POL - Can a "pro-privacy" candidate win?

[finketr]

Originally Posted by panerd

(Seems like hatred of the IRS crosses both party lines)

Is it really hatred of the IRS or just the ridiculousness of our tax system?

[sterlingice]

Wait? People hate paying bills? Wow! Revelation! Speaking of which, I hear tax collectors have been popular throughout history going back to at least Biblical times and probably before.

This warrant-less crap has to stop.

SI

[QuikSand]

Just bumping an old thread.

[Crapshoot]

I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."

[Julio Riddols]

It feels pretty simple. There are too many idiots in the country who fear the terrorists to effectively campaign with personal privacy as a main platform. That will have to be a carefully used ploy in specific areas, like college towns and large cities. In the smaller towns and rural areas, I would be certain to pitch killing off those wrong religion loving enemies of freedom with big ol' guns and lots of bombs, and heavy christian values. This would be good because while you would be pandering to pretty different demographics, you could not be called a hypocrite or a flip flopper either. Its like the Romney formula without a dumbass like Romney trying to execute it. All you have to do is tell the people what they want to hear without slipping up and contradicting yourself.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

All you have to do is tell the people what they want to hear without slipping up and contradicting yourself.

Do not underestimate the power of vagueness; it lets people hear what they want to hear.

[panerd]

Is this acceptable to anyone? Has to be some sort of joke right?

Drivers paid for DNA, blood samples at Ala. roadblocks - CBS News

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Is this acceptable to anyone? Has to be some sort of joke right?

Drivers paid for DNA, blood samples at Ala. roadblocks - CBS News

Yawn.

Did I miss something, where the samples were seized? Or were the people already stopped at a DUI checkpoint offered an opportunity to make $60?

Hell, I'll give 'em a DNA swab for $20. (Me & needles don't get along, ain't no amount of money getting 'em a blood sample with restraining me).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yawn.

Did I miss something, where the samples were seized? Or were the people already stopped at a DUI checkpoint offered an opportunity to make $60?

Hell, I'll give 'em a DNA swab for $20. (Me & needles don't get along, ain't no amount of money getting 'em a blood sample with restraining me).

Sure, roadblocks for a private study funded by tax money. You are right I am really overreacting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sure, roadblocks for a private study funded by tax money. You are right I am really overreacting.

Or, perhaps, a private company working a (likely paid) partnership at a roadblock that was already planned.

edit to add: Here's more detail, reads as though this was a one-off deal specifically for this purpose. It wasn't anything new however, the relationship dates all the way back to 2007. And the private company is working with the NHTSA, so this isn't exactly like Joe's BBQ Hut taking breath samples to check for the presence of pork or beef.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or, perhaps, a private company working a (likely paid) partnership at a roadblock that was already planned.

edit to add: Here's more detail, reads as though this was a one-off deal specifically for this purpose. It wasn't anything new however, the relationship dates all the way back to 2007. And the private company is working with the NHTSA, so this isn't exactly like Joe's BBQ Hut taking breath samples to check for the presence of pork or beef.

Feel free to choose which topic you wish to defend...

* Roadblocks in general.

* Specifically a roadblock for a private study

* Private study paid with federal tax money
"According to Ucles, the Office of Drug Control Policy is contributing funding and support for the study, which is going on in 60 sites around the nation. The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation is conducting the tests through this fall. St. Clair and Bibb county officials said this would be the only time the road blocks are conducted this year. "

* The complete waste of money. I admit I haven't studied the scientific method for a while but what possible results could be gathered from a non-random group of people being paid to test for alcohol and drugs in their system at a checkpoint. I am pretty sure that this study is biased in every possible way. About the only result I can think of is how many sober people are willing to give up bodily samples for money. Great use of money!

[molson]

So you think government research grants are unconstitutional or something?

Edit: I guess that is a Ron Paul view. But it's a minority position, and ones that the courts have never held, you can't really be that shocked that it exists currently to the point where you think it must be a "joke."

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

So you think government research grants are unconstitutional or something?

Can't say I have the qualifications to answer that question but I am going to guess no. However I can have an opinion on whether it is a waste of money and an opinion on its purpose.

Waste of money? The study asked drivers if they would voluntarily submit samples for a study which was used to track alcohol and prescription drugs in drivers. Hmmm... wonder if the impaired drivers are going to agree to submit to this test? Since the answer is very likely no then what is the real purpose of this study? Because either the people running the study are really stupid (unlikely) or there is something else that is being tested. Do I like where this is going for a purely private, shopping mall type study? No but the people who submit to it do so at their own risk. Throw in a roadblock and tax dollars paying $50 a spit and I think I am not out of bounds to have an opinion on it.

And I guess I am sadly in the minority but I chose this thread because I don't like where we are headed as a country if the general population not only doesn't care about stuff like this but is willing to give up their saliva for a few bucks.

[miked]

Originally Posted by panerd

Feel free to choose which topic you wish to defend...

* Roadblocks in general.

* Specifically a roadblock for a private study

* Private study paid with federal tax money
"According to Ucles, the Office of Drug Control Policy is contributing funding and support for the study, which is going on in 60 sites around the nation. The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation is conducting the tests through this fall. St. Clair and Bibb county officials said this would be the only time the road blocks are conducted this year. "

* The complete waste of money. I admit I haven't studied the scientific method for a while but what possible results could be gathered from a non-random group of people being paid to test for alcohol and drugs in their system at a checkpoint. I am pretty sure that this study is biased in every possible way. About the only result I can think of is how many sober people are willing to give up bodily samples for money. Great use of money!

Maybe you should study the scientific method. From a logistical standpoint it's a bit over the top to have roadblocks setup, but I work in a field where clinical samples are important and sometimes see people on the street stopping pedestrians for potential study participation and other things. Unless you know the study design and details, I don't understand how you think you can judge whether it is a waste of time, money, or anything.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by miked

Maybe you should study the scientific method. From a logistical standpoint it's a bit over the top to have roadblocks setup, but I work in a field where clinical samples are important and sometimes see people on the street stopping pedestrians for potential study participation and other things. Unless you know the study design and details, I don't understand how you think you can judge whether it is a waste of time, money, or anything.

They forcibly stop people in the street and ask if they are committing a crime, then say they will pay them to be in the study if they are or are not no questions asked, and the study ends up with no biases? (They outline the study design in the article linked and the articles that link to that) Yes it does sound like the scientific method has changed a bit since I was in school.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Feel free to choose which topic you wish to defend...

I have zero problem with roadblocks in general. None, nada, zip.

I have no real problem with a federal project contracting with private partners for something of this nature, better that than hundreds of government employees doing it.

I could probably - or even likely - dig through the details at the end of the project & find something to question about the utility of it in general but then again I could also do that would an enormous amount of things that are government funded. I don't see any element here that would cause me to single this one out from the countless others.

Frankly, the dominant thought this story has prompted is how rather asinine it strikes me that a permanent DNA database of every single man, woman and child in the U.S. doesn't already exist. My only hesitation seems to be the insuring security of the data, otherwise it seems like a slam dunk of an idea.

[Scarecrow]

Getting back to the original question...Can a 'Pro-Privacy' canidate win?

Sure he/she can. As long as the mainstream media + the political entertainers tell the general public he/she is the best canidate and that their opponent is some kind of baffon. Hell, I'd put money on Hitler becoming president if he was 'endorsed' by Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman, and Bill O'Reilly.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Frankly, the dominant thought this story has prompted is how rather asinine it strikes me that a permanent DNA database of every single man, woman and child in the U.S. doesn't already exist. My only hesitation seems to be the insuring security of the data, otherwise it seems like a slam dunk of an idea.

Heh. Yeah, that seems like it could be a problem (I'm imagining the Chinese having the data on every one of us within three weeks. Also, insurance companies.).

Of course, we don't really know every man, woman, and child that is in the US at this point even, do we?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Getting back to the original question...Can a 'Pro-Privacy' canidate win?

Sure he/she can. As long as the mainstream media + the political entertainers tell the general public he/she is the best canidate and that their opponent is some kind of baffon. Hell, I'd put money on Hitler becoming president if he was 'endorsed' by Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman, and Bill O'Reilly.

I'd like to see the candidate that Stewart, Colbert, Letterman, and O'Reilly all agree with.

SI

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'd like to see the candidate that Stewart, Colbert, Letterman, and O'Reilly all agree with.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

The Stay-Puft marshmallow man?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The Stay-Puft marshmallow man?

Nah, can't be.

The Sta-Puft marshmallow man was lovable.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nah, can't be.

The Sta-Puft marshmallow man was lovable.

Is it Sta-Puft? I fail at Ghostbusters knowledge...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Is it Sta-Puft? I fail at Ghostbusters knowledge...

The internet says you were right & I'm wrong ... but I'd have sworn it was sans "y".

[QuikSand]

(warning: thread necromancy here)

Paul disrupts Senate endgame | TheHill

Any life left in this discussion? Or is this the closest we'll ever get? A fairly articulate guy who really believes this stuff, but will (seemingly inevitably) be dragged down by other things in his platform/worldview that render him unsupportable, even to many people who might really cheer for him on this particular band of issues?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

(warning: thread necromancy here)

Paul disrupts Senate endgame | TheHill

Any life left in this discussion? Or is this the closest we'll ever get? A fairly articulate guy who really believes this stuff, but will (seemingly inevitably) be dragged down by other things in his platform/worldview that render him unsupportable, even to many people who might really cheer for him on this particular band of issues?

That pretty much sums it up. I applaud Paul for continuing to rally behind privacy related issues, but there's no way in hell he could win a Republican primary.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

(warning: thread necromancy here)

Paul disrupts Senate endgame | TheHill

Any life left in this discussion? Or is this the closest we'll ever get? A fairly articulate guy who really believes this stuff, but will (seemingly inevitably) be dragged down by other things in his platform/worldview that render him unsupportable, even to many people who might really cheer for him on this particular band of issues?

I think things are just too partisan nowadays. Much like many other seemingly non-partisan issues this seems like one that people on either side of the political spectrum could get behind but ideology somehow prevails. The only reason Paul has any pull is because Obama is in office because under Bush this would certainly not be a GOP issue and there would likely be an Obama type politician saying the exact same things.

(EDIT: Not to say there aren't valid arguments against what he is saying or that all GOP supporters blindly support Paul and all Democrats hate him. Only that the numbers are hugely skewed along party lines. Much like the bank bailout debate a few years back)

[albionmoonlight]

This still seems like a dead issue for any number of reasons:

(1) As Q noted in the original post, this does not break easily into R v. D or red/blue or even conservative/liberal. So you do not really have that naturally coalition in either party to support it.

(2) People are still motivated more by fear. All it takes is one terrorist attack and someone saying "we could have stopped this if we hadn't been barred from accessing [whatever] by the ACLU" to completely derail a privacy candidate. It leaves one too open to a November surprise.

(3) Our attention spans are too short. Even when something happens, like the Snowden revelations, we get worked up for a little while, assume that Congress will fix the problem, and then move on.

I even wonder if Paul would be taking this stand if he were the frontrunner instead of a super long shot. In some ways, his long-shot status gives him the freedom to take these stands, because he is very unlikely to lose anything by it. He probably serves our Republic best in this role. National figure to help bring these issues to light and at least force some discussion on them.