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

191–200 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#191

Post by mindslight »

Bud wrote: post #173
mindslight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

We're sure Gore wouldn't have "approved the same invasion" because... Wait. Were you even fucking AROUND in 2002? W didn't just "approve" the invasion. Are you aware of recent history? Let me fill you in. Gore wouldn't have "approved" of invading Iraq because his entire fucking administration would not have been packed with Nixon-era holdovers who were criminally obsessed with re-invading Iraq. This isn't complex or…

Sure, Bush II's administration was packed with such people. But it's a stretch to say the inverse would have been true for Gore, especially since he never named a cabinet. National policy had been decided some time before that - remember Clinton bombing etc? Your referenced gang of holdovers shows exactly how that works.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#192

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #190
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily, it's just a dramatic expression of bewilderment. Besides the whole issue of whether Nader being a spoiler and costing Gore the election as a result is even factual [1][2] (or just another intriguing but ill-supported legend like that of the disparate perceptions of Nixon/JFK on TV and on radio), there is the problem of whether blaming the person subject to an inefficiency in FPTP is overly disproport…

This is another example of an exculpatory analysis for Nader trying to convince readers that many of his voters would have broken for Bush instead of Gore if he had dropped out. Like Wikipedia, it points out that Floridian Democrats voted in anomalous numbers for Bush, implying that Floridian Naderites were the same --- which of course they were not.

You do realize that if Nader dropped out, "his" voters could have voted for another third party, a write-in, or even simply not voted, right?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#193

Post by chillwaves »

jacobolus wrote: post #174
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for humanity, we have other people who are willing to take action that others would find ill-advised because they are, in fact, ill-advised. Risk aversion does not make for incredible discoveries, but has the virtue of mitigating disaster. And an adventurous can-do sensibility drives people onwards in all directions, including off cliffs. Ralph Nader is also a pretty compelling guy, on paper. In practic…

I also think Lessig’s campaign was an absurdity. But blaming Ralph Nader for the invasion of Iraq is far far below your usual standard Thomas. Even singling out Nader as an explanation for Bush’s election is pretty weak sauce. You might first blame everyone in the Bush Administration who didn’t resign, everyone in Congress who voted to authorize Bush’s actions, foreign heads of state who went along and everyone at th…

When a team wins in football, don't you only count the final field goal that decided the game? Or do the other 60 minutes count too?

Gore lost his home state but Nader cost him the election. Gore wanted a partial recount in Florida (when a full recount would have been in his favor) but Nader cost him the election.

Curse those Green party voters for not falling in line!

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#194

Post by warmfuzzykitten »

jacobolus wrote: post #174
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for humanity, we have other people who are willing to take action that others would find ill-advised because they are, in fact, ill-advised. Risk aversion does not make for incredible discoveries, but has the virtue of mitigating disaster. And an adventurous can-do sensibility drives people onwards in all directions, including off cliffs. Ralph Nader is also a pretty compelling guy, on paper. In practic…

I also think Lessig’s campaign was an absurdity. But blaming Ralph Nader for the invasion of Iraq is far far below your usual standard Thomas. Even singling out Nader as an explanation for Bush’s election is pretty weak sauce. You might first blame everyone in the Bush Administration who didn’t resign, everyone in Congress who voted to authorize Bush’s actions, foreign heads of state who went along and everyone at th…

The point is well-taken in that votes wasted on Nader were in all likelihood votes for Gore, which would have prevented all the subsequent Supreme Court nonsense, bypassed the "butterfly ballot" effect, and...I'm sorry, your other examples are just reaching. No Nader, Gore wins.

It seems to me that one should only run for President if one actually wishes to be President, and that's the absurdity of Lessig's campaign.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#195

Post by chillwaves »

mindslight wrote: post #121
tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Also is predicated on the notion that Nader voters would have went for Gore. That's hilarious. Do these people actually know true leftists? I bet he even thinks if Sanders doesn't win (likely) that we would vote for Hillary.

Never going to happen.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#196

Post by chillwaves »

aetherson wrote: post #150
s73v3r wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United is not freedom of speech.

The freedom to shout at strangers on sidewalks is a meaningless one in terms of ability to add your ideas to the national political dialog. All meaningful political speech in the modern day has some kind of money spend behind it -- including your posting here on this comment thread. And if we raise the bar from "I guess theoretically this might potentially affect something" to "obviously meaningful speech," then the…

That's absurd. The government can guarantee equal speech instead of allowing some speech to dominate everyone else.

How can the 1st Amendment be protecting the voice of the poor if they have no avenue of expression? And when their views are beaten down by the few rich. That is not at all in the spirit of the first amendment or of democracy.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#197

Post by nl »

danbmil99 wrote: post #184
nl wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly: I'm not in the US, and fairly left leaning even for someone outside the US. That said: I think that the US progressive establishment's fixation on the Citizen's United case is misguided. I'm biased towards the idea that speech should be free, and tend to think that this should include spending money on making your view heard. I think that effort could be better spend on attempting to fix the problem of wrong…

Your proposal would run smack up against the First Amendment. Both right and left will will reject any sort of speech control out of hand here in the USA.

Maybe.

But if you can explain how overturning Citizen's United wouldn't run into that problem while this idea I'd find that helpful.

OTOH, Libel in the US is already a thing. I'm saying extending those laws to make "the American people" a group that has standing, and falsehoods something that has harm. There is some existing precedent for that under libel.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#198

Post by timothya »

Navarr wrote: post #15

This link doesn't work for me (completely blank page) and his Facebook page doesn't say anything about him dropping out. (For those curious: from the US, using Chrome, no ad or privacy block - Facebook is outputting 21 lines of HTML and then nothing. Looks like PHP is just dying for some reason)

It works if you log out.

Or watch the version on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4IsqmMqCEo

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#199

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

mbesto wrote: post #183
michael_nielsen wrote: post #29

With all the critical "I-told-you-sos", this seems like a good time to quote Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, beca…

A perhaps more concise quote would be: There has never been a statue erected to honor a critic.

uh... lots of statues erected to honor critics...

https://www.google.com/search?q=movie+critic+statue&safe=off...

oh, i see... you thought "concise" meant "less correct". sorry, i don't always spot the idiot right away.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#200

Post by tptacek »

chillwaves wrote: post #193
jacobolus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think Lessig’s campaign was an absurdity. But blaming Ralph Nader for the invasion of Iraq is far far below your usual standard Thomas. Even singling out Nader as an explanation for Bush’s election is pretty weak sauce. You might first blame everyone in the Bush Administration who didn’t resign, everyone in Congress who voted to authorize Bush’s actions, foreign heads of state who went along and everyone at th…

When a team wins in football, don't you only count the final field goal that decided the game? Or do the other 60 minutes count too? Gore lost his home state but Nader cost him the election. Gore wanted a partial recount in Florida (when a full recount would have been in his favor) but Nader cost him the election. Curse those Green party voters for not falling in line!

Nader sapped support from Gore throughout the entire election.

Again, the problem isn't that it's wrong to run for President. The issue is that if you know you're pulling support in a close election, and you have no chance of winning, then it becomes legitimate to ask whether the point you're trying to make by running is worth the cost.

Post reply on HN