How do the candidates for the presidency of the US do on technical issues?
Two companies (Tusk Ventures and Engine) on startups, government and policies evaluated the candidates on
- privacy & security
- intellecutal property
- education, talent and workforce
- broadband access and infrastructure
Overall conclusion:
Clinton B+
Sanders B
Cruz D
Kasich D+
Rubio C+
Trump F
There's little explanation on the methodology though. Seems to be "This candidate has said something on this once/twice/often" - not the forefront of academic rigor.
Nevertheless: I am (somewhat) curious about this. So my questions to SoylentNews:
- How would you grade the candidates on the above issues?
- What are your reasons for those grades?
[There is some background on the categories and the thinking behind the scores in their 2016 Candidate Report Card (pdf). Do note that part of the scoring in the "education, talent and workforce" category is based on: "High-skilled Immigration Reform: Does the candidate support expanding opportunities for global technical talent and entrepreneurs to work in U.S.?" -Ed.]
Related Stories
Like other politicians and government officials, President Trump's nominee for the position of Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, wants to have it both ways when it comes to encryption:
At his confirmation hearing, Sessions was largely non-committal. But in his written responses to questions posed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, however, he took a much clearer position:
Question: Do you agree with NSA Director Rogers, Secretary of Defense Carter, and other national security experts that strong encryption helps protect this country from cyberattack and is beneficial to the American people's' digital security?
Response: Encryption serves many valuable and important purposes. It is also critical, however, that national security and criminal investigators be able to overcome encryption, under lawful authority, when necessary to the furtherance of national-security and criminal investigations.
Despite Sessions' "on the one hand, on the other" phrasing, this answer is a clear endorsement of backdooring the security we all rely on. It's simply not feasible for encryption to serve what Sessions concedes are its "many valuable and important purposes" and still be "overcome" when the government wants access to plaintext. As we saw last year with Sens. Burr and Feinstein's draft Compliance with Court Orders Act, the only way to give the government this kind of access is to break the Internet and outlaw industry best practices, and even then it would only reach the minority of encryption products made in the USA.
Related: Presidential Candidates' Tech Stances: Not Great
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday March 16 2016, @10:55PM
HRC knows more about mail servers than any of the others.
What's scary is Trump is the scariest candidate we've had in my lifetime (closing in on 60), and he also seems to be the best of a bad bunch. I've never been so depressed over an election.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @10:59PM
I call BS on the B+ for Cliton due to the email server scandal. I also call BS on the F for Trump, he's probably more tech savvy then all of them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:07PM
Tweeting != tech savvy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:11PM
And I will give the word of an AC about as much credit as s/he is due on this matter. So, by all means, tell us. On what do you base your conclusion that Trump is "probably more tech savvy then all of them"? I need just a bit more than your say so.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:57AM
Well there was that time in the debate where Trump kept saying that we have all these great people, these great minds. We need to just tell them to take away the Internet from the terrorists and keep them off it. So simple. Just use our best guys, and it gets done.
He's the most tech unsavvy person of the whole bunch, and his idea of making tech work is threatening to fire engineers if they don't make it like he means it, not how he says it.
You've conflated being tech savvy with just being a pointy haired boss.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by wendo on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:04AM
While I think Trump is nuts, what you've just described is pretty much how Steve Jobs operated Apple.
I'm not saying it's how it should be, but by all accounts it's a description that could apply to Steve Jobs just as easily
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:53AM
Perfectly fair. That man was just a big an asshole as Trump, if not more. I know who caused more damage to us in cyberspace.... Jobs.
Why I bring that up about Trump though, is that he's a pure fucking moron when it comes to technology and the "Internet". I already heard him speak about we'll handle the terrorists on the Internet. His idea of the Internet is vague to say the least, and his knowledge of how it may work, piss poor. He'd be far more dangerous than Steve Jobs, which actually knew something about how the Internet works.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:13AM
--Donald Trump, as quoted by the New York Daily News [nydailynews.com] and The Independent [independent.co.uk]
Was he under the impression that Bill Gates can turn off the Internet, or was he merely naming Gates as a person whose advice should be sought prior to censoring the Internet?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:51AM
How can he speak like he does and not have people calling for his head? Cause he says what people want to hear? Jesus, the brainwashing of the people has gone better than planned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:35PM
Pretty much. Expect riots in every major city in 2018.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:11AM
Oops, I fail at copy-paste. He didn't repeat himself like that.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday March 17 2016, @10:22AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:12PM
At least he's admitting that there are things he doesn't understand, and suggesting that we seek further information and advice from experts on such subjects.
Most politicians will simply and repeatedly assert nonsense conclusions based on their own beliefs, founded in ignorance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:38PM
Yeah... but *everything*?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @09:32AM
Not everything: he's figured out global warming.
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
-- https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385 [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:11PM
+1, agree but bummed someone else beat me to it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:28PM
HRC knows more about mail servers than any of the others.
And also demonstrates remarkably little care for security of mail servers or open governance in that same fell swoop.
What's scary is Trump is the scariest candidate we've had in my lifetime (closing in on 60), and he also seems to be the best of a bad bunch. I've never been so depressed over an election.
I still think Obama is worse. At least Trump has an inkling how business works. I think that's going to be important for the next US president though not important enough that I'll vote for Trump.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:48PM
I still think Obama is worse.
Obama is middle to low end of the pack, IMHO. Lousy negotiator, no respect for the Constitution, but too incompetent to really do damage. I put him in Jimmy Carter territory.
I think Trump will be either a really good, or a really bad president, nothing in the middle for him. Unfortunately I think the split is 75% odds of bad.
If HRC gets in look forward to 4 or 8 years of scandal after scandal after scandal. The woman thinks she's above the law and doesn't have to act like us little people. Not to mention that whole felonious mishandling of classified information for which, IMHO, she should be rotting in a jail cell now (but lets not rehash that here. We've all made up our minds on that issue).
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 3, Informative) by archfeld on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:56PM
Jimmy Carter, or his admin was responsible for, or at least given a great deal of credit for 'opening' a huge amount of trade from the US into a previously very closed Chinese market.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/china-policy [state.gov]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:27AM
And a failed attempt at the metric system.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:28AM
At least he tried.
(Score: 2, Informative) by smaniak on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:59AM
The wheels were in motion. It was Ronald Regan that killed that initiative.
Art is how we decorate space; music is how we decorate time. -- Unknown
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:27PM
The Metric Conversion Act [wikipedia.org] was signed by President Ford in 1975.
The Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 [congress.gov] was signed by President Reagan in 1988, and renewed twice with the approval of President Clinton. It
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:29AM
I think Trump will be either a really good, or a really bad president, nothing in the middle for him. Unfortunately I think the split is 75% odds of bad.
Generally, in this country, people grow into the presidency. Like Reagan did, even though every democrat was singing the same song about him as they are about Trump.
The Constitution pretty much defines what a president can do, and in spite of the current president ignoring that constitution of late, it took him 6 years to work up the courage to do so. The same would apply to any candidate except HRC who considders herself the anointed follow-on to Obama, and fully entitled to act as he did.
If Ted Cruz wakes up [foxnews.com], you would have a strong constitutionalist as president of the senate, and a strong negotiator as President of the Nation. If the former could reign in the latter it would probably be a good combination. There is no world where that ticket gets turned upside down.
A similar ticket on the Democrat side (plus a full pardon from the sitting president) is probably the only way HRC gets elected while facing indictment.
( Oh, go ahead, mod me to hell, that's what you usually do anyway.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:27AM
What kind of awesome drugs are you high on (and where can i get some?) that you will call an avowed Dominionist, Rushdoony's avatar in the mortal realm now he's rotting in hell, a "strict Constitutionalist?"
Open your damn eyes, Frojack! Cruz is a strict constitutionalist the way Wilt Chamberlain was a devoted and Monogamous lover!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snotnose on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:44AM
Wilt Chamberlain was a devoted and Monogamous lover!
Wilt Chamberlain was more like an Apache server, spawning many children.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:51AM
plz2notexplainthejoke.svg
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:27AM
Anyone notice that Ted Cruz looks exactly like the muppet Beaker? Not the hair of course, but the frown, nose, and beady eyes: http://imgur.com/UEQUebV [imgur.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:24PM
If you think Beaker has "beady eyes", I don't want to know your level of proptosis.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:15AM
It isn't that she "thinks" this, she has had it proven to her time and again. She is the embodiment of our two tiered justice system, and she totally knows it. For example, her response in the last debate to the question regarding whether she'd exit the race of indicted ... her answer was essentially that there is no chance she will be indicted. We all know that's true, even though lesser mortals would currently be looking at about 600 years worth of charges.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:21AM
Obama is [...] too incompetent [...] in Jimmy Carter territory
Carter was a classic micromanager.
He understood all the minutia of everything, but he wouldn't delegate.
There's a SNL skit about Three Mile Island that riffs on this.
Obama kept Dubya's economic advisors--because his economic policy isn't significantly different from Bush43's.
Obamacare is simply a giveaway to Big Business.
The bailouts were more gifts to more Neoliberals.
He also chose Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder--he's not actually very Progressive.
Lousy negotiator
When your party has the presidency and a supermajority in both chambers of Congress, you DON'T negotiate; you steamroller the party who couldn't get a majority.
You implement your platform such that the opposition will take a decade to undo your changes--assuming they ever get a majority again.
Abraham Lincoln made these kinds of conciliatory bullshit errors.
(His 2nd VP was Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding racist from Tennessee.)
All told, I'd call Obama a lousy **politician**.
Trump [...] 75% odds of bad
I'm going to go with 100 percent bad.
"It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis (1935) [wikipedia.org]
HRC [...] scandal after scandal
She has a really hard time with a little something that I like to call "The truth".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:38PM
When your party has the presidency and a supermajority in both chambers of Congress, you DON'T negotiate; you steamroller the party who couldn't get a majority.
Obama and the Democrats never had a supermajority in both chambers of Congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @01:27AM
For 99 percent of stuff, you only need a simple majority (because the Prez won't veto it, so it won't require an override).
You need a supermajority for treaties and to break filibusters.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:27PM
Sure, but that isn't the failing. He couldn't sort things out in his own party, wasting time until his party lost the senate majority. He couldn't negotiate internationally, which often requires credible threats instead of bullshit about a reset button.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:56AM
I honestly expect HRC to continue BO's Bushian tack. The bribar^H^H^H^H^H^Hfunding's coming from exactly the same directions, the lobbyists are the same, there's no reason to expect any changes at all. More change I can believe in - it just so happens I believe in zero change.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday March 18 2016, @02:41AM
It's been 2 effin days, I've been +5 insightful, +3 offtopic, +4 troll, +2 disagree, and those are only the ones I saw logging in 2-3 times a day. Can we just call me +5 vundergohd and be done with it?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:54AM
HRC [...] little care for security of mail servers or open governance
Agree. (Expecting to see airborne porcines at any moment.)
.
Trump has an inkling how business works
Here's Ian Masters' informative 13-minute audio interview [ianmasters.com] of David Cay Johnston[1] about Trump.
Topics: How Trump makes his money; USA's tax system; the way the 99 Percent subsidize the 1 Percent; etc.
Mostly, Trump is adept at exploiting loopholes.
Smaller download; available until late April [kpfk.org]
Middle segment (24:00 - 37:00) is Johnston. Beyond ~67 percent is a 3rd interview.
[1] Pulitzer Prize winner; often called The De Facto Tax Enforcement Officer of the United States.
...and many people have pointed out that if Trump had invested his inheritance in a fund that simply tracks the Dow, he would have done better than the "incredible profits" from his businesses.
A guy who couldn't make money with casinos (and had to declare bankruptcy) isn't much of a businessman.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:54AM
A guy who couldn't make money with casinos...
You do know there are exactly two kinds of casinos in Atlantic City, those which have already went bankrupt and those who soon will. Your argument would have merit if Trump's were the only casino on the Altantic City Boardwalk to go out of business. It isn't. Identify the common element in the failed and failing businesses. Hmmm......
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:57PM
You do realize that saying all those other guys went bankrupt in the casino business isn't exactly the highest endorsement, right? Some might even credibly claim that the Donald's inability to spot a losing proposition indicates he has a bit less business acumen than he is letting on.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:32PM
Are you sure about that?
If he understands business, why do so many of his businesses fail? Why has he earned less from his businesses than he would have earned just letting the money sit in an index fund? He literally could have earned more money sitting on the couch in his underwear eating Cheetos than he earned from business. He's only wealthy through inheritance.
He's not a successful business man, he's a mascot. "Success" is just their branding.
Might as well vote for one of those Kardashians...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:10AM
I'm not scared. What should scare liberals is a win by Clinton because that will do nothing but further cement the new normal of the DNC being nothing but the alternative GOP. If Sanders doesn't make the cut, which seems ever more likely to happen, I'll vote for Jill Stein and secretly hope that Trump wins so that I can be seen as a spoiler and maybe, the DNC will stop keeping make all these hard right turns. I wouldn't go so far as to actually vote for Trump, but I will admit that I admire this sentiment:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/bernie-sanders-supporters-consider-donald-trump-no-hillary-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Thursday March 17 2016, @03:13AM
I have a theory, that you always need a party that's generating plausible, but in some sense mildly to severely inadvisable, ideas, and another party that says, let's stick with what we understand. You could call these radicals and reactionaries, although you need to be careful to not get too attached to the ways those terms are commonly used and focus on what the labels are intended to convey.
The democrats have as a whole, made peace with the economic orthodoxy (which is overdue for a shakeup, but that's another matter) and have a number of past successes that they largely act to defend rather than expand. That casts them in the role of reactionaries.
The republicans have spent the past 30 years refashioning themselves as radicals. They are fundamentally ill-equipped to operate in this mode and I don't think this situation isn't stable over the long term.
In the short run, I expect democrats to gain in this election due to staying on book. I think three to four parties are going to have congressional seats in the next midterm though. Not too much longer after that, we should be back at two parties either as a result of either some new alliances being forged or some voting blocs being completely marginalized.
Terms like "hard right turns" don't really make much sense to me here. What do right and left mean here? There isn't a stable (in the sense of a stable stochastic process) axis of debate at the moment. You may be referring to some things that you remember using as points of reference (i.e. this guy was left and that guy was right and now I think these new guys are all closer to the guy on the right), but those aren't really relevant at the moment. The labels aren't really going to mean much of anything until there's a new definition of left and right that's more stable.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @10:57PM
Every nerd knows it's soo leet to self-host your own email! Just like Hillary!!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:39AM
And many of those same nerds recognize that their ability to know their server is secure is rather limited, and thus make the choice not to do it. Obviously it's a snap to follow some howto and apt-get your way to a functional server, but it's also important to recognize one's limitations.
Example: http://cnedelcu.blogspot.com/2014/01/how-to-set-up-simple-mail-server-debian-linux.html [blogspot.com]
I know I could do this ... but I also know I wouldn't actually have any real understanding of how secure it is -- this just isn't my area of expertise.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:12AM
And then you have Hillary... had a minion drop Exchange Server on a Windows Server and call it good. Then outsource the spam / malware block function so ALL of the mail flowed out to an outside system for scanning. A company with no security clearance.
Anyone here should have a brain, right? But politics will make a few say stupid things. Watch.
We can all understand Hillary is lying with her BS about "no information marked classified" right? We either already know or can quickly confirm what I'm about to say because everyone here can read. The markings are just warnings and to control distribution and access. Imagine if I had a classified rating and saw a file about aliens in Area 51. It doesn't matter what is in the documents, if I even TALK to someone about what I saw it is a crime. In fact if someone out of the blue asks me about aliens at Area 51 I must respond as if I had never saw the document, any hint that I had even saw that file is a crime. Any hint that such a file actually even exists is a breach of security. It is like Fight Club.
Hillary as Sec State creates classified information routinely, it is part of her job description, it is her duty to know what information should be marked. She either correctly marks it classified, at which point sending it over her unsecured server is a crime or she fails to mark it, placing classified information in a document that isn't marked correctly. Felony either way. She had no other email account while at State so any mail in or out involving classified info was a felony. If she sent it she committed a felony. If she received classified at that account and failed to report the breach of security by the sender then she committed a felony. No win, she is a felon. We now know there are over a thousand felonies. We also know, with metaphysical certitude that there will never be an indictment.
And here is the fun part. Hillary's defenders will now twist logic into pretzels to explain how she didn't break any laws. Or just shout nasty names at me.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:02AM
I've read that the law on classification basically says that classified material may be marked or unmarked as such, and you get in trouble even if unmarked under the notion that you should know.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/ [reuters.com]
So yeah, Clinton knows she won't be indicted because she's on the safe level of our two tier justice system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:33PM
On this much, you are correct. Just because it is unmarked does not give someone with clearance a pass on releasing classified information.
This, on the other hand, is just plain bullshit. You can not be held accountable ex post facto for release of classified information before it has been classified. I know; I have a security clearance. If this were the case then many of the people I work with would be under indictment. I could also be perilously close to potentially facing indictment too. You can, on the other hand, be held accountable for continuing to release classified information which was at one time in the past in the public domain. (The rules are kind of crazy that way.) I read the link in the Reuters article and it does not say what you (and Peter Van Buren) purport it to mean. Note that none of what I have written should be construed as support (or not) of HRC, but honestly you and all of your Hillary-bashing buddies need to get your facts straight.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:00PM
Pretty much all of them should get an automatic F in the privacy & security section. I believe all of them have come out against Apple in the FBI vs Apple case. Then there are the matters of mass surveillance, the TSA, the Unpatriotic Act, and things of that nature. I think that Sanders is the only one left who opposes mass surveillance.
At any rate, Clinton winning is a joke.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:11AM
No. Clinton winning is a comment about how bad they think the others are. Her getting about a D is a joke...and in bad taste.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:35AM
I think that Sanders is the only one left who opposes mass surveillance.
Which means he's the only serious presidential candidate I'd ever support. Doesn't look like he's going to get the nomination though. I guess I'll vote 3rd party again.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:02PM
That's the only way I can see Cruz getting as high as a D.
Either that, or they're using the Kansas science standards for him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:05PM
Did Clinton rank above Sanders?
Between her email server, her stance on encryption and privacy, and her pro-DMCA/TPP/etc, she seems deserving of an F just like Trump.
This 'report' just looks like more pro-Clinton BS for people who haven't actually been paying attention to the issues.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:23PM
I'm not sure it's possible to grade Clinton yet anyway. she hasn't been paid, so she doesn't know which corporate interest she's supposed to follow.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:30AM
Are you fucking kidding me??
She gets an average of $150,000 per speech to Wall Street banksters.
Can you think of ANYONE who has something to say whose -words- are worth THAT?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday March 18 2016, @07:56PM
Lady Gaga?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:49PM
The article is just opinion dressed up to give the appearance of being some sort of study. It isn't worth reading, unless you have some reason to trust the authors' opinions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:04AM
This 'report' just looks like more pro-Clinton BS for people who haven't actually been paying attention to the issues.
I think you hit the nail on the head. If you click through to the companies that made this report you can see they clearly support someone. Hey that someone comes out on the top.
Now do not take this as support for this man but he outed one of these groups a week or so ago. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/DJT.Club_For_Growth.2015_06_021.pdf [donaldjtrump.com] In this case Trump told them, no. He outed them because it suited him to do so.
Basically for a bit of cash you can get support from these groups and they will say they like you. Even tailor it to fit your narrative.
For the first election in a long time I think I really do not give a fuck who wins. It looks to be shaping up to be Trump v Hillary. Both of these people are deplorable. I am voting as Richard Pryor advised us to do 'none of the above'.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:09PM
Trump is just bad, and likely to be worse than you can imagine, since he's not done pulling out authoritarian positions from his invisible hat. Pro-surveillance, anti-encryption:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/please-dont-shut-down-the-internet-donald-trump [newyorker.com]
http://www.snopes.com/trump-wants-shut-internet/ [snopes.com]
https://variety.com/2016/biz/news/donald-trump-new-york-times-jeff-bezos-1201716131/ [variety.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/17/11031910/donald-trump-apple-encryption-backdoor-statement [theverge.com]
Cruz has an almost identical position on Apple [reason.com], and is somewhat anti-surveillance [theguardian.com] (USA FREEDOM Act not perfect).
Kasich and Rubio don't matter. Rubio has dropped out.
Clinton will say anything [theverge.com] without really saying anything, but is definitely not a good choice [rollingstone.com] for handling the Crypto War. She would be likely to continue the expansion of the surveillance state and cyberwar policies, as Obama did.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden [newyorker.com]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/14/hillary-clinton/clinton-says-nsa-leaker-snowden-failed-use-whistle/ [politifact.com]
Sanders has also waffled on Apple encryption [theintercept.com], but is probably the most anti-surveillance candidate surviving in the race:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/256865-sanders-would-absolutely-end-nsa-spying [thehill.com]
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Homeland_Security.htm [ontheissues.org]
http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/ [time.com]
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/bernie-sanders-nsa-edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-lincoln-chafee/ [dailydot.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/bernie-sanders-rand-paul_n_7487598.html [huffingtonpost.com]
I'd rate, tentatively:
Sanders A-
Cruz B-
Clinton D+
Trump F
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:49AM
Cruz B-
As I pointed out in your journal, [soylentnews.org] nobody who has ever worked with Cruz can stand the jerk.
Even Backslapper-in-Chief, Dubya, said "I just don't like the guy."
.
...and we previously discussed what a candidate's actual selection/use of technology might say about his tech chops.
The Website Tech of Presidential Candidates Compared [soylentnews.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:00AM
I said the ratings were tentative. I upgraded him from C+ just before I posted, and would change it again, since it's very subjective anyway.
These are also just tech ratings. I wouldn't vote for the guy on this basis. "I just don't like the guy" has jack shit to do with his views on tech/surveillance issues.
The "Presidential candidate website tech, compared" post is interesting, entertaining, but not really important when considering tech issues. They hired somebody to make their website, they could give a flying fuck about HTTPS/HSTS, and nobody should visit those propaganda sites anyway.
Finally, fuck your anonymous pseudonym bullshit. Get a real account, you dumb idiot.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:54PM
So?
Not that I support the guy, but being able to get along well with a house of liars and self-serving cheaters is a plus how, exactly?
And if you say "then you can get stuff done," stop and ask yourself *what* will get done after a few years of steeping in that cesspool.
He’s clearly brilliant — maybe smarter than any of the others. He’s a whirlwind of energy. And man oh man can he give a presentation. On any subject, he’s informed, inflamed, precise.
But then you talk with people who’ve worked with him at various stages of his career. They dislike him.
Yeah, exactly.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:14PM
I would like to see Donald Trump demonstrate his tech knowledge by visiting one of the nuclear fusion experiments, be allowed in the torus to inspect it, and then have it turned on, thereby vaporizing him for all eternity and for the benefit of mankind.
I thought I hated George W. Bush when he ran for president. At least he was operated by his puppet master Dick "Dick" Cheney, who actually was reasonably capable even though his personality was modeled after Cthulhu. Trump is (or at least believes) he is his own master. The US would be in some very serious shit. Time for California succession I think. We may have our own idiot governors, but none of them have ever been so obviously incompetent and duplicitous as Donald Trump.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:24PM
Time for California succession I think.
Try for California cessation instead.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:43AM
To be fair, whatever came after secession would be a successor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @03:16AM
Whoever wins, California will at least have the susurration of the sea.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:28PM
Trump-USA will be an autonomous licensee of the Trump empire, such that the bankruptcy won't be his fault.
Kinda fits the "you didn't build that" theme.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:42PM
Trump is (or at least believes) he is his own master. The US would be in some very serious shit.
Hillary has said she admires what Merkel has done with Germany and imagines she'll run the USA in a similar vein. Trump is the antithesis of this.
Trump has my vote, because immigration is the only issue that matters at this point and all the other candidates want to destroy our nation thereby.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:31AM
Yup. Sanity isn't being offered as an option this cycle. I'd prefer a sane immigration policy where we allow in a much smaller number but carefully select for those most likely to contribute in a big way to our economy AND be culturally compatible with the Judeo/Christian/Western Civ ideas. But that isn't on offer, and if we have to pick from open borders, amnesty and forbidding the use of the term 'illegal alien' on the one hand and the Great Trump Wall on the other, then let us make sure it is yuge, luxurious and has His name in fifty foot letters every mile of its length.
Immigration is the fight. The Dems legalize millions of socialists from South of the border and turn Texas blue the game is over. Grab your American History book and on the last page, in your fanciest calligraphy, write "The End."
As for grading these candidates on their tech positions, no fricking clue because none of them have said much and none of them even give the appearance of knowing much about it other than Trump knowing how to use his iPhone to tweet, something any thirteen year old knows. Hillary gets demerits though for the mail server, since the entire purpose of the darned thing was to prevent FOIA (or any other) disclosure of the traffic through it and the stupid bitch wasn't even able to properly destroy the evidence beyond the FBI's ability to recover the data. Stupid AND evil is one heckuva combo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:36AM
1. Why does "Judeo/Christian" enter into it? Whatever happened to "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof"?
2. What ideas qualify as "Western Civ", and what don't? And how do you decide who has them and who doesn't?
The only things I really care about when it comes to immigration:
1. You're responsible for your own welfare while living in the US. We're not going to pick up the tab for you (and by and large, we don't under current policy).
2. Don't break the laws that everyone else has to abide by. And yes, that means some kind of punishment for people who got here illegally, including possibly deportation.
3. Employers have to pay immigrants the same amount they pay everybody else.
Follow those 3 rules, and I don't give 2 pairs of dingo's kidneys where you're from or what kind of ideas you find "culturally compatible", whatever that means. A lot of the problems around immigration, both historically and today, come from people trying to limit who comes here legally, which only encourages people to come here illegally, which encourages employers to ditch citizens and hire those who are here illegally because then they aren't subject to minimum wage and all that. If the Mexicans and Hondurans and so forth crossing the border all had to get paid minimum wage with health benefits, the farmers wouldn't prefer them to citizens, which means they'd find it much harder to get work and be more inclined to turn around and go home.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:55AM
This is JMorris we're talking about; the guy who's so willfully ignorant of everything from history to theology that he thinks the First Amendment sprung fully formed from Yahweh's head. He's suffering from the kind of cognitive dissonance (or rather, he's enjoying it and making US suffer it...) that thinks Ayn Rand and Christianity are compatible.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:49AM
Yeah! And he's so crazy that he doesn't want an endless stream of lawbreaking freeloaders entering our country illegally! How insane of him!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:52AM
This is JMorris we're talking about; the guy who's so willfully ignorant of everything from history to theology that he thinks the First Amendment sprung fully formed from Yahweh's head.
This is why, I don't talk about jmorris. Nope, just won't do it. First rule of the jmorris club is you do not talk about jmorris. I used to think he was just totally overwhelmed by Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, but then I realized that the only possible explanation for jmorris is that he is actually a Soviet sleeper. Probably placed as an infant. That would explain why he has no memory of his mission, at the same time he carries it out so flawlessly. I am going to guess that with the Reagan administration, the Soviets saw clearly they had no chance, since it was obvious that Reagan and his minions (note: not actually yellow minions, more like Rummy and Dick "DicK" Cheney) were both willing and capable of pulling of the most unprincipled and duplicitous operations ever seen in modern history. (Cf. Iran-Contra) So the USSR did the only thing they could do: they folded. But only apparently.
Now some think this represents the end of the Cold War, the end of Communism, and a whole lot of rubbish that jmorris could tell you about. He can't help it, it is his programming. But do you not see the genius? The KGB, maybe under the command of some future President of the Post-Communist (wink, wink) Russian Federation, send out Huge numbers of sleeper agents, programmed to foment and propel the worst aspects of American Capitalism. What I am somewhat less than subtlely suggesting, is that Trump is the result of a Soviet agitprop operation, years after the USSR ceased to exist, and the jmorris is one of the instruments of this attack on America. Think about it, you know in your heart it must be true! Do not you see that this is the only possible explanation, and after you realize this, everything becomes clear? And if this was just some wacko conspiracy theory, wouldn't they want you to think it was just some wacko conspiracy theory? jmorris . . . conspiracy theory . . . connect the dots, here are some more . . . . I TRIED TO TELL YOU! ! ! 1 1 (Oh, Ayn Rand? Colonel in the KGB, deep cover. Ask Allen Greenspan.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:04PM
Don't kid yourself; JMorris is no Soviet plant, or plant from any other nation. No, this is good ol' Made-In-The-USA stupidity. And it's all the worse because he's not actually retarded like most people below the Mason Dixon line; his problem is low WIS, not low INT (and he has Lawful Evil alignment).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:40AM
1. Why does "Judeo/Christian" enter into it?
I put Western Civ in the list on purpose and will deal with #2 here for that reason. We can only assimilate so many people at a time. After the big flood through Ellis Island we basically shut down immigration until Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act opened it up, but this time favoring anything NOT European. Now we have diversity problem to the extent social cohesion is failing. Whether we could have assimilated so many people so different from the original American stock is a question best left to the philosophers because as a matter of multi-culti policy we made a conscious effort not to try. Ok, now things are going to Hell and we are going to be closing the door for a generation or two, longer if assimilation isn't as successful as before. That is the force driving Trump. It needs to happen, it must happen, it -will- happen. So one must plan around that and discuss what remains possible.
I'd still like to see the door left open a little for cold blooded, practical reasons. The stated limitation is based on the following reasons:
a. We benefit from high value immigration in general. We might have benefited from the importation of low skilled labor at one point, I defy anyone to make an argument for it now in light of the success of the Progressives in converting our education system into a factory for turning out low (being generous) skilled labor. We currently pay to warehouse them and import third world socialists to "do jobs we pay Americans to reject." Madness.
b. Allowing in small numbers similar enough culturally to the existing majority will be more likely to be politically possible.
c. An enormous opportunity is about to present itself as Europe collapses into a new Dark Age. In our current situation we can't fling open the door to vast unwashed hordes of tired, huddled masses but we would be fools not to brain drain the best and brightest.
1. You're responsible for your own welfare while living in the US. We're not going to pick up the tab for you (and by and large, we don't under current policy).
If that were politically possible I'd agree. It isn't and there is no sense pretending otherwise. The Progressives WILL hand them government benefits if they are allowed to cross our border. Ask me again in the glorious future when the last Progressive is safely housed on a university campus as a living history exhibit / warning and we can discuss your idea seriously.
Follow those 3 rules, and I don't give 2 pairs of dingo's kidneys where you're from or what kind of ideas you find "culturally compatible", whatever that means.
We are either a "Blood and Soil" ethnic Nation State or we are a shared idea nation. But it must be one or the other: Choose wisely. If we are going to continue to try the shared idea we have to actually have a set of shared ideas, assimilating a slow flow of immigrants and their children in a conscious program of integration to those shared ideas. Ideas like those in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the other basics of Western Civ / Americanism. But as people look around and see that not happening we will turn to Blood and Soil, old skool Nationalism and I doubt either of us are going to like that much. Your libertarian open borders, everytbody just come on in so long as you get a job, can't possibly work since it rejects both. Doubly so in a welfare state. Milton Friedman said you can't have open borders and a welfare state and I defy anyone to argue otherwise since it so self evidently true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:14AM
I defy anyone to make an argument for it now in light of the success of the Progressives in converting our education system into a factory for turning out low (being generous) skilled labor.
Our education system was always like that. This isn't a recent development.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:36PM
I agree, we should be a nation of shared ideas. Here are the shared ideas:
1. Everybody old enough to make intelligent decisions can do as they please so long as they aren't hurting anybody else. (Kids, of course, have to obey their parents / guardians for the most part.) This is also known as "freedom".
2. Government leaders must maintain the support of a majority of the population. This is also known as "democracy".
3. Disagreements are to be resolved through open discussion and debate as much as possible. One place this shows up is in the court system, with public trials, juries, opposing lawyers, and so on.
And that's what most people are fighting for when they fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And it's true that the USA is far from the only country with those values, but I don't have a problem with that: Those other countries are our natural allies, and in many cases are our treaty allies.
Now, you're worried about a hoarde of people coming into the country that don't share those values. But I'm really not, for 3 basic reasons:
1. They're good values to live by. People who experience living with those values like them, especially if they haven't experienced living with them before. For an example, a buddy who spent his younger years in East Germany absolutely loves it in the United States, and would probably be happy to fight for us if he had to.
2. Billions of people outside of this country share those values, even the ones from countries that don't have them. You can find them in every part of the world: Latin America, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
3. Its really not easy to pack up and move to a new country, legally or not. Imagine, if you will, that your nightmare occurred, and to get away from the ultimate statist Bernie Sanders you decided to move to another country. How long would it take you to actually go? Probably not overnight due to the need to figure out a job and a place to stay and learn the language and leave behind your friends and most of your stuff. You aren't likely to do all that if you aren't reasonably sure that you're going to want to live in the country you're moving to.
And notice there's nothing in any of this involving religion, speaking English, being of European descent, capitalism as a religious belief, and so forth. I'd much rather have my polite and hardworking Chinese coworker (I think he's atheist, but I don't know for sure because his English isn't great and my Mandarin is worse and we don't talk about those sorts of things at work) in my neighborhood than, say, Donald Trump.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:47PM
Would you like to live in Mexico? Would you like to live in Syria?
If no, why bring that here? These... nations/peoples/cultures/whatever are expanding into our territory. You'll feel like a foreigner in your own country.
No, they won't blend in, especially the group that has a fondness for honor killings. Nobody leaves the culture because the punishment is death. No, they won't become tame. We've seen this in France and in the UK, where vigilante neighborhood patrols are enforcing a dress code and various rules against non-family of opposite sex being together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:12AM
You realize that the USA already handed "the end" to the native americans right? But somehow your self-righteous judeo-christian self sees commies everywhere and the end of the "American" way of life. It might be time to get off the net and go sit on your lawn yelling at the 50 year old "kids".
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:41AM
Yes, but what is your point exactly? If you expect me to sit quietly while the Progressives disposes me and mine under a horde of 3rd world "diversity" without just as much of a fight as Sitting Bull put up then you are nucking futz. Losing is part of life, there is no shame in it. We don't name sports teams after the Indians because they were pussies after all, they went down swinging and earned respect and honor. Heck, with a little passage of time to allow dispassionate reason, most see the valor of the frickin' Nazis, the Mongols, etc. along with the attributes that earned them infamy and shame; doesn't mean we want to see em return mind ya...
Surrendering one's birthright without so much as an attempt is pathetic though, and that is what the Progs do and expect everyone else to do. Not happening. Not here, and apparently not in Europe... despite the best efforts of Merkel the Mad to purify the German sins of WWII by ordering not only Germany to commit suicide but to drag all of Europe into a new Dark Age. Look like they too are discovering their balls. Let us just hope they do not overcorrect too far, would have to have to see America have to save Europe from a militant Germany three times.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:17AM
because immigration is the only issue that matters at this point
Right, not the NSA conducting unconstitutional democracy-destroying surveillance on the populace, TSA thugs violating people's constitutional rights at airports, or any other issues like that. Just immigration.
Oh, and Trump advocates for the government to steal private property to give to other private entities, government censorship, terrorist fearmongering, and other typical authoritarian nonsense.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:01PM
Unrestricted immigration to destroy the societal cohesion and surveillance to ensure that any opposition is rooted out.
As Agent Smith would put it "What good is a phone call.. if you're unable to speak..".
Or perhaps how may you enjoy privacy if you're stabbed and bombed on the streets.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:54PM
Time for California succession I think
(California++);
is that acceptable? lol
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 16 2016, @11:58PM
The rest of the country is watching and praying you are right.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:06PM
Praying for another civil war?
Because the last succession worked out so well.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:05PM
What's so bad about California for people that don't live there?
(Score: 4, Touché) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday March 17 2016, @01:27AM
I must object to your comparison of Cheny and Cthulhu.
I can't think of ANYTHING that Cthulhu has ever done that would warrant such an insult.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @12:35AM
So is there any way to fix this mess of ignoramus who what to be in charge?
Anyone we can write-in vote? Anyone would be better.
The ghost of Steve Jobs? Mr Hanky the Christmas Poo? Derpy Hooves?
Yea, that's it. Derpy for president!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @02:21AM
No need to write in. Just vote Green.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:08PM
How may eligible American voters are even aware there's an alternative to Demopublicans? (D/R)
And if they are, are they indoctrinated to even make a move? or put up another alternative?
The puppet masters control the media that greatly influence who votes. Better crowd source and insert your own puppet. Play the game like it's shown to work. As a bonus the ignoramus mass will be left out of the loop.
One problem with the current system is the winner takes all and that the top figure has top power instead of that being up to voting in parliament.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @03:21AM
https://mcafee2016.com/ [mcafee2016.com]
http://download.cnet.com/s/mcafee-2016-total-protection/ [cnet.com]
McAfee 2016, for total protection
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:47AM
Vermin Supreme 2016 [youtube.com]
It has a nice ring to it, and he's the only one asking the tough questions [youtube.com]
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 17 2016, @03:40AM
--Robert A. Heinlein (Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org])
And one from the past:
Politics is the art of the possible.
--Otto von Bismarck [wikiquote.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:18PM
If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead
This theme seems to reoccur quite often these days.
As for voters: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:11AM
I explained last year during an appearance on MSNBC that Republicans want another ground war, and I know very well that Hillary Clinton will give them their wish.
Why did Trump contribute money to Clinton's Senate campaigns and Foundation?
Why did Bill Clinton and Donald Trump go golfing and why did the Clintons go to Trump's wedding?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html [huffingtonpost.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @05:12PM
Whatever technical knowledge Clinton may have, her personality is downright scary. She gloated over the killing of Moammar Qaddafi, saying "we came, we saw, he died." [youtube.com] A later interviewer asked her whether she regretted that remark, whereupon she non-explained "it was an unconfirmed report." [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @04:50AM
Any Republican or Democrat currently running gets an F for all four categories.
Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who will likely be the LP Nominee, gets an A for the first three and would agree that the last is not a function of the Federal Government.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mattTheOne on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:20AM
I recall Bernie Sanders was the only one who didn't flat out say he was a traitor that should be hanged. That's pretty brave.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-i-dont-care-about-edward-snowden [senate.gov]
Ah well, back to your reprogramming...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2016, @08:30AM
I would like to see how "well" they would hold up against other politicians around the world.
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Thursday March 17 2016, @06:05PM
and has issues with companies like Uber?
He earned his lowest scores in the Education, Talent, and the
Workforce category due to comments that show a lack of understanding about the need
to bring global technical talent to America to address a shortfall in skilled workers and
the new opportunities being created in the on-demand and gig economy (though his
statements about the gig economy were limited to the vaguely ominous claim to have
“serious problems with Uber”).
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday March 17 2016, @07:23PM
It was an unapproved opinion.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!