Bill Gates for President - Worst Idea Ever!
This is officially the dumbest idea in history. I mean I can see where the appeal is - a he is smart, and ruthless CEO whose company managed to almost completely monopolize the OS market, instantaneously kill all those who dared to enter direct competition with them, completely clowned DOJ, and is currently running circles around the legal powers of EU making them look inept and impotent.
But let’s face it, when - when it comes to technology Bill Gates is worst than the clueless lusers we have in the office now. It’s like giving executive power to the biggest lobbyist of them all. Guess what would happen if he got into the office?
- Forget about patent reform - Bill Gates has a vested interest to keep the patent system broken
- Forget about Adoption of open standards
- Forget about DMCA reform
- Remember TCPA? Well, President Bill could make it mandatory as part of the next patriot act like thing
- Forget about copyright reform
- Forget about Linux adoption at the governmental level
- Forget about open architecture, open source voting machines - Bill is Mr. Proprietary after all.
- Forget about any anti-trust legislation against MS
- Guess who would be throwing his weight around and putting pressure on EU to let MS off the hook?
- Can GPL survive if the executive branch of government completely abhors it’s existence and doubts its legality?
We do not know his effectiveness as a politician, but we do know what are his values with respect to technology sector. Bill Gates stands of everything I oppose to as a Linux user, and open source/open standards supporter. We know he is a convicted monopolist, skillful lobbyist, and that he pulled many dirty tricks to get his own in the business world.
What is his political affiliation though? Whose mandate would he be running on?
What is his stance on the war? How about national security? Or emigration? Or unemployment? Or taxes? Or minimum wage?
What are his views on education, health care and social security?
How would he fix our budget deficit? Is he for big government? Is he one of the trickle-down republitards?
We don’t know. And these are the kinds of questions we should be asking about any candidate. Running a country is very different from running a successful business. Democracy is not about making profit, but about serving the interest people to the best of your ability. We know he can turn a profit by ruthless, merciless business cunning. But can he run a country? That is the important question.
Related Posts:
December 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm (1865) [Quote]
I was waiting to see what you’d write about this.
Posted usingDecember 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pm (1866) [Quote]
Hehe.. So what do you think about this? Would you vote for him?
Posted usingDecember 1st, 2006 at 3:11 pm (1869) [Quote]
depends who he runs against
Posted usingDecember 2nd, 2006 at 8:19 am (1879) [Quote]
So if the other guy was likely to limit people’s rights for his own gain even more than Bill, you’d vote for him?
I have a feeling I may have screwed up on the pronouns and made it sound like you’d vote for “other guy who limits rights more” if he existed, but you’re clever people, you should be able to tell what I meant
Posted usingDecember 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm (1885) [Quote]
Very true Ze. But then again, we really don’t know much about his political views or party affiliations. Something tells me though he would be running on republican platform - you know, since he is the richest man alive and all.
But yeah, it all depends on who would be running against him…
Matt, I think it’s just hard to say how would Bill act if he was elected, and if the other guy would be better/worse. The only way we could judge him would be his platform, and track record as the head of Microsoft… If the other guy was clearly worse, then I guess I would choose the lesser evil.
But it’s not like he is going to run anyway. I just think it’s a bad idea in general.
Posted usingDecember 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pm (1886) [Quote]
whats he got to loss. the campaign money would be pocket change for him.
Posted usingDecember 2nd, 2006 at 7:18 pm (1888) [Quote]
I’m not entirely sure, but I think the pronouns thing (I did warn you) is causing a misunderstanding.
I was replying to ZeWrestler’s “depends who he runs against” to clarify that if the other guy was worse, he’d vote for Gates - not to imply that even if the other guy was worse he would still vote for the other guy just because it was Gates on the other side.
I’m not sure why I decided to clarify this, maybe to make a joke in implying that it was hard to be worse than Gates on consumer rights… if that entertains anyone then yeah, that’s what I meant
But I’m sleepy so I really don’t know what I’m on about right now, I can tell I’m rambling but I just keep typing I think I should stop now before I really say something stupid.
Posted usingDecember 2nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm (1889) [Quote]
Well, sure - he has nothing to loose, but then again, is there anything he would gain from this?
And could he get the nomination from any of the parties without it looking like he just bought his way in? How would people feel about a candidate who would just buy his nomination?
And if Gates would run as an independent, would he actually have a chance? Would the whole glamor of being Bill Gates change people’s minds about voting republican, democrat or not at all?
Posted using