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

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#121

Post by mindslight »

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…

Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled.

Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform of no nation building. Then an opportune event happened that made it time to perform some already-planned nation building. Why are we so sure Gore would not have approved the same invasion?

The protest vote is called so for a reason. This system takes your dissent and converts it to support by frightening you with a scarier bogeyman. I would respect its elegance if we weren't all trapped in it.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#122

Post by gre »

gkoberger wrote: post #8
scrollaway wrote: post #2

Can someone give me a rundown of how anyone expected anything different to come out of this? Polling at 0% isn't exactly fixed by a televised debate. Sanders is competing with Hillary on a fairly close scale and yet a lot of people still say he has no chance (though I definitely think he does at this point, but I'm not a US citizen so...), so what could possibly happen with Lessig?

Lessig never wanted to be president; he wanted a podium. But you can't say that. If he indicated he wasn't serious about being president in any way, they never would have let him on stage. That being said, I think it's shameful he hasn't endorsed Sanders. Lessig acts like he's the only one working on it. Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United.…

People decry career politicians and wish for an alternative, and when we finally get an outsider like Lessig to run and he's weak and apologetic about what he'd do if he won (pass some reforms, step down). That's such bullshit, he should have run like anyone else and then I would have supported him.

It's his own fault for being weak.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#123

Post by dankohn1 »

tptacek wrote: post #73
dankohn1 wrote: post #34

I supported Lessig's presidential campaign monetarily, even though I never thought he had a snowball's chance and also didn't think that his model of affecting change was fully thought through. As entrepreneurs, I think many of us can sympathize with the idea of knowing that there is a huge, massive problem that needs to be fixed, without necessarily having the solution fully formed. It would have been so easy for Le…

Serious question: given that he didn't have a snowball's chance, why did you give him money, as opposed to giving money to some other change agent that does have a chance?

> Serious question: given that he didn't have a snowball's chance, why did you give him money, as opposed to giving money to some other change agent that does have a chance?

@tptacek, I thought of funding Lessig as what an angel investor would describe as exploring the problem space. That is, I believe he has correctly identified a huge problem, I knew he was a smart guy who would adapt to what he learned, and I was happy to support that exploration. I'm also comfortable with him pulling the eject lever once he couldn't see a path to moving his goals forward.

I will admit to seeing a relative dearth of alternative change agents.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#124

Post by EGreg »

Wish someone here knew Larry personally. Under the constitution, there is hardly any way to accomplish his reforms. However, you can accomplish an even more revolutionary change and benefit for the American people, by slowly phasing in public polling at the federal level. This is something the executive branch is able to do under the consitution.

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#125

Post by Bud »

dankohn1 wrote: post #34

I supported Lessig's presidential campaign monetarily, even though I never thought he had a snowball's chance and also didn't think that his model of affecting change was fully thought through. As entrepreneurs, I think many of us can sympathize with the idea of knowing that there is a huge, massive problem that needs to be fixed, without necessarily having the solution fully formed. It would have been so easy for Le…

Getting into the debate would have had a huge impact? I disbelieve.

I think it reflects poorly on Lessig's judgment that he even considers himself qualified for the Presidency. If he wants to advance a view on a single political issue, running for leader of the free world is kinda overkill, and there's also no evidence that him becoming President would have the slightest impact on the issue Lessig cares about, unless he also plans to magically abolish the Republican House.

He has no political experience, and it sure shows. He should have tried running for the House, or even the open Senate seat in CA.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#126

Post by pen2l »

tptacek wrote: post #87
zeveb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ralph Nader is also a pretty compelling guy, on paper. In practice, he turns out to be the reason we invaded Iraq. Or, possibly, the reason we didn't nuke Afghanistan. Remember, prior to the actual invasion Clinton sent more missiles into Iraq than the Bushes put together; JFK started and LBJ escalated the Vietnam Wars: who knows what Gore would have done, presented with the attacks on 11 September 2001?

There are a total of zero serious observers who believe Al Gore would have "nuked Afghanistan", but there's a nonzero number who believe 9/11 might not have happened had he been elected. Al Gore is not a particularly great human being, but in addition to the banal malevolence George Bush shares with Al Gore and every other politician, and the additional evil he shares with the Neoconservative political movement he be…

I think when in the hot seat most actors gravitate toward a status quo equilibrium. The left presidents will lean a little more right, the right will lean a little more left. Obama took us to Syria, would you have guessed he would do that when he was campaigning?

I think Gore would have been walked into Iraq warring and more by his advisers.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#127

Post by Bud »

zeveb wrote: post #63
gkoberger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lessig never wanted to be president; he wanted a podium. But you can't say that. If he indicated he wasn't serious about being president in any way, they never would have let him on stage. That being said, I think it's shameful he hasn't endorsed Sanders. Lessig acts like he's the only one working on it. Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United.…

> Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United. Repealing the First Amendment is a tremendously weighty decision, and not one whose prospect should fill anyone with optimism.

Nobody mentioned repealing the First Amendment.

It would be quite easy to overturn Citizens United, a weak 5-4 decision borne of highly-questionable provenance, without touching the First Amendment in any way.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#128

Post by ermacaz »

s73v3r wrote: post #115
Pyxl101 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending money is necessary in order to speak to a large audience. You need money to rent space to use as meeting halls, or to buy advertising space like billboards or newspaper space, or even simply run a website. The more traffic, the more eyeballs, the more people impacted, the more it costs. Speech in the real world costs money. The presidential election isn't won in the town square, where everyone can hear him g…

You're not entitled to speak to a large audience. And I'm not saying to completely ban political donations. I'm saying to severely limit them. Let every citizen donate $500/year to political causes, no more. The budgeting problems of campaigns are not my concern. The ability of a few wealthy elites to completely dominate the political conversation simply by having more money, and therefore more speech, is.

This gets messy when people disagree with what a 'political cause' is

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#129

Post by jfb »

pen2l wrote: post #126
tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a total of zero serious observers who believe Al Gore would have "nuked Afghanistan", but there's a nonzero number who believe 9/11 might not have happened had he been elected. Al Gore is not a particularly great human being, but in addition to the banal malevolence George Bush shares with Al Gore and every other politician, and the additional evil he shares with the Neoconservative political movement he be…

I think when in the hot seat most actors gravitate toward a status quo equilibrium. The left presidents will lean a little more right, the right will lean a little more left. Obama took us to Syria, would you have guessed he would do that when he was campaigning? I think Gore would have been walked into Iraq warring and more by his advisers.

I'm no fan of Gore's, but I don't see a Gore administration using the opportunity that 9/11 presented to work out both a commitment to a new way of warfighting and a hyper-muscular American foreign policy by attacking what was well understood at the time to be an unrelated sovereign power.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#130

Post by Bud »

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.

It has only been 15 years since Ralph Nader got W elected for two terms and cost us about $10 trillion in stupid wars and bad economic decisions, and just about destroyed the US economy to boot.

Do you already need yet another new lesson on why Lessig running as an independent could easily be disastrous? Really?

Post reply on HN