Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:no, they can't (Score 1) 990

Mass transit is more efficient big cities where you actually have a "mass" to move to a particular spot regularly.

If you live in a city that is smaller, mass transit will never be more efficient. There are simply too few people needing to go to or even near any one spot at any one time.

Comment Re:A wasted vote... (Score 1) 993

Um - I don't know how to gently break this to you, but no presidential candidate in recent history - and perhaps not so recent history - has ever had the power to do the things they promised when running for office. The closest was probably Ron Paul - and see how he ended up...

Sadly, the moderators don't ask questions about what a President is actually empowered to do either. They are hung up on the vast vision things that Congress has to deal with first. If that ever actually happened, then the questions might give some insight as to whether or not there would be a Presidential veto or signing of the bill, but otherwise it is just blather. If the candidates and moderators would stick to worrying about what Presidents can actually do, there would be a much faster electoral process and far fewer lies told.

If you get down to just what each candidate says that they actually are empowered to do, then all the candidates are back on the same footing - regardless of Republican, Democrat, or 3rd party affiliation.

What is their character and temperament? Do they show evidence of wisdom and maturity? Do they fear God or think they are God? Are they charitable and fair? How do they treat the poor and downtrodden? How do they treat those who are struggling? Do they want to ship them all off someplace where they will never be seen again? How do they handle their words and message? After all, communicating is a primary function of a president both nationally and internationally. How much baggage from their past are they going to be dragging into the White House that other governments can use against us?

Are they likely to lead us into a war nobody wants? Will they lead us into a war if needed? Will they negotiate treaties that help or hurt the majority of the American people or will the rich get richer and the poor poorer? Will our relations with other countries be better or worse in four years if they are president? How beholden are they to the existing government, military, and commercial entities? How beholden are they to the people providing the funds to get them elected?

Will they defend all the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and leave everything else not specified in the constitution to the states like the BOR says or will they let the latest "danger buzzword" chip away at a few more? Will they work to pull the country together or will they fracture it further? Since the President does control - to a point - the executive departments, these are real concerns. What will they choose to regulate if legislation fails? Will our freedoms, security, and privacy be better with this candidate in office?

Will they work with Congress or better yet, actually get Congress to work? Will government be bigger and more intrusive in four years with them in office or will it be smaller? Will our debt be bigger or smaller in four years with them in office? Most of these things come down to exercising their veto power over bad bills and budgets from Congress. A 3rd party candidate has a better shot at being willing to do that since they are unlikely to be beholden to their peers in the major parties.

To me, those are the things that matter in selecting a president.

There are a few swing states. If you live in a state where your vote really will make a difference, then by all means vote for a major party. If you are in a state that will go R or D without fail, then vote your conscience and pick who you think will be the best president, even if that is a 3rd party. We may not have true preferential voting, but in most states we effectively do. If you live in one of them, vote for the best person and feel good about yourself for a change. If you think that the R or D candidate is a good fit for the questions I have asked, by all means pick R or D. If you read those questions and consider the primary party candidates and blanch or retch, then choose a 3rd party. It probably won't make any difference, but you'll feel better for the next four years and it may help to provide ballot access and debate access in the future. At the state and local level, do the same thing. Vote in the primary that is likely to fill the most elected positions. Then vote for the best person in the election - regardless of party. Remember that Congress must be fixed before the President matters much and both main parties are responsible for its disfunctional state.

Comment Re:Reluctant Libertarian (Score 1) 993

Sadly, it isn't what any president supports that matters - unless Congress will pass the needed legislation - and it is likely they will do so. That last part has been a dubious thing in the last few terms. It may matter a bit more what they don't support if there is a chance that Congress is likely to pass legislation on a particular item, but that is less important when huge must-pass legislation gets littered with junk that the President may not like, but has no choice to agree to to get the must-pass stuff through. Again, Congress is the problem.

Due to the over-reaches of imperial power in the last few administrations (both R and D), presidents have extended their reach. But really, with as dis-functional as Congress now is, the person at the top has some limits on what they can do. Thus, you see President Obama using the EPA and other federal agencies to pass by rule what Congress doesn't pass by law. That isn't how the system was supposed to really work.

Appointments to the Supreme Court, ambassadors and the attendant view of the US around the world, treaty obligations, and the like are about all a President is good for these days. I'm not particularly happy with either major party candidate in that respect either, and won't be voting for them. But support for some new tax proposal that will never get out of Congress is not a reason to support Mr. Johnson.

Comment Re:Darrell Castle (Score 1) 993

Yes, although since I live in a red state it won't affect the outcome. I also am not a CP member, although I frequently vote for them in the actual election.

It would be very nice if the primary election occurred like the general election. Pick a day, and everybody votes for their party's candidate slates. When the day is over and the votes are tallied country wide, you have your slate of candidates for the general election.

I, and a huge block of Americans, are tired of not really having a say in who actually represents the party we belong to since many good people are forced to drop out before the primaries even occur in our states, skewing the race to the best funded people. Look where that got the R/D parties this year.

Skip the conventions. Nobody cares about the "platform" garbage except the elite party poo-bahs who attend. It isn't like they are going to follow those scripts anyway. Let the primary votes each candidate gets on a given day country wide be the deciding factor and not some back door caucus or super delegate influenced wink wink nod nod pile of crap.

Then take care of the constitutional electoral party and let the general election results country wide be sufficient. Yes, the existing systems have survived for a couple of hundred years. No reason we can't move forward just a bit. We still aren't riding horses and buggies - well - at least most of us aren't. Let's move forward in this aspect of our government as well.

Comment Who cares about events? (Score 1) 114

How about all the cell phone service providers increase the number of towers so you can get a reliable signal in buildings and not have to go outside to make a call. That'd make a lot of customers far happier in the long run than the inconvenience of not being able to use your cell phone at an event where you're most likely not wanting to be bothered with a call at all and are likely to be asked to keep your cell phones OFF.

Comment Re:She makes money off of H1-B outsourcing (Score 1) 482

Whether it is competitive or not, no company really pays taxes. They just take them out of the income they get from sales and remit them to the appropriate taxing authority. So the end purchaser pays the taxes. It would be better to own up to that, reduce prices for goods, eliminate taxes and all the legalese required to collect it, and just increase the individual tax burden to compensate for any differences. It's that eliminating the legalese in the tax code that is the toughest to achieve because it would take legislation to accomplish and the legislative leaders ... well, I'm trying to be nice today.

Comment Re:She makes money off of H1-B outsourcing (Score 1) 482

You can also alter tax policy. It does cost money and particularly time to transport cheaply from China to the US. Eliminate corporate taxes since they are passed on to the customers anyway and you'll have more US based manufacturing. Whether it would completely fix the problem or not is anybody's guess - but it would put a dent in it.

Comment Re:Why the upset? (Score 2) 693

I also seriously doubt they will ignore it - Cameron is resigning after all. But the vote was still very close. It wasn't 80/20, 70/30 or even 60/40. It was very close. A case could be made for there not being enough of a mandate to make a huge change in the country prudent.

Comment Re:Suburbanites w/ 10Mbps to pay for farmer's giga (Score 1) 147

People are already leaving farms and ranches in droves. Small towns are disappearing. Small farms are getting bought up by large corporations. There are a host of reasons for this and the vast majority of them won't be fixed by cheap fast internet. But in my view, the internet access is no different than electrification. Nobody would be expecting farmers to work their farms without electricity.

If internet access was not available in your city of x million and only 15 people wanted it - scattered throughout the entire city and suburbs and you were one of them who wanted it how would you feel if the providers refused to provide any access because they couldn't make a profit on just 15 folks. You can make the argument that you could move - and that is true. But the farmers and ranchers are stuck to the land and can't move. They do have some limited options for internet access - but nothing that would ever be considered broadband.

I don't object to escrow or other options that people are suggesting to force them to actually provide it and keep it going before getting the money - I'm just not of the opinion that anything will be done under those terms.

Comment Re:Suburbanites w/ 10Mbps to pay for farmer's giga (Score 2) 147

Don't know about your circumstances, but I'm happy to subsidize them because I like to eat what they grow and raise. Everybody can talk about competition and how eager companies should be to provide electricity or internet in this day to the rural sticks, but no company is going to do that on its own at a price any farmer or rancher is going to be able to pay. Maybe if they get gigabit to the rural sticks the prices will come down where I live.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Working...