Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary 116

Posted by samzenpus
from the strange-bedfellows dept.
30 Republicans and 14 Democrats are running for president in the New Hampshire primary this year, the largest number since 1992 when 62 candidates ran. Among other factors, the meager $1,000 fee to get one's name on the ballot makes New Hampshire an attractive place for unusual candidates. This year we have home-builder John Davis who "has budgeted $500,000 to visit all 3,143 counties in the U.S. in a 43-foot live-on bus emblazoned with a photo of himself brandishing a femur-size wrench and the slogan 'Let's Fix America.'" The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American. From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary

Comments Filter:
  • I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die". Extra points if he (or she) can get away with appending it to "Live Free Or Die, Bitches"
    • by DesScorp (410532)

      I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

      Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".

        Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on?

        Not any libertarian I've ever heard of running for anything notable. Every self-proclaimed libertarian I've seen lately who has been able to bring attention to their campaign is just another conservative who finds it advantageous to run under a different label.

        When you are tethered to corporate everything the way the likes of Ron Paul wants people to be, you are less free than we are now. And when you continually roll back anything resembling controls on large corporations, you inevitably give them t

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul? The one who is against corporate personhood? This is not correct. Also, the ginormous corporations use the political system to bring about huge regulatory bills to virtually kill any competition or severly limit it to anyone but them and the rest of their cartel, no matter what the industry. It is the regulations you so desire that CAUSE the problems you are trying to fix. They know the people are easily lead to believe these regulations are called for by those wh

          • Tethered to corporate everything? Ron Paul?

            Wow, another slashdot message in blind support of Ron Paul. Shocked, I am not. Said message didn't bother to read all of what I said; also not shocking.

            The one who is against corporate personhood?

            Saying you're against corporate "personhood", and then removing regulations that prevent corporations from effectively owning people and walking all over both those they do and those they do not own, are a conflict that Ron Paul has no apparent problem with. He is fine to strip out government regulations that keep our water, air, and food safe. That's not libertarianism; that's just extreme pro-business action.

            What a shocking surprise, that you wrote up a message of nonsense, in reply to a message that you didn't read in its entirety, and yet you got moderated up because you praised Ron Paul. Next you're going to try to tell us that there is a secret enclave of far-left slashdotters holding you down.

            • "Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want

              • by mcgrew (92797) *

                The market comes with very strong regulations:

                The Libbies want to dismantle those regulations.

                You can't defraud people,

                You must be new here -- in the country, I mean. You've never been cheated by business? You're either really young or really lucky. Ever heard of OtherOS? [wikipedia.org] You don't consider Sony removing a feature you've paid for to be fraud?

                you can't pollute,

                No? [wikipedia.org] Why is no one in prison for that? You can bet your ass if you, a person, negligently did something like that you'ld be in prison for life.

                you can'

                • This is the worst strawman I've ever seen, you need to stop stuffing words in people's mouths. I mean, of course emminent domain is theft. Those are precisely the things I'm arguing against!

                  Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business!

                  Nobody even implied that, which is the very reason I use it as an example, because it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines. Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety o

                  • by mcgrew (92797) *

                    it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines.

                    I've never even heard that notion, which is easily discounted by the fact that farming in the US is a business, and we haven't had a famine since the 1930s dust bowl (which was obviously weather related).

                    Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety or healthcare, among other things, in the public sector.

                    And you can't see

                    • If you make someone ill with your poisoned food, you're criminally liable. No if's, and's, or but's. No CNN articles make that untrue. End of story.

                      Now again, go google "pollution private property" or something similar so you can stop making these stupid-ass straw-man arguments. Private property does NOT EVER mean that some other company can dump toxic chemicals on my land without permission. No if's, and's, or CNN articles about it. End of story.

                      What "tragedy of the commons" are you talking about?

                      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tragedy+of+the+commons [lmgtfy.com] Rinse, repeat f

                    • by mcgrew (92797) *

                      Pollution knows no boundaries nor respects private property. Dump your garbage on your own property and it will wind up in the groundwater for me to drink, PERIOD. Burn toxins on your own property and the wind carries it to mine. You have no right to pollute.

                      And again, you think people who own no property should have no rights? That's pretty telling, Mr. 1%er. I find classism as disgusting as racism.

                      I know what the "tragedy of the commons" is, but it doesn't seem like you understand it. The true tragedy of

                    • by Uberbah (647458)

                      Fanned. Since the Paulbots are out in force I'll copy and paste what I said upthread in response to another Paulbot:

                      Case in point for the Paultards: how the cigarette industry went decades without losing a liability lawsuit because there's no way to know if Grandma got lung cancer because she smoked two packs a day or because she was genetically predisposed to it. Do they think other polluting industries wouldn't do the exact same thing?

                      "Your Honor, the plaintiff simply hasn't proven that the poisonous mer

          • Have you actually read Ron Paul's writings? You kinda have to keep looking at what he actually says and not what he seems to say.

            He is not against 'corporate personhood'. Quite the contrary in fact as he is defending the corporate right to 'free speech' inasmuch as it pertains to corporations being able to buy advertising time to promote their favorite lackey...er...candidate.

            He's also not against regulation pushed by corporate lobbying. His 'solution' for lobbying and corruption is, and I'm paraphrasing,

          • by Quothz (683368)
            Man, I hesitate to reply to ACs but I see this meme a lot. The simple truth is that truth isn't simple: Some regulations are good and useful, like the ones that say food distributors can't poop in the food; others are anti-competitive or purely fee-driven, like requiring licensing to practice interior decoration; and some are both, like requiring banks to have a certain amount of cash on hand. The only way to avoid the bad and keep the good is to elect honest, thoughtful representatives instead of demagogu
        • by Loki_1929 (550940) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:27PM (#38298274) Journal

          The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

          The same Republican Party that gave us massive expansions in Medicare, the Department of Education, and the national debt? The same Republican Party that has shown no interest in eliminating any Federal entitlement programs, the Department of Energy, the aforementioned Department of Education, or much of anything else? The same Republican Party that's been fighting for the same absurdly broad definitions of the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suited their draconian drug policies? The same Republican Party that took the country to war against Iraq despite having no evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States or its citizens? The same Republican Party that continued and supported US troops being stationed in over 150 countries around the world? The Republican Party that supported the likes of George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Child Left Behind? Massive Federal land grabs? FCC censorship? Support for Federal marriage restrictions and Federal abortion limitations? Support for banning flag burning? Indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil like Jose Padilla? No Fourth Amendment protections for Americans returning to the United States? Invasive and dangerous searches at airports by security which became forcibly Federalized? Bailouts and takeovers of private businesses?

          It just goes on and on and it's been going on for decades. The Republican base and the GOP itself are -NOTHING- like libertarians. Most Republicans I've seen don't have a clue what the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments are, why we have them, and why they should care about them. Democrats are certainly no better when it comes to the second, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth Amendments. President Obama picked up exactly where George W. Bush left off pulling the same kind of garbage, only with a more articulate spin on why shredding the Constitution is the right thing to do. Where's your hope and change? It's in Guantanamo Bay, the Obamacare insurance company giveaway, the Federal Reserve trying to run the economy behind the curtain, and the continued bailouts and stimulus that have kept us barely treading water while adding the weight of debt to our ankles and threatening to drown us all slowly and painfully.

          Let me correct your statement for you:
          The people who call themselves the Democratic Party - at least in the US - are functionally identical to the Republican Party on >99% of all matters.

          Not a one of them gives a damn about you or me. Neither of them has our interests at heart. Neither of them has or cares about solutions. The only thing they care about is selling you a promise to get your vote so they can take your money and sell your ass for a carton of Lucky's the first chance they get once they make it through the next election. They've got you playing these stupid games of blaming this group or that when all the while it is they who tug on your strings like expert puppeteers making you put on a show for their benefit.

          You see, what you're missing is a very simple fact of life almost universally lost on folks thinking that government can be a force for good: government IS politicians. libertarians don't want small government because we hate the poor or because we don't want to do our part to help those around us. libertarians want small government because all governments are inherently populated with these kinds of self-serving scumbags within a few years of their formation and we want to limit the amount of damage they can do. The larger your government is, the smaller you are by comparison in the eyes of the egomaniacs who seek that kind of power. You're a tool for them to use to build a machine that enriches them and their cronies. Any good that comes from their actions is purely for PR purposes and the sheer level of damage caused is truly unimaginable.

          50 sm

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone, and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of

            • by Loki_1929 (550940)

              The Republican party today is not the same as the one back in Reagan's era, in fact it's changed quite a lot just in this decade alone,

              What they advertise has changed; what they actually do has not. The Contract with America was virtually nothing but hot air. The only reason we got close to a balanced budget was that the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic President couldn't agree on what to spend tons of money on.

              and the stuff the current Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trail is straight out of an ultra pro-corporatist anti-regulation playbook, almost identical to what the Libertarians spout, except with some added fundamentalist religion to appease the evangelical Christian voters. The current candidates have been talking a lot lately about eliminating the Dept of Education, the FAA, the FCC, and any other Federal agency that stands in the way of corporate profits. Taking the country to war, however, is still perfectly fine by them as one thing they don't want to downsize or eliminate is the DoD, and the hefty contracts for defense contractors. As for marriage and abortion stuff, again, those things don't stand in the way of corporate profits, yet they bring in votes from the evangelicals and fundies.

              I would strongly disagree. The current Republican candidates (minus, to an extent, Ron Paul) give a small amount of lip service to cutting taxes and regulations because - quite frankly - it's not an issue where they can di

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by stinerman (812158)

          You must not know the joke.

          A Libertarian is a Republican with a conviction for possession of weed.

        • The people who call themselves libertarians - at least in the US - are functionally identical to republicans on >99% of all matters.

          You must not hang around very many libertarians . . .

        • by Sean (422)

          Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government. He is a true libertarian.

          http://youtu.be/qWxaGRZ7Nrs [youtu.be]
          http://youtu.be/BnPV2xea2ro [youtu.be]

          • Don't forget that Ron Paul wants to take away the privileges large corporations get from government

            Except that he will give them a lot more than he will take away from them. He plans to abolish most of the regulatory agencies that large businesses are always bitching about - you know the agencies that are tasked with keeping our air and water clean; silly things like that. Taking away their privileges is trivial in comparison to the mandated blind eye that we will be forced to turn towards them as they kill us off in the name of profit.

            • As far as I can tell, what you've said here is not correct [wikipedia.org].

              You see, the way the system works right now people are granted protections from liability and lawsuits as long as they meet standards set by regulators. And beyond that, corporate shareholders are granted many protections from liability in general, regardless of a corporation's compliance with regulations.

              So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he w

              • by Sique (173459)

                So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

                ... which is a pipe dream. There is no disincentive for short term profits, that is strong enough. And strong property rights (whose property will be strengthened anyway?) will solve nothing e.g. when it comes to contamination. If you poison your own property, no one can hinder you without regulations forbidding exactly that. If later the borders break that were designed to limit the intoxication, and people get sick or die, how will you solve that problem with property rights? Paying for the lower value of

              • So Ron Paul's position is that by strengthening property rights, civil lawsuits would provide adequate disincentive to polluters. In reality, he want's to weaken protections for polluters. The opposite of what you've said.

                Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would

                • by mosb1000 (710161)

                  Nevermind the fallacy of "their burden on industry"

                  Why would you say that it's fallacious? I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing contract work for manufacturers by helping them comply with environmental regulations. How can I make all this money with it, if it doesn't cost them anything? And environmental regulations are just he tip of the iceberg. Also, the money they pay me is just the tip of the ice-burg, because they often have to make changes to the way they do business to comply with regula

                • by mosb1000 (710161)

                  Except that proposal doesn't actually work. It places the responsibility on the private citizen to make a case against a polluter. If, for example, a polluter is burning toxic waste and contaminating the air, the private citizens need to prove where the products that make them sick are coming from. That is an incredibly difficult task and takes a significant amount of time, such that many people could not afford to pursue that problem. It is more likely that the people living in the polluted are would - if

                  • I'm amazed you haven't already been moderated up to (+5, informative) by all the Paullowers on slashdot; I guess they ran out of their moderation points.

                    Nonetheless, Erin Brockovich is not a realistic portrayal of how the country would be if all the environmental regulations were eliminated as most of the candidates want to see happen. While yes it is based on a true story, the fact is that the case was brought up by someone who had legal connections. Without her involvement in the matter it is hard to
                    • by mosb1000 (710161)

                      It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuits. In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial. Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.

                      Preventing lawsuits is the main reason companies try to reduce pollution. They're not worried about a couple million dollars in fines. Today, preventing lawsuits simply means meeting environmental standards. Su

                    • It is not rare for people to win these kind of lawsuit

                      Really? How many do you know of that haven't been featured in hollywood movies? For some reason do you think hollywood likes to put very common stories into film? If so, then why wasn't my last oil change made into a movie?

                      In fact it is so common that companies always try to settle out of court rather than bringing them to trial.

                      Wrong. They settle out of court because they don't want the bad publicity. But even that doesn't happen very often. There are far, far, far, more cases of polluters getting away with it than there are of them not.

                      Because if pollution they've caused is shown to have injured someone, there isn't a jury in the country that will let them off the hook.

                      Bull. Shit.

                      The companies know exactly what attorneys to hire to

                    • by Uberbah (647458)

                      Bull. Shit.

                      The companies know exactly what attorneys to hire to get out of this. The attorneys know exactly how to pick a jury that will lead to acquittal. And the lawyers representing the people in the case are comparatively underpaid to boot.

                      Case in point for the Paultards: how the cigarette industry went decades without losing a liability lawsuit because there's no way to know if Grandma got lung cancer because she smoked two packs a day or because she was genetically predisposed to it. Do they think ot

      • by AuMatar (183847)

        Yes, so long as you redefine the word "free" to mean whatever they claim it means. Which seems to have no bearing on what the rest of the world considers it to be.

      • by stms (1132653) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:27PM (#38297736)

        Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?

        Yes that's what the Libertarian Party stands for when you boil it down. When you boil down the Republican party it stands for "vote for us if you hate poor people". If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money". Isn't it fun to over simplify complex political ideas even though it's ultimately what's destroying this country.

        • by Grishnakh (216268)

          If you boil down the Democratic Party platform it's "If you vote for us we'll give you free money".

          The problem is that their platform is rather different from what they do when they're in power. The Dems promise nice social programs and such when they're on the campaign trail, but as soon as they get elected they look for as many ways to give free money to giant corporations as they can, and happily screw over the poor and middle class people who voted for them.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @07:59PM (#38297348) Homepage Journal

    you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

    • Re:And this is how (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:01PM (#38297378)
      That is necessary but not sufficient. To be sufficient you'd also have to replace first-past-the-post elections.
      • I would mod this up if I had points. Plurality voting sucks. At least go with Approval for single-winner races, if you think Condorcet is too complicated.

    • you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

      Not only that, but remove primaries.

    • by wanzeo (1800058)

      I wish. This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction. But it's nice to see there is some hope left elsewhere.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        This will never happen in my state, as we sell our senate seats at auction.

        What state? The only state I know of where Senate seats are sold is here in Illinois. You did hear that Blago was sentenced yesterday to fourteen years in the federal pen for that very crime, didn't you? Likewise, our previous Governor (the one before Blago) is still in prison for selling commercial drivers licenses to unqualified drivers.

        • by wanzeo (1800058)

          Yup, I'm from Illinois. And yes, I've been following the Blago news. It seems that part of the problem is that people become career politicians, and so they start looking at everything as a potential for making money.

          If you had normal people running for office, and only serving for a few terms, I think the corruption would be drastically reduced.

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            Agreed, but how would you get normal people to take a job like that? It seems that wanting to be a cop or a politician should automatically disqualify you for the position, since both jobs only attract the power hungry.

            Term limits wouldn't help, Ryan was a one term Governor. With term limits, they just jump from position to position; Ryan was SoS before he was Governor. Obama served one term as State Senator, then part of a term as Federal Senator, then President. He hasn't served two terms in any office s

    • How about also removing the party label for each candidate from the ballot. We already have multiple parties running in various elections but there are probably too many people who look for the D or R label and vote based off of that. This would at least require that people be some what informed as to who the R and D candidates are since they couldn't just vote down the ticket unless they knew all of their party's candidates.
      • by Shotgun (30919)

        I'll go one step further. Remove the names from the ballots. Seriously, if you can't even legibly SPELL the person's name (physical disabilities aside), don't vote. This is not a poll tax, or a way of keeping the "disenfranchised" from voting. It's a way of keeping the uninformed from voting.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.

      There were five parties on the Presidential ticket in enough states last election that they had a mathematical chance of winning. The trouble is, media are controlled by the corporations, who have convinced everyone that a vote for a Green or a Libbie is a wasted vote. That way they only have to bribe two candidates.

    • by T.E.D. (34228)

      No. The history of this country has quite clearly demonstrated that there will not ever be more than two viable parties. Every time a new party has arisen, the weaker of the other two quickly died. Two parties is quite clearly the stable state for the system our Constitution has given us.

      Poly-party systems only exist in parlimentary democracies that allow minority representatives in their government. For example, if a party gets 20% of the vote nationwide, they may get to make up 20% of the representaves in

  • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp@NOsPAm.Gmail.com> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:04PM (#38297432) Homepage Journal

    Vermin Supreme sounds like a pizza in some dystopian future. "Includes all toppings, with rats, cockroaches, and maggots. Dung Beetles are extra".

  • If Vermin Supreme runs again in six years or so he may really have a chance at winning. As long as these kids keep the internet Pony meme going. Though he may even have a chance in this election. I know several adults who would support his zombie preparedness platform.

    And really how much worse can he do than what we've seen over the last 30 years.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I somehow doubt there are 300 million ponies out there that can be given. Steer & cows maybe. I guess maybe if you dye one purple, lop off a horn, and brand it with some stars....

      • by Issarlk (1429361)
        Then there's only one answer: an effort to build a massive pony cloning industry during his mandate. Not only would it fix unemployment, but it would give the USA valuable know-how in high tech like cloning and... PONIES!!!!!1!!
  • I thought you were talkinga bout primary school and gifted students, and therefore was interested. As soon as I realized this was about politics, I became very bored.

  • Oddly enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tylersoze (789256) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:38PM (#38297854)

    I find it hard to tell the difference between those candidates and the "actual" Republican candidates.

  • by skids (119237) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:39PM (#38297878) Homepage

    From the article: "If ever there were a year for has-beens, wannabes and neverwillbes pushing oddball solutions to serious problems and serious palliatives for problems no one has yet postulated, this may be it."

    ...and he was probably talking about the front-runners, not the gadflies.

  • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @08:50PM (#38297964) Homepage Journal

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness. Vermin also promises a pony for every American.

    Still saner than Michele Bachmann.

  • Sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steelfood (895457) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:38PM (#38298368)

    ...a good place for the Pirate Party to start running candidates.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Yes, where they can be safely lost in the shuffle with all the other candidates who'll never get the time of day.

        Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

        • by Agripa (139780)

          Not necessarily, if they are serious about this (a wishywashy campaign and candidate will, rightfully so, not be covered) and properly deal with the media. Joe Blow the Independent is just that, but the Pirate Party is backed by a large international organization, with a proven track record in Europe. Trying to land a beachhead stateside would be newsworthy and can be expanded to include a little blurb about the War Against Excessive Copyright and the new DCMA exceptions.

          The established players have no worr

  • by cashman73 (855518) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:54PM (#38298490) Journal
    Is CowboyNeal running, too?
  • by jcwayne (995747) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:00PM (#38298536) Homepage

    Please, tell me that The Rent Is Too Damn High Party [youtube.com] will be represented. I've missed that guy.

  • This place is overrun by Ron Paul zombies. If a potential candidate can find a way to control them, they'd certainly win my vote.
    • Drink the kool-aid. Assimilate. Become a Paullower. It is....inevitable.
    • Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

      • Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.

        Clearly, you are trying for a (+1, informative) or (+1, insightful) mod there, although based on some of the rabid, uninformed Paullowers [slashdot.org] here the proper mod would actually be (+1, funny). Too much of anything, even the anointed Ron Paul, can make one into a raving lunatic over time.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday December 08, 2011 @03:14AM (#38300284)

    The oddly hatted Vermin Supreme of Rockport, Mass. is a perennial candidate who plans to run on a platform of mandatory tooth brushing and zombie preparedness.

    As opposed to the serious candidates who what us to build an electric fence to keep the mexican't out, full body scan everybody at the airports to protect us from the terrorists, start wars in the middle east to bring about peace, and keep pot illegal in the face of irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful and it's prohibition kills thousands every year.

  • Is that some kind of Decepticon?

  • Bob Greene (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, 2011 @09:16AM (#38301930)

    Did NO ONE READ the article???

    Why is no one excited about an ENGINEER for President who is talking about Thorium??

    I officially Endorse Bob Greene for POTUS

    http://www.greeneforoffice.org/Home_Page.html

    • by JazzLad (935151)
      I'm sure the AC endorsement will make all the difference!

      Kidding aside, I agree completely. Finally a candidate the "nerds" can & should care about & he is the only one not discussed. I'm not new here, so not surprised. Still disappointed.
  • I know what I will be doing in 2016 as I will finally meet the constitutional requirements to be president. This way I could truthfully add that I was a 2016 presidential candidate. I would even make a reasonable platform centered around my areas of expertise. Why not its not like it is that expensive. At worst (most likely) it would make an interesting story and at best (extreme remote) I elected and I could probably do a better job than the current crop of clowns.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...