own equipment to copy data that exists on said equipment and give it out to others?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:12PM
It's when someone tries to control *your* physical property because they think they can own some idea.
And under the current legal regime, they can succeed at that task.
No harm comes from copying 'their' data, either. Lack of gain is not harm.
Opportunity cost is harm. So is losing valuable data to a competitor. I see it like blocking an ambulance with lights and siren on. It might just be some non-emergency, but there's an expectation that the action will probably cause some degree of harm.
Why can I not use my own equipment to copy data that exists on said equipment and give it out to others?
What happens when you get caught doing so? If there are no consequences, then you're fine and the good in question is not "real property". If there are painful negative consequences, then you have a degree of excludability, a necessary condition of property.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday April 10 2015, @09:41AM
Under the current legal regime of the day, slavery was fine, you could sell your own kids or you could be taken against your will to do forced duty on the navy. There's a difference between something being legal an being right.
By that line of reasoning, that Brian Green married Megan Fox harmed my opportunities to do the same and reach fames, riches and a great wife. Same when Apple released the Iphone and harmed all the other mobile makers. Do you see what I try to show you?
No, it just means that there's a law that punish it. Take an extreme, fictional example: Your own CP collection, recorded by yourself (so your IP). If you are caught with it there are serious consequences but that doesn't mean anything about excludability.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:07AM
Under the current legal regime of the day, slavery was fine, you could sell your own kids or you could be taken against your will to do forced duty on the navy. There's a difference between something being legal an being right.
I imagine there were very few people of those times who claimed that slavery didn't exist merely because it was immoral and wouldn't be enforceable in a fair world. That seems the analogous position.
No, it just means that there's a law that punish it. Take an extreme, fictional example: Your own CP collection, recorded by yourself (so your IP). If you are caught with it there are serious consequences but that doesn't mean anything about excludability.
That's because the example of child porn is fundamentally different. One can't go protest to the police that a hacker came in, copied all the porn, and then started selling it on a web site. Those laws just don't exist for illegal activities and goods. But one can do that for legal photography, assuming you can prove you created the material in the first place and the current seller didn't acquire the rights/permission to use the material from you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:33PM
Campaign for Liberty is Dr. Ron Paul's web presence. Ron Paul is not Rand Paul, so don't count on Dr. Rand Paul agreeing with everything on that web site. They differ on many things, like foreign involvement and political expediency.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:51PM
That is some weak tea, head in the sand denialism right there.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:32PM
I think we all understand that there are some points of difference between Rand Paul and his dad, just like there are differences between Jeb Bush and his brother, and differences between Hillary Clinton and her husband. But there's also a lot of continuity in all of those cases: Not just that the candidates are most definitely talking to the person that's close to them, but also that they're using basically the same inner circle of advisers and the same organizational apparatus and appealing to the same kinds of voters.
And it's not like Rand Paul has ever said something along the lines of: "I'm nothing like my old man, he's a sad case that I tolerate because I'm a loyal son." Instead he's generally taken the position that he's a lot like his dad, but more practical and less ideological.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:35PM
No, the difference is much greater than the examples you suggested.
Dr. Ron Paul campaigned on shutting down several cabinets under the president, like energy, education, EPA, etc. As in, ignore congress and just fire them because they don't have constitutional authority for their positions. He also campaigned on "bring the troops home on day 1". Those are some pretty extreme non-status-quo positions (that I agree with for the most part).
Dr. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney 4 years ago. He has said nothing about ending foreign wars that I'm aware of, although he has talked about not starting any more. He doesn't take a hard line on shutting down federal government offices and leaving their operation to state governments. Rand Paul isn't going to immediately tie a noose around the necks of the Board of the Federal Reserve like his father would.
They are quite different people. This isn't some Hillary vs. Bill hair splitting. I think Dr. Rand is an excellent representative, and far more qualified for the office of president than any of the zero experience state governors who will almost inevitably be on the ticket. I wish that an article from Campaign for Liberty would be suggestive Rand Paul's polices, but regardless of how the mass consumption media is going to portray him, he is not Ron Paul, for better or worse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:47PM
Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:25PM
Understand the start of sentence two.
Their objections to those bills had nothing to do with limiting copyright and everything to do with limiting government control of the internet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:44AM
And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights (since they aren't shy about backing their schemes with government power) and recently they backed off (at least temporarily) on blocking net neutrality. They don't get labeled with these silly names. No one, aside from the *IAA players, are solely focused on creating more powerful copyrights and other intellectual property (which is what "copyright maximalist" implies). Everyone else has other priorities and can be influenced by engaging them in these other priorities.
Moving on, there is a profound malicious ignorance displayed by the submitter of the article which is far too common. Libertarianism is an inherently unpopular belief system. The rationalizations for pension funds, health care, and most government activity is many decades old and has been rather effective for most of that time. People would rather just have their stuff.
Libertarianism has grown popular in the US because of the state of the US, particularly, its government. Libertarianism and the Rands have consistently been against the worst abuses of the US government of the past two or three decades. They've been against institutionalized torture; the Wars on Drugs, Terrorism, and Evil; bailouts of businesses which heavily favor the wealthy; open-ended and rather sloppy spying on everyone; and the various legislative attempts to create strangleholds on intellectual property. The bizarre thing here is that there should be plenty of natural though very temporary allies for libertarianism, namely, everyone who is concerned that the dilution of US spending on stuff that is an actual purpose of government combined with government overreach is going to harm all the stuff that they want the US government to be doing. Instead, we get this incredibly childish assaults on libertarians while ignoring the primary reason that libertarians are libertarians, namely, that the US government is way out of control and getting worse.
Drain this swamp and the libertarians would be vastly diminished. But so many people are completely against this obvious remedy. What's going to happen in a few decades to a society which has a government that places a higher priority on spying on the entire planet than having a viable future? I think it'll just be a looted police state shell by then, unless we do something about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:15AM
> I don't care what the motives were.
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
> I merely pointed out that the assertion that the Rands were "copyright maximalists" was false just from a cursory and false reading of the article.
FTFY.
> And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @04:40AM
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
That's irrelevant to the discussion and not something that I see practiced seriously or consistently in real life. Where's the similar concern for current and past presidents' motives or the current crop of likely candidates on the Democrat or Republican sides? This is a game that's been played before. Someone like Obama, a Clinton, or a Bush gets a free pass from a large portion of US voters while the Rands get put under a microscope. If the politicians who were actually likely to get elected were subject to the same analysis by their supporters, then I think the US would have a very solid democracy. But that doesn't happen.
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
Except to note the on-topic obvious, someone is concern-trolling about the Pauls' supposed copyright maximalist tendencies, but not an actual government's even stronger, copyright maximalist tendencies.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
Not to me. Nor did I make the error you accuse me of.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:46PM
Sigh...when are people gonna learn that "libertarian" is a codeword for "I'm against anything that impedes my generation of wealth by any means, no matter who it hurts". Since copyrights allow them to generate more wealth with minimal effort? Its 100% doubleplusgood.
Go look up "Stefan Molyneux" on YouTube to see how far that idea gets carried, he has even gone so far to tell libertarian listeners to divorce their families [molyneuxrevealed.com] just like a fricking cult...of course cult leaders generally make money hand over fist so it fits the codeword definition of libertarian to a T. The Pauls sadly aren't really any better, if you look at the platform Ron and Rand stand on anybody with half a brain can see the end result would be a return to the early 1800s, I mean for fucks sake Rand has even said in the past any store should be able to put up signs that says "niggers aren't allowed" and as long as its a private business its okay as "the free market" will fix it....yeah anybody think that would have worked in 64? Hell anybody not think if we allowed that shit today we wouldn't end up in a similar situation to 64 in a couple decades?
As much as I cannot fricking stand Hillary...if the current crop like Cruz, Paul, and Fiorina is the BEST that the right can do? I think everybody better get used to saying President Hillary because nobody is gonna vote for these uber rich blowing, poor stomping, trickle upon yahoos!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:19PM
Wow, Mr. Harry Feet, I was wrong. You must not be a paid Microsoft shill since MS would never have approved your message above.
But, you have a really odd like of Microsoft-- even odder, an extreme like of Microsoft... I guess you are just weird.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:27AM
Why is liking MS that bad? I have made an *excellent* living from their software stack. They are douchebags. But douchebags that make me money. I am however, going to change stacks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:59AM
Word that are associated with the "will do anything for money" meme: mercenary; whore.
That a company doesn't have a "won't do business with unrepentant convicted criminals" policy speaks volumes about that company.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:53AM
OMG!
GEWG AND HAIRY ARE ON THE SAME SIDE!!!!!
AHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:11AM
Sigh...when are people gonna learn that "libertarian" is a codeword for "I'm against anything that impedes my generation of wealth by any means, no matter who it hurts".
Never, because it's not true. Libertarian straw men are some of the saddest straw men on the internet.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:42AM
Congrats on using the No True Scotsman fallacy, even though pretty much every major self anointed libertarian going all the way back to Ayn Rand and her followers have been EXACTLY this. Care to throw any other fallacies our way? I can wallpaper the page with citations if you like, its really not hard to find so called "libertarians" going against the philosophy if it affects their bottom line, just as we see here with Paul and IP, again its really not hard as they ain't giving up a single buck, beliefs or no.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:25PM
Congrats on using the No True Scotsman fallacy, even though pretty much every major self anointed libertarian going all the way back to Ayn Rand and her followers have been EXACTLY this.
Rand wasn't a self-annointed libertarian. In fact, she was opposed [aynrand.org] to libertarianism as it was then (in 1972) practiced. Take this quote:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]
And you are simply wrong about your assertion in the first place.
I can wallpaper the page with citations if you like
Go for it. We could use the entertainment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:51AM
gracious. and furthermore lordy!
just when i think i got you pegged you come out with this.
wow. there might be hope for you yanks yet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:16PM
As much as I cannot fricking stand Hillary...if the current crop like Cruz, Paul, and Fiorina is the BEST that the right can do? I think everybody better get used to saying President Hillary because nobody is gonna vote for these uber rich blowing, poor stomping, trickle upon yahoos!
Because Clinton isn't an "uber rich blowing, poor stomping, trickle upon yahoo" either? Having said that, Fiorina is a remarkably bad choice for anyone just due to her history. Surely, the Republicans can find a woman who hasn't seriously damaged two major companies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:05AM
They're only using YouTube for the same reason that voting booths conveniently appear in college cafeterias: to manipulate impressionable youths.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:28PM
Sometimes old people need to be more impressionable.
(Score: 5, Funny) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:13PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:21PM
Hillary vs. Rand
who do you vote for?
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:31PM
Hillary has a lot of baggage. Who was the last president who actually had a record with the Federal Government? 1988 George H W Bush, maybe? Before that even?
Hillary will certainly be in the primary, but don't count on her beating some unknown state governor. People nowadays really are stupid enough to vote for someone with no record at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:45PM
People nowadays really are stupid enough to vote for someone with no record at all.
How much of a record do you need to do what your campaign donors say?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:53PM
I can't believe you took that bait.
I was going to flame that AC for asking a deliberate troll - get y'all arguing about hillary rather than Paul being hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:28PM
I'd much rather vote for someone with no record than vote for the corrupt scumbags the Republicans and Democrats put forth. Those aren't necessarily the only choices, but that is where I stand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:46PM
At the risk of feeding the troll, Hillary actually does have experience in the Federal government. She served in the Senate from 2000 to 2009 for the state of New York. She also served as Secretary of State for the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013 (see ref. here [wikipedia.org]). Do these not count as experience in the Federal government? Note, I didn't ask whether you actually liked the job she did in these positions, just whether they count as "federal experience". Also, why do you think that people who have been governor of a state have "no record" to run on? What experience in government do you think would be appropriate for developing a record to run on? I am genuinely curious to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:02AM
Hillary has a record as a warmonger.
Anyone who likes the failing-empire-in-its-death-throes meme and the unaccountable-and-ever-more-militarized-police meme should love Hillary.
She also has a record as a supporter of the bailouts of the too-big-to-jail bunch.
Anyone who thinks a return to feudalism|serfdom is something to look forward to should definitely vote for Hillary.
Can't wait for the other shoe to fall in the economic downturn because nothing was done to change the behavior of Wall Street? Hillary is your gal.
She should just declare her membership in the Republican Party and quit the pretense.
Hillary to retain the status quo!
.
I find it interesting that this story about Rand Paul made the front page while my submission on Michael Moore was rejected. [soylentnews.org]
The very first element of Moore's "platform" is only one charge cord for all brands of all electronic devices
Number 13 on his list is Anyone caught using their mobile device inside a movie theater will be subjected to enhanced "rectal rehydration" (thank you, CIA, for that suggestion!).
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:58PM
Whenever someone says "We ought to send troops to _____" or "We ought to bomb _____", I ask "How does that entity (thousands of miles away) pose an existential threat to you?"
Why should the USA Department of Defense get involved in this?
I further ask "What if Canada decides that they don't like the current administration here? Would they be justified in bombing Albany? ...and do you think that that would cause regime change here."
The problem with having a giant standing military is that the gov't is constantly looking for a way to use it and to justify its existence.
Having 19 aircraft carrier task forces is a huge temptation to do evil nonsense outside our 20-mile territorial limits.
...not to mention intercontinental bombers with air-to-air-refueling.
George Washington warned us about this shit over 2 centuries ago.
...and, under international law, using deadly force to go after a head of state is a crime.
In addition, killing people without due process of law is a direct violation of our founding document.
That document also defines what "war" is and by that definition we haven't been in a legitimate war since September 2, 1945.
Many will say that we have NEVER been in a legitimate war and that they were ALL avoidable.
...and that we just have historically had really crappy statesmen|leadership.
...and this doesn't even get into the fact that the majority of victims of war are children and their mothers.
(March 16 marked 47 years since the My Lai mass murder incident.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:00PM
Whenever someone says "We ought to send troops to _____" or "We ought to bomb _____", I ask "How does that entity (thousands of miles away) pose an existential threat to you?"
There are a number of examples of things that became existential threats, like fascism/communism because they were allowed to fester. Other things just shouldn't be allowed in a civilized world such as ISIS's ongoing atrocities. That doesn't mean that every war is magically a just one, most obviously aren't. But ruling out war, which is what you imply you want when you uncritically throw around terms like "warmonger", just means that you rule out war on your terms not on potential foes' terms.
Further, we could also ask the same of your particular hobby horses like a social safety net. Where's the existential need for virtually that whole affair? There might be a need for something just because enough poor people might rebel or commit more crime. Or they might be better off since that social safety net costs not only the wealth of the rich, but of the poor as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @12:04AM
fascism
As I already noted, there were thousands of miles of ocean between them and us.
The American homeland was never at risk.
You could argue that USA's imperial possessions in the Pacific were at risk.
The reason for Japan's Pearl Harbor operation was USA's naval blockage on the Moluccan Straits to strangle access to petroleum and rubber.
So, American imperialism is just fine with you but the imperialism of others is wrong?
Your flag waving is ridiculous.
communism
First, you didn't include the appropriate quotation marks around that term.
USSR and Red China were totalitarian governments with State Capitalism as the economic system.
They were fascist. Nothing "communist" about them.
The risk of the Cold War was nuclear war.
Guess who had nuclear weapons -first- AND USED THEM ON CIVILIANS.
...then continued to build them by the thousands.
Blaming a country for reacting to the demonstrated aggression of its adversary is a false argument.
Vietnam went "communist" and the dominoes didn't topple.
The Cold War was a giant sham which murdered millions of brown people--many of them children.
We were warned by Orwell about a state of permanent war (which has existed for US since December 8, 1941).
Now that the outrageous expense of keeping up this unnecessarily monstrous military has imploded our economy and the empire is obviously crumbling, all the crap we did "over there" is coming home with hypermiliterized police forces and a complete disregard for human life in the USA.
...but trying to convince a warmonger that war and warmongering is a bad thing is a waste of time.
All I'll get is more denialism.
allowed to fester
The greatest threat to the planet today is the USA.
American-style Capitalism is ruining the lives of most of the people on Earth and the millions of people left as refugees by the American war machine is unforgivable--not to mention the millions murdered in the name of American "democracy".
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:28AM
You could argue that USA's imperial possessions in the Pacific were at risk.
The US's existence was also at risk. So I could argue the above or I could argue what I actually did argue.
First, you didn't include the appropriate quotation marks around that term. USSR and Red China were totalitarian governments with State Capitalism as the economic system. They were fascist. Nothing "communist" about them.
Nonsense. There was plenty communist about them. For example, they ruthlessly destroyed capitalist structures and traditions such as private ownership of capital, personal wealth, and free markets. The vast majority of the USSR's labor and industry was organized into cooperatives and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:12AM
You still haven't described how any Axis power would cross thousands and thousands of miles of ocean and threaten the USA.
Your claim is nonsense.
In the changeover from feudal Imperial Russia to the "communist" USSR, one tiny group of owners was exchanged for another tiny group of owners.
That did NOT give the people Communism; that's CAPITALISM.
Being TOLD what you will produce, being TOLD how you will produce it, and being TOLD how the profits will be distributed is CAPITALISM.
In Communism, the workers are the core; all decisions are democratic and bottom-up.
In the USSR, the workers didn't get a say in anything.
They were still serfs/employees--NOT OWNERS.
Being TOLD that you will "join" this or that cooperative is totalitarianism.
It's definitely NOT Communism.
You have swallowed a whole bunch of Cold War bullshit.
The Shakers in North America had a democratic communal system of production with the means of production being commonly owned and they had that before there was a USA.
The Iroquois, again in North America before there was a USA, also had a democratic communal existence.
Those are examples of Communism--unlike the frauds that *called* themselves "communist".
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @04:19AM
You still haven't described how any Axis power would cross thousands and thousands of miles of ocean and threaten the USA.
I didn't describe how the US could have crossed thousands and thousands of miles to threaten the Axis powers either.
In the changeover from feudal Imperial Russia to the "communist" USSR, one tiny group of owners was exchanged for another tiny group of owners. That did NOT give the people Communism; that's CAPITALISM.
Being TOLD what you will produce, being TOLD how you will produce it, and being TOLD how the profits will be distributed is CAPITALISM.
No, as I noted before, private ownership of capital is capitalism. These other things are not capitalism. We don't have to go back and forth on this, this definition of capitalism is thoroughly established. For example [reference.com],
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
As to the rest of your post:
In Communism, the workers are the core; all decisions are democratic and bottom-up. In the USSR, the workers didn't get a say in anything. They were still serfs/employees--NOT OWNERS.
Being TOLD that you will "join" this or that cooperative is totalitarianism. It's definitely NOT Communism. You have swallowed a whole bunch of Cold War bullshit.
While I grant that it is possible for a time for communism to be democratic, there's nothing about the system that requires democracy or keeps democracy (just as it is for capitalism). After all, the usual traditional transitions to communism are by force, taking the means of production away from the upper class that used to own this stuff while bragging about how the capitalists are selling you the rope to hang themselves and whatnot. That's not conducive to democratic decision-making.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @04:47AM
Like I already said, you swallowed the Cold War bullshit.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @05:06AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:29AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:35AM
The greatest threat to the planet today is the USA.
Sounds to me then, like we ought to worry about more important things than threats then. Like global poverty, for example.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:42AM
Yes, Hillary has a record, that is the point. Politicians with records don't often get elected president because it is so easy for the media to hang them with their own words.
The president is the chief secretary of congress. His job is to see that the wishes of congress are carried out. So a person should ideally have served a few terms in congress before even being considered. When presidents are elected who haven't served with the federal government, they end up being pushed around and bullied. The military and copyright interests and wall street interests just roll right over politicians who have never had to test their philosophy against the challenge of federal office.
People elect presidents with no federal experience, and then those presidents have no backbone to deal with the pressure of federal interests. It is one of the reasons why we can't have nice things. I would support a constitutional amendment requiring presidential candidates to have served 2 terms in congress, or simply revert to congress electing the president, and end the pop star elections.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:41PM
Gary Johnson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:06AM
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas has already demonstrated how to use "free markets" and "trickle down" to destroy the economy of his state.
At the national level, why go with the suspense that Johnson would bring?
Just elect a proven performer and get it over with.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:58PM
Hillary vs. Rand
who do you vote for?
Neither; I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats anymore. I consider anyone who does to be complicit in supporting a regime of illegal spies.* Fuck your false dichotomies.
*Especially complicit, I guess. Being a coward, I still pay taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:39PM
Go ahead, throw your vote away [youtube.com] </sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:04PM
Go ahead, throw your vote away </sarcasm>
Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away. Might as well throw it away to someone you like...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @08:02PM
So, voting for a third party is considered throwing a vote away.
But, voting in a state that has elected the same party for the last 50 years with a statistical impossiblity of affecting any change, isn't?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:31AM
Exactly. Casting an individual vote is already an idealistic gesture that doesn't do anything to affect change. Why should we be naively idealistic when deciding whether or not to vote, but then pragmatic and pessimistic when deciding how to vote? I'm not asking for strict rationality, only some semblance of consistency. Are we or are we not being idealists on election day?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:13PM
> Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away.
Or do like my republican acquaintance living in California did - register to vote in Ohio at an inlaw's residence and then vote by mail.
And democrats say voter fraud doesn't exist! He sure proved them wrong. Dummy didn't realize voter registration rolls are public information though...
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:12PM
Some third party, almost at random.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:44PM
While I am unsure about Rand, from the times I have looked up Ron's voting record he has always voted against all federal subsidies. From reading TFA I got the impression that the author thought this was not the case, so I am wondering if I am missing something. I do notice that Rand said he never said he was against Farm Subsidies when he was accused of saying he was, unsure what his voting record shows.
Overall I am pretty impressed at the way the Republican party is handling this, even before his announcement they were preparing for battle. Nothing quite like a mainstream pro-patriot act Republican trying to vilify him by claiming he is acting like them. The fear of the party alone makes me like him more than any of their other people.
I hate to support the lesser evil, but at this point I admit I do swing Rand. Show me another candidate who would have said:
"We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if you were an American citizen or here legally in the country, you would get a trial by jury," Paul said. "It's been removed because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country. This is so fundamentally wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a country that it can't go unnoticed."
"When you're accused of a crime in our country you get a trial, you get a trial by a jury of your peers, no matter how heinous your crime is, no matter how awful you are, we give you a trial," he said. "This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you're dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It's an abomination."
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:11PM
If one is looking at the primaries of the names bandied about for the republican nomination I would most likely support him. So in that case why not vote for the lesser of a dozen or so evils? Also it would be nice to have a major party candidate that has bold ideas and stances. This is also why I think someone like Elizabeth Warren would be a better choice for the democrats. They both offer bold ideas on how to do better and that debate hasn't happened in a long while as all of the discussion has been around the margins and with wedge issues.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:20PM
So in that case why not vote for the lesser of a dozen or so evils?
Because I'm going to vote for a candidate I actually approve of instead. They might be third party, but people who buy into the two party scam and spew forth nonsensical arguments trying to justify voting for evil are fools.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:51PM
Yes, because when there is a viable third party candidate you now get to pick from THREE people instead of TWO. Now you get to boast to everyone that you voted for the third guy, not necessarily because of his positions, but because he's NOT one of the other two, and only fools and tools would vote for one of the other two (regardless of their positions on any topic). That's called being "insightful" and "stickin' it to the Man." You're a rebel, dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:23PM
> Yes, because when there is a viable third party candidate you now get to pick from THREE people instead of TWO.
Wow you are a dick. The underlying assumption of your snark is that all parties are the same because their identity is the fact that they are a party rather than their actual platform and historical actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:41AM
I vote only for people I approve of, or no one at all. I'm not voting to vote against anyone, so that's a mere straw man on your part (which apparently gets you modded up). Second of all, there are more than three.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:22PM
Here I was referring to those running in the primaries, specifically those seeking the republican nomination. Of all of those seeking or thought to be seeking the republican nomination I would be most likely to support Rand Paul for the republican nomination. This does not necessarily mean I would support him for president but there would be a substantially higher chance.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:21PM
The last time there actually *was* one candidate that I actually approved of, even though she had no chance. The time before that there wasn't. I'm not sure I expect there to be one this next time.
You rarely have somebody sane who will go to tremendous effort to accomplish little to nothing. As a result most of the minor parties put up candidates who aren't much better than those of the major parties. Only two candidates will have a reasonable chance. Going by past performance, the major parties will not select their most constructive candidates to run for office...one may guess why, but its only a guess. So we're again likely to end up with a choice between two power-mad loons...and a bunch of no-hope crazies. There may be one good candidate, and I'll certainly try to find one. But I'm likely to vote for some minor party whose candidate I can't stand, but whose general platform is comparatively decent and who, if elected, won't be able to do much damage...not that they'll get elected.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:14AM
The last time[,] there actually *was* one candidate that I actually approved of, even though she had no chance
I'm wondering if that was Green Party candidate Jill Stein--the gal who, when she debated Mitt Romney in the race for governor, was described by The Boston Globe as "the only adult in the room". [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:45PM
So far, it looks like Warren doesn't even want to run, even though lots of people are screaming for her to. It does look like Bernie Sanders may run, but there's no way he'll win, he's too extreme (as far as mainstream America is concerned).
I'm pretty sure this race is going to wind up being between Hillary and Jeb. Those are the people the big media companies want, and whoever they want, we get. The whole system is rigged.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:01PM
Martin O'Malley [washingtonpost.com] seems to be as close to Warren as we are going to get. The GOP has already got their knives out for him, [washingtontimes.com] so that's a good sign.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:10PM
No, "Big Media" gives most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates, because that is who is on the minds of the electorate. You don't think they should talk about Hillary? As of now she's polling very well with potential Democrat voters, something like 60 to 70% approval for her to be their choice on the Democrat ticket. "Big Media" doesn't give a shit, they want a story. They'd love a big primary fight. They'd love for her to say something stupid and have the story spin from a molehill into a mountain. Barring any stupid gaffes, the race will be between Hillary and Jeb, not because the media want it that way, but because the majority of the people want it that way because they are the status quo candidates.
So why didn't the "big liberal media conspiracy" keep John Kerry from getting Swift Boated? Wouldn't that have been in their interest? No, they spun a BS story into a tempest because it was a STORY. It was a potential juicy, salacious scandal they could run with. When what's-his-face made his comment about the freeloading 33% (or whatever the hell it was), it was a STORY. You got a guy with the pedigree and reputation as an out-of-touch rich elitist, and now you have a video of him making a comment you'd expect to come from that rich guy on the Monopoly board. That's headline news. It might be BS, or out of context, but it makes for great copy.
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Friday April 10 2015, @05:39AM
Rupert Murdoch laughs at the idea of big media giving "most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates". Rupert Murdoch gives most of the coverage to whoever Rupert Murdoch wants to win.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:38PM
Unfortunately you are likely right. Personally I think both of those candidates offer more of the same from each party. The bland, your 3c titanium tax doesn't go too far enough [youtube.com] type of politicians that will just continue down the current road of erosion of rights, just different ones based off of party.
I haven't been following the Democrat side of things much so I wasn't sure how the draft Bernie Sanders thing was going but he would be another good one to offer a bold vision and would do a lot if nominated to advance the discussion.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:25PM
Warren doesn't want to run now because if she won, she'd be president for eight years and then out of politics. If she doesn't run, she can be a force in the senate for a while pushing her agenda and gathering experience and support which will make her a better president in the future. Remember she's only been a senator for 2 years!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:22AM
John Quincy Adams (reputed by some as the smartest guy to ever be President) served as a Congressman after his time as Chief Executive.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:53PM
As long as they never appear together, I think it's a can't lose combination!
(Score: 1) by m2o2r2g2 on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:27AM
I might be giving them more credit than they deserve, but...
Thanks to the Streisand effect, their announcement message has now been communicated to many more people than would otherwise if there were no such system (and hence no such article). And the ignorant will double down on their biases when confronted with counter-facts, so this will not affect their loyal fan base.