Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#91

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #86
ThomPete wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats an opinion you are entitled to have but which I do not share. Politics is the art the possible and sometimes it takes several years for something to gain momentum, something that often starts in futile attempts and yes often ends with not succeeding. But once in a blue moon it does and that is the important part. You keep arguing as if there is a right way to think about these things. If that is your claim then…

No. Stop. I'm not telling you to agree with me about Lessig. I'm saying that you can't suppress my critique of Lessig by arguing that criticisms is easy, and starting a doomed Presidential campaign is hard. You know what else is hard? Perpetual motion. I get to criticize people for trying that too.

Who is suppressing anything here?

Michael_nielsen simply referenced a quote because there was a lot of critique from people who have no stake in lessigs attempt and so I guess Michael felt the urge to point that it's easy to critique and even if people fails, even obviously it's quite a lot more impressive that they even try than the million of reviewers out there.

The comment I was referring to, took issue with that quote and as far as I can see TR. And have nothing to do with Lessig.

So if you want to stop anything then please stop that strawman.

No one is suppressing yours or anyones critique of lessig, but just like you are entitled to have an opinion about him I am entitled to have one about the critique of TRs quote.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#92

Post by oceanstone »

tptacek wrote: post #77
cjbenedikt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ralph Nader reason for Iraq invasion? http://www.globalresearch.ca/ralph-nader-letter-to-george-w-...

Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notio…

Nader even concentrated on states where Bush and Gore were neck-and-neck.

> A first, eloquent protest came 10 days ago from a group of a dozen former 'Nader's Raiders,' who asserted that their former mentor had broken a promise not to campaign in states where he could hurt Gore and begged him to reconsider doing so.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-in...

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#93

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #91
tptacek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Stop. I'm not telling you to agree with me about Lessig. I'm saying that you can't suppress my critique of Lessig by arguing that criticisms is easy, and starting a doomed Presidential campaign is hard. You know what else is hard? Perpetual motion. I get to criticize people for trying that too.

Who is suppressing anything here? Michael_nielsen simply referenced a quote because there was a lot of critique from people who have no stake in lessigs attempt and so I guess Michael felt the urge to point that it's easy to critique and even if people fails, even obviously it's quite a lot more impressive that they even try than the million of reviewers out there. The comment I was referring to, took issue with that…

That's the intent behind the quote upthread you're defending. This part of the thread is getting pretty boring, though.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#94

Post by morgante »

jonknee wrote: post #88
morgante wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really hope he doesn't. That will destroy any goodwill I ever held towards him. My only consolation is that his campaign is such an abject failure that it probably can't even function as a spoiler.

Why? He's not going to get any noticeable amount of votes and won't cause any damage to another candidate.

That's the consolation, but there's always the risk that he actually somehow manages to win over a few percent.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#95

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #93
ThomPete wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is suppressing anything here? Michael_nielsen simply referenced a quote because there was a lot of critique from people who have no stake in lessigs attempt and so I guess Michael felt the urge to point that it's easy to critique and even if people fails, even obviously it's quite a lot more impressive that they even try than the million of reviewers out there. The comment I was referring to, took issue with that…

That's the intent behind the quote upthread you're defending. This part of the thread is getting pretty boring, though.

No it's not an attempt at that. Its simply putting a welcome perspective on things since everyone was busy second guessing without having any stakes. He simply tried to enrich the discussion and IMO did.

Claiming someone is trying to suppress your critique, when no one is, now IS the "Peak HN" though :)

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#96

Post by platz »

"The Democratic Party has required candidates receive at least 1 percent in three major national polls in the six weeks leading up to the debate in order to get a spot on the stage. But Lessig said the rules were changed last week, which would require those three polls to come prior to the six-week mark."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494192

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#97

Post by Pyxl101 »

tptacek wrote: post #77
cjbenedikt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ralph Nader reason for Iraq invasion? http://www.globalresearch.ca/ralph-nader-letter-to-george-w-...

Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notio…

It's an interesting point. How does one determine when one is past the point of being a spoiler and into being a serious candidate? It seems that there is a self-fulfilling prophesy here, wherein if one is concerned about being a spoiler, then one will begin drawing votes away from other viable candidates as soon as they enter politics, and thus spoil; but yet, in order to ever become a viable candidate in the first place, one must do that.

Perhaps the counter-argument is that you could enter politics away from an election, to "test the waters" without drawing support away from other candidates. But that's not a serious way to enter politics. Or you could enter politics at a different level, a lower level. I don't know if that's a viable way for Lessig to accomplish his aim. The same type of problems he's talking about might exist in other political spheres, but they aren't the ones that seem to concern him primarily. I can buy those arguments, but they leave me uneasy for a reason I can't characterize. It reminds me somewhat of the process of becoming the mayor of the city of London [1], where you're only allowed to run once several groups of people approve of you.

It seems like Lessig is being held to a different standard, almost, because he is entering politics with a specific policy objective in mind, rather than because he himself wants to become a leader. Most politicians enter politics simply to win and become leader, and so they can be judged by whether they win. Lessig is entering to accomplish an aim, and so it is possible to criticize his candidacy on the basis of whether he'll accomplish the aim, to a degree greater than other candidates. "By entering politics to accomplish that policy, you are being disruptive rather than helpful" is the charge, and I agree that it is a reasonable charge. A President needs to be an overall effective leader, and not ignore everything but their single pet issue. From that perspective I agree with the criticism. Yet I still feel that the charge of being a spoiler is a circular argument in some way. He's only a spoiler because he's a spoiler, and once you stop defining him as a spoiler, he becomes a serious candidate. Now of course, we have reason to believe that he is not in fact a serious candidate, which is a valid criticism, but it seems like that should be the criticism ("you are going to be a bad leader because you're only focused on one issue"), rather than "you are a spoiler".

The underlying problem seems to be with how winner-takes-all voting works.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#98

Post by studentrob »

tptacek wrote: post #85
studentrob wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your reply. So presumably this would bring us back to the state of things from 1971 with the entrance of the Federal Election Campaign Act, including the limitation on spending money on media? It sounds tricky. The most powerful thing about free speech is the right to say whatever you want about your government. But given the apparent level of corruption, maybe it's time to limit corporations' ability to m…

Sanders' amendment essentially says that nothing in the First Amendment can be construed to limit Congress's ability to protect the integrity of elections, and (this is explicit in the amendment and without precedent anywhere else in the Constitution) from the wealthy. He delegates to Congress the details on how to use that new power to suppress the First Amendment.

So elections are more important than free speech?

Darn, I disagree. It's the first amendment for good reason. I want to like someone who will really do something about this but I think this solution is a rabbit hole.

Free speech is the most basic protection individuals have for asserting their rights. Elections follow. As much as I'd love to see political corruption reduced, I think those things are already in the proper order of importance in the constitution.

Maybe we can try out his amendment for a few years, but it would be nice to have some further open and public discussion about what might happen with that new amendment in place.

What happens, for example, if a foreign company starts supporting a US political candidate? Would a US company be allowed to invest in said foreign company, or buy their products? Would we start censoring the internet for unlawful political advertisements?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#99

Post by JoshTriplett »

beat wrote: post #57
tinco wrote: post #42

I'm not a citizen of the U.S. so maybe I'm missing something. Why is he not just switching to the Republican party? What's this nonsense about his ideals being more in line with the democrats? I thought the Republicans were all about the founding fathers and making sure the United States are not ruled by the old-rich?

Contrary to the other reply, the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely different. It's very unusual for someone to feel comfortable just switching from one to the other suddenly. And don't confuse rhetoric with reality. The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government - almost anarchists these days. Lessig's dreams of regulating campaign spending by corporations and the wealthy fl…

> The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government

That's the theory, but often not the practice. The Republican Party often favors bigger government, they just disagree about what to spend it on. Neither party is particularly small-government anymore.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#100

Post by noelsusman »

The Democrats plan for victory is to appear less crazy to moderate voters than the Republicans. That's their biggest advantage right now. It's why they don't like Bernie Sanders and it's why they've constricted their debate schedule so much. They want to sit on the sidelines and let the Republican candidates make fools of themselves during primary season.

Putting Lessig into the debate runs contrary to that plan. Besides, the "two polls have me at 1% and every other poll has me at 0%" argument isn't exactly a convincing case for inclusion.

Post reply on HN