5 ms·

Not a great reason to vote for someone. I mentioned on reddit that I like him among the Democrats for his commitment to open government. However, while he has

Not a great reason to vote for someone. I mentioned on reddit that I like him among the Democrats for his commitment to open government. However, while he has opposed the war he has not spoken out against wider American militarism. In addition, along with his democratic colleagues he seems not to appreciate the value of a free economy. I'm pulling for Paul (Graham or Ron), but I guess he'll be alright. Nowhere to go but up, right?

dawnerd 19y ago
Paul would have my vote, but some things he says just don't agree with me. Right now more things Obama has said matches my views. Although I think Paul would make a great president.
- alaskamiller 19y ago
  1. Voted for the continuation of the Patriot Act. 2. Has said that bombing Iran and nuclear options are not off the table. 3. Will continue the war on drugs despite admitting doing drugs 4. Will expand the government while lowering tax rates.
  - dawnerd 19y ago
    Yea, pretty much sounds like me. Albeit with the ability the change. Now the Patriot act is a touchy subject because the revisions Obama wants are much better than the ones Bush had. The war on drugs, imho, is a good thing. Just because he did drugs doesn't mean a damn thing. He knows first hand how bad they are. If anything that is better than someone fighting something they haven't experienced.
  - run4yourlives 19y ago
    >2. Has said that bombing Iran and nuclear options are not off the table. Very presidential actually. Why would you play your hand in any other way? The threat of nuclear annihilation took care of the Soviets, after all. Iranians aren't stupid.
  - jacobolus 19y ago
    1. Voted for the continuation of the Patriot Act Understand though that this is in the context of getting through a compromise which was significantly less harmful than the original. If all those who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act on principle refused to budge on that compromise, the congress would have managed to instead ram through something worse. All of which is to say that the vote in favor doesn't necessarily indicate that Obama supports PATRIOT ACT-like policies.
jimbokun 19y ago
Presidents can't make laws. At most, they can veto them. They can't set the budget. They can nominate Supreme Court justices, but have no control over them once nominated and often they interpret laws differently than how the appointing president thought they would. I can no longer say that the President can not unilaterally declare and wage war, but I can say that the Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress. So what is the point of the Presidency, then? Especially in our day of modern media, a very big part of the President's ability to accomplish things is his ability to persuade the American people to work to achieve common goals. So maybe just "looking Presidential" or "sounding Presidential" is not important in and of itself. But if that is part of an overall power of persuasion devoted to noble ends, that can be a very important characteristic for a President, indeed. Considering the current state of the Republican party, the Democratic candidates probably represent something closer to a "free economy" at this point. And of the remaining declared Democratic and Republican candidates, only Ron Paul has opposed the war so unambiguously. Also, not much commentary yet on Obama bringing in Lawrence Lessig to advise him on technology issues. As that's probably the closest to being relevant to Hacker News, I would think that would get more discussion and some credit for Obama (again, relative to other actual candidates, not some idealized candidate who might agree with you on every issue).
- tsuru 19y ago
  Presidents have the most unilateral power with regards to foreign policy. He or She is, in effect, America's face to the world. So looking or sounding Presidential does have its own importance. While they can't unilaterally start war by law, history has shown us Presidents can get away with unilaterally weilding military power. Furthermore the elecorate has taught Congress that voting for war equals re-election; anti-war equals a boot to the curb. Congress, naturally, votes for their own job security. In the same way that it's not about voting just for someone "looking presidential" it shouldn't be about someone who is just anti-(this)war. In the end though, I believe that hackers not paying attention to politics will only lead to not having our needs heard at all. Believing you can stay 'out' or 'above' politics is a fool's errand. You will be affected.
  - 19y ago

dawnerd 19y ago

Paul would have my vote, but some things he says just don't agree with me. Right now more things Obama has said matches my views. Although I think Paul would make a great president.

alaskamiller 19y ago
1. Voted for the continuation of the Patriot Act. 2. Has said that bombing Iran and nuclear options are not off the table. 3. Will continue the war on drugs despite admitting doing drugs 4. Will expand the government while lowering tax rates.
- dawnerd 19y ago
  Yea, pretty much sounds like me. Albeit with the ability the change. Now the Patriot act is a touchy subject because the revisions Obama wants are much better than the ones Bush had. The war on drugs, imho, is a good thing. Just because he did drugs doesn't mean a damn thing. He knows first hand how bad they are. If anything that is better than someone fighting something they haven't experienced.
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  >2. Has said that bombing Iran and nuclear options are not off the table. Very presidential actually. Why would you play your hand in any other way? The threat of nuclear annihilation took care of the Soviets, after all. Iranians aren't stupid.
- jacobolus 19y ago
  1. Voted for the continuation of the Patriot Act Understand though that this is in the context of getting through a compromise which was significantly less harmful than the original. If all those who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act on principle refused to budge on that compromise, the congress would have managed to instead ram through something worse. All of which is to say that the vote in favor doesn't necessarily indicate that Obama supports PATRIOT ACT-like policies.

jimbokun 19y ago

Presidents can't make laws. At most, they can veto them. They can't set the budget. They can nominate Supreme Court justices, but have no control over them once nominated and often they interpret laws differently than how the appointing president thought they would. I can no longer say that the President can not unilaterally declare and wage war, but I can say that the Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress. So what is the point of the Presidency, then? Especially in our day of modern media, a very big part of the President's ability to accomplish things is his ability to persuade the American people to work to achieve common goals. So maybe just "looking Presidential" or "sounding Presidential" is not important in and of itself. But if that is part of an overall power of persuasion devoted to noble ends, that can be a very important characteristic for a President, indeed. Considering the current state of the Republican party, the Democratic candidates probably represent something closer to a "free economy" at this point. And of the remaining declared Democratic and Republican candidates, only Ron Paul has opposed the war so unambiguously. Also, not much commentary yet on Obama bringing in Lawrence Lessig to advise him on technology issues. As that's probably the closest to being relevant to Hacker News, I would think that would get more discussion and some credit for Obama (again, relative to other actual candidates, not some idealized candidate who might agree with you on every issue).

tsuru 19y ago
Presidents have the most unilateral power with regards to foreign policy. He or She is, in effect, America's face to the world. So looking or sounding Presidential does have its own importance. While they can't unilaterally start war by law, history has shown us Presidents can get away with unilaterally weilding military power. Furthermore the elecorate has taught Congress that voting for war equals re-election; anti-war equals a boot to the curb. Congress, naturally, votes for their own job security. In the same way that it's not about voting just for someone "looking presidential" it shouldn't be about someone who is just anti-(this)war. In the end though, I believe that hackers not paying attention to politics will only lead to not having our needs heard at all. Believing you can stay 'out' or 'above' politics is a fool's errand. You will be affected.
- 19y ago