IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney

CIStud writes "A new poll conducted of IT industry executives and integrators shows a divided and unsure industry regarding which presidential candidate is better for Information Technology to prosper. The poll, conducted by JZ Analytics on behalf of CompTIA, shows 'Not Sure' winning in four out of five areas. President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category, including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably), access to capital, tech exports, education and privacy."

Comments

The toilet water guy?!?

[crazyjj]

I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Wrexs0ul]

"And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for fags and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again!"

Change we can believe in.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[burning_plastic]

His shit wasn't fucked up - it was retarded...

And that's fine because plenty of tards can live kick-ass lives!

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

...and Microsoft. Fuck you, I'm designing for Windows 8!"

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[BMOC]

Came for this, leaving satisfied.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[GameboyRMH]

YEAH NOT SURE 2012!!

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I you have one bucket that holds 3 gallons, and one bucket that holds 5 gallons, how many buckets do you have?"

See, it even covers Education.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[todrules]

I'm Mr. Sure, and I approve this message.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two! Did I get that right?

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[HungWeiLo]

Justin Long is excellent in small dozes.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[DevotedSkeptic]

don't worry bro my wife was tarded now she's a pilot. brawndo! the thirst mutilator.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[hairyfeet]

I wonder if they got "not sure" because there was no way to put "don't give a fuck" and that was all they had? I mean lets face it folks, you got a media shill and a business shill, neither one of them would piss on you if you were on fire unless you had donated at least $500k to their campaign, so why should we give a fuck?

You can get fucked by big business in the form of the media cartels, or you can get fucked by big business in the form of the banksters, but either way you be getting fucked.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[jez9999]

Sorry, for those of us who haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about, could someone tell me who the toilet water guy is??

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

could someone tell me who the toilet water guy is??

Yeah, he's Not Sure.

Re:The toilet water guy?!?

[bfandreas]

You are being served Idiocracy movie quotes.
Mentioning this on /. is like dripping a poor person's blood into a basin full of Ayn Randers.

Preference cascade

[jmorris42]

It is called a preference cascade. Once you have made the big choice and decided you are going to vote for someone your opinion on their suitability on all of the sub questions tend to fall into line to confirm that major decision. Happens lots of other places as well, nothing unusual.

And we know most of the IT industry is in very blue areas and just from reading /. any outsider can quickly see which way the groupthink goes. Most It types are progressive in their political leanings, favor Obama's redefinition of marriage, attacks on traditional morality and religion and are just waiting on him to legalize weed, probably as soon as the convention. So of course they are chomping at the bit to pull the lever again. Of course they also live in constant fear of being outsourced or rightsized and totally fail to connect their political views to the economic consequences they cause.

Re:Preference cascade

[h4rr4r]

"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.

"attacks on traditional morality and religion" - WTF does that even mean? What exactly do you mean?

"legalize weed" - not gonna happen. Too bad too.

Re:Preference cascade

[jmorris42]

> "legalize weed" - not gonna happen. Too bad too.

What other major component of his base has yet to get a major bone thown to them, usually in a totally lawless fashion? Think about it. He announces he is ordering Federal law enforcement resources to be 'redirected' away from enforcing the laws against weed. Lots of blah blah about it being his discretionary authority to direct scarce resources in this time of budget crisis, etc. The message to the college/youth vote will be unmistakable: Romney would instantly reverse this executive order but if I get reelected you can light up forever because after four years weed will be such a open and accepted part of society none would dare revert the change. So you stoners better get off yer ass and put the bong away long enough to drag my sorry ass across the finish line.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

This was central to many polls, even Gallup polls, in the presidential primaries earlier this year that disenfranchised Ron Paul.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a flat-taxer, so I wouldn't really worry about him much.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056237&cid=41031159

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

Who -isn't- pro-outsourcing/rightsizing on the ticket? The Democrats have been a source of constant disappointment on this, but are you seriously trying to sell us the Bain guy or the Libertarian as the solution?

The only "economic consequences" leading to outsourcing are the pools of cheap labor outside the U.S. and the lack of restrictions on exploiting it from inside the U.S., much as the only forces leading to "job creation" are people with money (or credit) who are willing and able to spend it, such as the middle and lower classes. I would love a better choice on this than the Democrats but the others only seem to want to accelerate the destruction!

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

So his "preference cascade" is where he sides with the "cut taxes erryday!" party and then suddenly falls into line on prohibition, establishing a state religion, and oppressing homosexuals. I see that happen with a lot of libertarians.

I guess it's the only way to explain a party that's basically an alliance of hardcore Christian social values and economic policy lifted from LaVeyan Satanism.

Re:Preference cascade

[Nadaka]

Flat taxes are not inherently bad... If they also go along with sufficiently effective and progressive social benefits.

The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.

A 50% flat tax on all personal income (including capital gains, and with a 0% corporate income tax rate) could pay for 100% of what the government currently spends money on and also provide a stipend to every household equal to the poverty line. That isn't really an optimal solution, but it is technically feasible.

Re:Preference cascade

[Hatta]

Most It types are progressive in their political leanings, favor Obama's redefinition of marriage, attacks on traditional morality and religion and are just waiting on him to legalize weed, probably as soon as the convention. So of course they are chomping at the bit to pull the lever again. Of course they also live in constant fear of being outsourced or rightsized and totally fail to connect their political views to the economic consequences they cause.

So how exactly does marriage, religion, and cannabis connect to outsourcing and rightsizing? Connect the dots for us.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even slightly what he was suggesting.

I agree, that sounds feasible. But since you're giving everyone back a huge portion of their tax, is it really a flat tax anymore? Seems like it's basically just a progressive tax structure, by virtue of giving the poor all their taxes(and them some) back.

Re:Preference cascade

[jmorris42]

> Connect the dots for us.

Should be pretty obvious. They are voting for social policy. They either don't believe Obama's (and the rest of the Ds) policies are the reason for the bad economy or don't care about that as much as they care about the social stuff.

Re:Preference cascade

[CokeBear]

Are you trolling? You actually think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars going after weed?

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with legalizing drugs. Why should the government waste millions of our taxes on idiots that are hurting themselves. It's not my responsibility to make sure you can take care of your self, so why should I pay for it?

What is wrong with a flat tax? In a capitalistic community there should be a fairly flat tax of near zero or zero. About the only thing that taxes should pay for is public goods. And there should be little to no laws that limit our entry into any market, this includes the currently illegal drugs, education, medical.

Why does it matter who marries who, even if you think it's a sin. How does someone else marriage affect you? Heck with today's tax laws it's even less beneficial to be married (don't let the tax guys lie to you, the taxes for a single person filing solo = limit * 1, takes for a married person = limit * .75, for a married couple filing joint = 1.5 (which is .75*2 which is effectively the same as two people filing solo. So if you both work the government actually takes more.) The thing is that the law won't stop gays from living to together, doing what they want, holding a ceremony, or even preaching their views to your or your children. So all the law is stopping them from doing is getting a piece of paper and making them pay more taxes. (unless one of them is a leach then the marriage actually benefits them.)

Re:Preference cascade

[icebraining]

You forgot one option: they have no reason to believe that the alternative would be any better regarding the economy, and therefore have to choose based on other issues.

Re:Preference cascade

[bzipitidoo]

You ought to be a member of the Prohibition Party

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox Approved language, hot off the fax machine from the RNC. And you didn't notice his sig.

"Obama's redefinition of marriage" Check.
"Attacks on traditional morality and religion" Check.

Only things he missed were, "Obama's high gas prices" and "Not a US citizen". Obviously not ready for his own show quite yet.

Die-stamped neocon with typical disregard for freedom, fairness, and the American way? Check.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

The original flat tax moron is the guy suggesting obama would legalize weed to get "stoners" to vote for him. He's not supporting legalization.

So all the law is stopping them from doing is getting a piece of paper and making them pay more taxes. (unless one of them is a leach then the marriage actually benefits them.)

Marriage is about a lot more than taxes. There are cases of gay people being denied visiting rights in a hospital to their de-facto spouse because they weren't married and couldn't be married. Then their spouse died.

So yeah, go fuck yourself if you think it's not important and not a civil right.

Re:Preference cascade

[Hatta]

Judging by what happened to the economy last time a Republican held the presidency, can you blame them?

Re:Preference cascade

[jmorris42]

> Are you trolling? You actually think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars going after weed?

Doesn't really matter what I think. Or you. What matters is Congress has spoken on the issue in the form of making laws. If we don't like them we should take it up with them, I hear there is an election on; now might be a good time. The President doesn't get to decide which laws he will enforce, he swears an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as written. Same goes for 'gay marriage', amnesty for illegals, card check, regulating CO2 as a pollutant and so on. We don't have a king, we have a president. And I can absolutely promise you will instantly agree with me the second Obama leaves office and a Republican administration is sworn in, whether that be this year or some later election.

Re:Preference cascade

[Rockoon]

"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.

Equal rights for all?

How about all single people get the same artificial advantages as married people, eh? No?

You don't know what equal rights actually means. First you set up an unfair situation where some people get special treatment. Then you go on about how some other people dont get the same treatment.

Meanwhile why not just let all people have the same treatment? No? Yeah.. thought so.. empty words from you.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.

This is an obviously retarded position to take. Did I miss the solution you wanted?

Re:Preference cascade

[Rockoon]

What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.

You are seeing things that arent there. Thats part of the problem with your generation. You make things up.

Why not let all people have the same advantages? Seriously.. why not? Whats wrong with that, and what does that have to do with ending marriage?

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these same advantages?

What are you proposing?

If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you support a nanny state. A government that tells you who you can be with and what you can ingest.

Re:Preference cascade

[Richard Dick Head]

No... a flat tax would be a huge tax cut for the middle class, while raising taxes on the poor and the rich classes (both have effective tax rates that are quite low). This effect is amplified in high cost-of-living areas, since the additional amount of money it takes to eat and sleep can take you into a higher tax bracket.

That is why the idea is gaining popularity with the middle class...the current tax system is designed to screw us! If you're reading this, your taxes would go down if a flat tax was instituted.

However....such a policy would be ludicrous to implement during a recession, or even a flat economy. Same as ye olde health care reform, there is going to be unforeseen economic fallout.

Re:Preference cascade

[Richard Dick Head]

Judging by yet another Republican-bashing karma whore...I'd say no

Re:Preference cascade

[hairyfeet]

You know who gave the best damned speech on legalization evar? William F Buckley. Now I apologize if I don't get it word for word but it has been 35+ years since I heard him give that speech and since it was before the net I'm not gonna spend ages hunting it down, but here goes:

"If I put a bottle on the middle of a table with a skull and crossbones on it and tell you 'this is poison, it will wreck your health, your family, and finally your life' and you push me aside and drink it down? Well then you are obviously too stupid and self destructive to be here, so why should I pay billions to lock you in a cage and build fences around the bottle, all because you are too ignorant not to drink it?"

And this is why I support legalization across the board, because there is no way to babyproof the world and ultimately a man should be responsible for his own life. In most cities a 15 year old can score meth quicker than they can a beer, what does that tell you? it tells me that without legalization and regulation you have the illegal drugs easier to get that the legal ones.

In the end though this whole conversation is moot because both the D and R are bought and paid for and what they say on the trail don't mean jack shit. Remember how Obama said he wasn't gonna raid the legal pot shops in places like CA on the trail LAST time, what did he do? I believe he raided them. BOTH sides are as crooked as a snake and if you think one or the other is gonna change a damned thing I have some magic beans you might be interested in.

Re:Preference cascade

[ravenshrike]

What I'm confused about is what indications are there that the dipshit who authorized a crack down on the medical marijuana dispensaries in Cali is going to suddenly legalize weed after the election.

Re:Preference cascade

[Anonymous Coward]

Your constant reference to "redefining marriage" and "gay marriage" in quotation marks only goes to show your bigoted angle.

Go read some history on the Roman Empire. Same sex marriage was common and a non-event. Hell, 2 emperors were married to men - Nero was even the 'bride' to one.

Until you pull your head out of your arse, it automatically makes the rest of your arguments look bad. Based on your ignorance, I'd be inclined to believe that black was white if your opinion was that black was black.

Re:Preference cascade

[Rockoon]

If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?

I said exactly what I am suggesting. I take great care is not saying things that I do not mean. I also take great care in making sure that what I meant is clearly established. The only way to fuck this up on your end is if you do not understand these simple premises of communication.

Apparently you think Homosexuals want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage, and not for all the legal advantages that go with that institution. Apparently you are completely unaware that there are any advantages at all? Nah.. you cant be that ignorant.. right? Clearly the problem is that you do not understand the simple premises of communication.

Homosexuals want to get married because it is the only way to secure these advantages.

We created a group of elite people with special rights, and now homosexuals also want the opportunity to join the elite group that has special rights. There is nothing at all about "equal rights" in their demands for same sex marriage. They want to join the unequal rights club.

Re:Preference cascade

[JBaustian]

How can the information technology sector prosper if the rest of the economy is shit?

That's what you get if Barack Obama Junior is reelected.

So no matter where these IT executives live, even if surrounded on all sides by lefties, if they have any cajones then they need to prove it. Checking "not sure" is hardly a sign of moral courage.

Re:Preference cascade

[JBaustian]

The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.

Wrong. The problem is that a pure flat tax works best with the elimination of all exemptions, credits, and other tax preferences and expenditures. Then, as soon as you start the discussion, people want to introduce exceptions like mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution deductions. And some want to keep municipal bond interest tax-free. Or capital gains and dividends should be taxed more lightly or not at all.

If we were starting from scratch, it would be easy to create a proper flat-tax system. But our federal income tax system was screwed up within one or two years of its creation back in 1913 or so.

Re:Preference cascade

[Nadaka]

Not really. A flat tax that didn't involve deficit spending or abandoning nearly all of our social programs and the military would be in the 25% to 28% range. That is close to what most middle class people already pay in federal taxes.

However, a 25% to 28% cut to the available income of people at the poverty line will dramatically increase both the number of those living in poverty as well as the depth of poverty of those who can no longer make ends meet. This is why any flat tax must be accompanied by a strong social welfare element that mitigates that effect among the working poor.

We've got this guy Not Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!

Re:We've got this guy Not Sure

[neminem]

Relevant: http://whistleblower-newswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image0097.jpg

Re:We've got this guy Not Sure

[Z00L00K]

What the amount of unsure means is that there's potential for a third candidate - if you can find one.

Maybe Jimmy McMillan? At least he has some attitude! Also look at his web site: http://jimmymcmillan.org/

And we may still see another independent candidate floating up but it may be someone that waits just to avoid the costs and let Romney and Obama beat the crap out of each other first.

What's the difference?

[blackt0wer]

Romney and Obama both serve special interests.. the only real difference I can see is that one can prove he's eligible to be President of the United States and the other has used every trick in the book to conceal his true self. Pick the devil you know or the one you don't. Either way, the people lose.

Re:What's the difference?

[cpu6502]

Agreed. Romney or Obama. Who cares who wins?
Oh and this isn't really news. Every election for the last 30 years or so has had more non-voters than voters, because the non-voters are "not sure" who they prefer. So they just stay home.

Re:What's the difference?

[Kenja]

Main difference is where they fall on support for the middle class & social programs. In addition, while I dont think of myself as partisan, I find the actions of the Republicans in their attempts to disenfranchise lower class and minority voters to be down right evil. Stuff like the voter id laws and redistricting they are pushing through shows that they have such a low opinion of their own policies that they feel it necessary to cheat to win. That combined with their obstinate position of "anything they say, we're against" in congress makes me want to vote against them, if not for their Democrat opponents.

Re:What's the difference?

[Feyshtey]

How dare the republicans attempt to determine that you actually have a legal right to vote. The demons. I bet they eat babies for sport.

On the topic of redistricting, do some homework. Republicans and Democrats both use this is a regular tactic and mechanism to control voting results.

Why is it that the President can run on a campaign that includes a promise to reduce the debt, increase the debt by multiple trillions, and then have his supporters tell Republicans that they are the party of NO for trying to get the debt under control?

Re:What's the difference?

[jmorris42]

> Stuff like the voter id laws

Help me understand. Liberals tend to favor all sort of laws requiring ID. Can't f*cking buy a can of spray paint in Wal*Mart without having a picture ID anymore. Can't board a plane. Can't enter a federal building. Can't drive. Can't buy booze or smokes or a lotto ticket. And to carry a gun you need a second photo ID most places, if you can at all. Shall I continue? Point made? Thought so. So explain why I shouldn't think you guys are lying pieces of crap on this one and are just too scared to admit what you are really on about, you want to protect the sacred right of illegals to vote and for your political machines in the big cities to manufacture as many votes as the Party might require.

> and redistricting

So you are pissed we finally took enough State Legislatures to show you just how unfairly you guys have been playing that little game the last fifty some odd years? Payback too much of a bitch for ya? Well screw you hippie, suck it. In a generation I'll perhaps join you in a call for a more fair system.... but for now enjoy the payback.

Re:What's the difference?

[gtall]

Both parties have redistricted to their heart's content when they had the power to do so. This census, it was the Republicans. I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win. Every little misstep by either party's members are getting inflated to Biblical Proportions (dogs and cats living together kind of thing).

I also think the Republicans have gone overboard and not at all acting like the loyal opposition. Part of that is because they do not feel they have control over the executive branch agencies and feel they have been taken over by eco-feminist-anti-industry goblins. They are completely full of shit there.

The biggest difference between the parties appears to be Democrats accepting modern science and Republicans rejecting it believing it is some sort of scam. That stems from the Religious Right. On that basis, I reject the current crop of "Republicans" having been one my entire life. I also wouldn't trust the Democrats further than I can spit a two-headed rat given how they have been lying about the "security" of social security and medicare. I given the Democrats credit for trying to fix health care but in their own weaselly way they sold their asses to the insurance companies.

Re:What's the difference?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Every election comes down to a choice between a Turd sandwich, or a Giant douche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd

Re:What's the difference?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Either way, the people lose."

Correct. The question isn't so much "Which one is better?", but more like "Which one is less bad?"

But even that is false dichotomy. Paul is out of the running but there is always Gary Johnson.

(People, please don't reply with that "wasted vote" garbage. If you don't vote for who you want to win, then who you want will never win. That's a "self-fulfilling prophecy". Politics is not like gambling. In gambling, you vote for what you think will win. In politics, you vote for who you want to win. If you don't, you're doing it wrong.)

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you can cite hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud to offset the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS THAT WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED OVER THIS, you goddamn moron.

This is not theoretical. This is a fact. They are intentionally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters for no scientific reason.

THEY EVEN ADMIT IT!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/pennsylvania_gop_leader_voter_id_will_help_romney.php

In short, go fuck yourself.

Re:What's the difference?

[Kenja]

There are less then a dozen documented cases of someone voting using a false identity over the last four election cycles. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of voters who do not have photo id due to economic conditions (cant afford a car, dont have a drivers license). The people without ids are statistically Democrat voters.

As for redistricting, I'm talking about changing the rules so that Democrat districts have less time to vote then Republican ones. Granted that got over turned by a Federal judge, but that they tried it is sickening.

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

What's the enforcement mechanism in the current system? At my polling place the bulwark against voter fraud is a little old lady. If her spidey sense tingles, well then.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Franken "won" by 312 votes in an election where 1,099 felons voted illegally.

Without Al Franken in the Senate, Obamacare wouldn't have passed because Democrats didn't have the votes to end debate.

So yeah, vote FRAUD has consequences.

If I need an ID to drive, if I need an ID to exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms, if I need an ID to BUY A FUCKING BEER, you damn well better believe someone should need a FUCKING ID TO VOTE.

BECAUSE VOTE FRAUD DISENFRANCHISES EVERYONE YOU FUCKING KOOL-AID DRINKING SHITHEAD!!!

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

BTW, I should mention that I don't necessarily agree with the solution to require IDs. But not liking the solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win

Can you point to anything even remotely on this scale democrats have done? You pointed out a horrible and indefensible one republicans did, then said "but both sides are bad" without even one example of democrats do it. It's literally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people. Literally. This is not an exageration, it is a fundamental attack on democracy so their side can "win".

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact there is virtually no incentive for an individual to do so? The fact it doesn't happen?

Voter Fraud if caught is a HUGE crime compared to the benefit a single individual gets from doing it. The benefit an individual gets is effectively zero. Hell, paying people to vote the way you want is a bigger issue than voter fraud.

Voter fraud only happens on wide scale using things like absentee ballots(which are rarely targetted by these new laws, oddly!). It's not in person voter fraud, and it's certainly not something that these laws would stop.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Franken "won" by 312 votes in an election where 1,099 felons voted illegally.

Unless you can show that 312 of those 1099 felons voted for Al Franken, what precisely does your statistic prove? For all you know, all 1099 voted for the other guy.

Re:What's the difference?

[Ziggitz]

You are full of shit. What you are referencing is called gerrymandering and it is not the same. Gerrymandering is redistricting such that you shove all of the other party's voting block into one area as much as possible to make their popular vote as least effective as possible, allowing you to get more of your own guys into the house of representatives. It has nothing to do with the straight up disenfranchising of voters i.e. putting laws in place to purposefully get less people to vote, such as requiring id, restricting means by which to register and purging valid voters from the registry.

We have had a wave of voter ID laws in swing states by Republicans that clearly disproportionately voting blocks that tend to vote Democrat. We had Republicans attempting to allow early voting for Republican counties in Ohio but not for urban counties that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This is isn't typical gerrymandering and there is no whitewashing it. All of the Voter ID laws are to prevent a crime that is less frequent than the rate that people get struck by lightning in those same states. Republicans are doing it, Democrats aren't. If they were Fox News would be all over that shit.

As for your third line are you one of the members of the Republican party that thinks the Universe was created in January of 2008? Because you are completely fucking lost to reality and have the attention span of a goldfish if you think Republicans give two shits about the national debt for any reason other than a Democrat is in the White House.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, each election it becomes more and more obvious that this is a shell game projecting the illusion of the public having any say in politics. Each and every time, the public are cornered not into ever being able to vote for the man they want, but to vote against the one they really don't want.

In '08 Obama had said he would bring the troops home when they were ready and McCain had said the troops wouldn't pull out until they got the job done.

The left leaning in the public tend to dislike war and sympathize with the suffering of Palestine. The right leaning in the public... does the heartland really love the Israelis that much?? And yet, across the boards almost every politician in both camps widely agree that America must go at great lengths to protect Israel.

Does any politician ever say "I will crack down on bankers, oil companies, and the RIAA"?

There is only a lot of fussing over who is going to do more or less the same things that are going to happen anyway.

Re:What's the difference?

[SomePgmr]

I don't actually know where I sit on the voter ID thing, but assuming it's true, it does suggest that that number of people voting illegally, while very small, might, rarely, just maybe, be significant enough to matter. Maybe.

And while I understand that Republicans want voter ID primarily because they know it'll keep poor people from voting, I'm not sure identification is too great a requirement for something important like voting.

Re:What's the difference?

[Ziggitz]

No but every study looking into voter fraud showing it as a non issue probably means it's a non issue.

Re:What's the difference?

[PopeRatzo]

Pick the devil you know or the one you don't.

What's better, someone who is ineffective but means well or someone who is extremely competent but means you harm?

As someone who has experienced learning on the job first-hand, I think I know which way I'll go.

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

As we all know, when things are huge crimes no one commits those crimes because of the hugeness. And if caught! How is someone under current system, of no checks, supposed to be caught? Like I said, it's completely unenforceable unless the little old lady's spider sense tingles.

The benefits to voter fraud are the benefits of winning elections. There's lots of money, favors, and jobs to be dolled out. Or someone just might want to put a thumb on the scale for the party that represents their ideology.

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

What is always shown is that there aren't any checks that would even detect voter fraud.

Re:What's the difference?

[Ziggitz]

Lack of evidence of absence is not evidence and puts us no closer to validating the laws. There is also the fact the risk to reward ratio for such a crime are so astoundingly awful that no one in their right mind would do it.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The benefits to MASS voter fraud is "winning elections". We're talking about INDIVIDUAL voter fraud, which is all this would stop in even the best case. Again, mass voter fraud is usually absentee ballots. If republicans were serious about stopping fraud, not just disenfranchising people, shouldn't the laws target that a bit?

Individuals have no reason to commit voter fraud compared to the penalties.

Why don't you go commit voter fraud? You seem to care, and also seem to think it would be trivial with no chance of getting caught. Why don't YOU?

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

There is a system here. An easily exploitable system. If we were talking a computer program, what would everyone here be saying? Lack of evidence that anyone has written an exploit is reason not to fix the system?

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

I don't understand your point about individual voter fraud. Local elections are often times won or lost by very small margins. What voter fraud usually is is meaningless. Fraud with absentee ballots is more easily detected because there is barely any way to detect in-person voter fraud. That laws perhaps do not sufficiently target one type of fraud is not reason to not target the other type of fraud.

Individuals have no reason to commit most crimes because of the penalties, and yet crimes are committed every day!

If you don't think it's trivial to commit fraud than I wonder if you've ever voted. When I vote, I march up to a little old lady who asks my street address. She finds my address on a list and then asks my name. I give her my name. She crosses me off a list and I get a ballot. I go mark my ballot and then go see another little old lady who asks the same questions as the first. I then get crossed off another list. Then I deposit my ballot in a machine. You see no way this system could possibly be exploited? Seriously?

Re:What's the difference?

[Obfuscant]

Voter Fraud if caught is a HUGE crime compared to the benefit a single individual gets from doing it.

That's right, because no fraudulent voter gets any significant benefit from doing it, except for the $10 or so they get paid by the organizer who busses them into the district. The benefit goes to the winner of the election, and to the "community organizing group" (paid for by the party or the candidate) that has preloaded the system with a flood of bogus registrations for people who don't have the right to vote. Hint: it doesn't fall far from the tree.

Why is it that democrats scream about the massive voter fraud every time an election doesn't go the way they thought it should have, and then deny that there is any voter fraud when someone tries to implement a simple, reasonable law that tries to prevent it?

Requiring someone to prove they have the right to vote disenfranchises nobody -- who has the righ to vote. Only the ones who don't. And certainly not anywhere close to the scale of the attempts by Gore in Florida to have entire blocks of already counted votes thrown out for nonsensical reasons. You want to compain about disenfranchised voters? Look in the mirror, first.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas, you also have to have a voter registration card. I honestly assumed it was the same everywhere. They ship you a new one for each election. You also have to be registered. So no, you don't just walk in off the street to vote.

Individuals have no reason to commit most crimes because of the penalties, and yet crimes are committed every day!

Uh, no. Most crimes are committed because they benefit the person doing it and for whatever reason that person has decided the risk is worth it. When you rob someone, you're taking a risk of massive penalties, but you also gain "free" money. When you smash something, you're risking a smaller penalty, but you also had fun doing it. When you stab someone, you probably wanted that person stabbed.

I never said it wouldn't be easy to commit voter fraud, I said there isn't much reason for an INDIVIDUAL to do so compared to the penalties, and you haven't done anything to disprove that.

Additionally, how exactly do you expect the old lady security system you keep mocking to verify it's a legit ID? Is she supposed to be familiar with the drivers licenses from every state? Every other form of valid ID? Because if not, uh oh, there could still be voter fraud, so we'll need to come up with a more draconian solution to make sure that number is ZERO.

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

Yes, I did register to vote. Not sure how that matters when the little old lady has no idea I'm the person I said I was. Voter registration is public info.

As I said about crime, people commit crime all the time even when one would expect the penalties to deter them. People also often do things when they know they can get away with it. I'm pretty sure there was a study on cheating that made it's way here on Slashdot that showed that.

Having to verify an ID is a step from there being no verification at all. Are you saying the little old lady system is really the best we can do?

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not responding to your other arguments until you explain the benefit an individual gets from committing voter fraud. You keep ignoring that point.

When you cheat in a game, a test, etc, you get out of work - benefit. When you commit voter fraud - as an individual - you get....what? A microscopic chance yours will be the deciding vote? This isn't about the penalties. This is about why that specific individual would commit voter fraud.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that link I posted showing republicans flat out believe they can steal an election via voter ID laws sure uh...proves democrats are the real villains.

Re:What's the difference?

[taxman_10m]

I already did. The benefits that come with winning an election. It could be as simple as a person wanting Team A to win. Or it could be someone expecting a job or trying to keep a job. Or money that comes from some government contract.

Like I also said, many local elections are decided by only a few votes.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't given any reason for an individual. You have only given reasons for organized voter fraud. An individual will NOT influence the election. A bunch of them? Maybe. But they'd have to get together, and hey, now that's organized and easier to stop(only takes one whistle blower, even if you don't get caught).

I'm going to stop following this thread before I go insane, but it seems like this is the classic conservative vs liberal mindset(I'm not saying you are one or the other, but several other pro-voter ID people have stated their idealogy in this thread, including the person I first responded to):
Conservative: Worried someone somewhere is getting something they don't deserve (the ability to commit voter fraud)
Liberal: Worried someone somewhere is not getting something they deserve (the ability to vote)

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, only someone like you would say voters shouldn't need an ID to go into the voting booth, then pander to the party that wants extremely restrictive background checking on people who buy guns. Where is your basis that voter fraud is scarce? You are pulling statistics out of your ass, and you know it. Who the hell can't afford ID in this day and age? I was poor as fuck, made $12,000 last year (NO government help whatsoever), and could still afford a driver's license. GTFO with that crap about disenfranchising voters with ID requirements. If a voter didn't have ID, what's to prevent him from going to several different voting precincts to vote several times for the same candidate?

Re:What's the difference?

[Opportunist]

I'm not "not sure". I'm "I can't see the difference".

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my state (don't know about the rest of them) you have to fill out a voter registration form at the county courthouse. It seems like the process could be modified such that if you need an id, the person manning the desk could snap your photo, get your signature, and send a photo ID card to you in the mail with your voter registration card.

I currently need a photo ID to drive, secure employment, purchase a firearm, buy cough medicine, purchase a hunting or fishing license, purchase alcohol or tobacco products, purchase a lottery ticket, get on an airplane, get in a bar or strip club, rent a table at the pool hall, and probably a bunch of other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

If you have a country where non-citizens can vote (and thus direct the country), live in the country as long as they want, and enjoy all the benefits of being a citizen, what's the point of being a citizen?

Re:What's the difference?

[GNious]

So, someone should run solely on the notion of being a protest against the two others? Basically, "Vote for me, to show you don't agree with, or can choose between, the Dems and Reps" ?

Then simply campaign to get as many non-voters to the booths as possible, and you might stand a chance :)

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.

If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

You know, one of the points of emphasis by the Justice Department during the Bush II administration was to seek out all of that voter fraud you seem to think exists. Despite pushing the United States Attorney's hard to seek out and prosecute voter fraud they only came up with a handful of cases, not enough to affect any election but one decided by 1 or 2 votes.

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

In my state I've always had to sign the poll book when I go to vote and they can compare that signature against the the one on my registration card. It's very difficult to fake another persons signature.

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

Please provide evidence of Democrats screaming about massive voter fraud. More likely they're complaining about election fraud.

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

Shouldn't the time you have to prove you are eligible to vote be when you register to vote, not when you actually exercise your right to vote?

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals tend to favor all sort of laws requiring ID.

I don't think those people are "liberals". I think you may have misunderstood the meanin and etymology of the word "liberal".

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

An easily exploitable system. If we were talking a computer program, what would everyone here be saying?

Like electronic DRE voting machines?

Re:What's the difference?

[zraider]

We are currently making little to no effort to verify eligibility to vote. OF COURSE there will be very few documented cases of fraud.

Re:What's the difference?

[pete6677]

No legitimate voters will be disenfranchised, you fucking moron. Only those who either aren't legal voters or the few who are too goddamn lazy to get a FREE ID (yes, they are free for those who are low-income). So go fuck yourself.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are worried about the people who vote, yet never submit a ballot.

For the clueless: There are poll workers and supervisors of elections who cast votes in the name of citizens who did not vote.

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

That's not a problem that presenting a picture ID at the polls will solve.

Re:What's the difference?

[Feyshtey]

The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls.

I would argue the reverse.

If you register me to vote it's messed up, but what real impact does it have? If you vote on my behalf, I care. A lot.

Re:What's the difference?

[riverat1]

As I said I'd be more sympathetic to your "someone could vote on my behalf" argument if there were more evidence that it is a problem but 10 cases since 2000 just isn't a problem. Some of those cases were one spouse trying to vote for the other who was too sick to make it to the polls.

Why not vet the voter at registration when you have the time to get it right? By your logic if you can't trust it you may as well not have voter registration at all.

Re:What's the difference?

[ArsonSmith]

Does any politician ever say "I will crack down on bankers, oil companies, and the RIAA"?

Ron Paul on most of those. But it's better to just laugh at him.

Re:What's the difference?

[Magius_AR]

Ron Paul on most of those. But it's better to just laugh at him.

Ya, I hear he might be a racist or something. To hell with his sensible ideas!

He's the smartest man alive!

[hawks5999]

Not Sure gets my vote. http://yellowbananasuit.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/idiocracy21.jpg

Re:He's the smartest man alive!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Secretary Not Sure, dumbass.

Those aren't the only choices

[intertrode]

Most of the people choosing "Not Sure" probably wanted to pick Ron Paul or Gary Johnson but weren't given the choice. They need to recognize that those aren't the only choices!

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[Nadaka]

Gary Johnson is still on running on the libertarian ticket.

I did put quite a bit of effort into feeling out what his history and ideology was about. I would far prefer him over Romney. And he beats Obama on many important issues. But on economics, his zealous idolization of the free market makes him undesirable in this economic climate compared to Obama.

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul is even a bigger shill than Romney.

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[MightyMartian]

Shill to whom? I'm reasonably sure Paul is sincere. Just as sure as I also believe him to be ignorant of history, economics, political theory and jurisprudence.

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[intertrode]

I don't see how he is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. His supporters will not vote for the Republican candidate.f

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[intertrode]

Jurisprudence hasn't done us a lot of good. Neither has political theory. What history in particular are you accusing him to be ignorant of?

Re:Those aren't the only choices

[MightyMartian]

All of it.

Lack of Options

[CanHasDIY]

I posit that the only reason 'Not Sure' was the number one response is likely because 'None of the Above' wasn't an option.

Re:Lack of Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it was just rightfully interpreted as "CowboyNeal".

CowboyNeal for president!

Re:Lack of Options

[Feyshtey]

They didn't mention that the most common write-in vote among IT staff was Gordon Freeman.

Re:Lack of Options

[trout007]

I got a phone call from an automated polling company. I started to answer but then questions at to which candidate I preferred came up. It was only Obama or Romney. I couldn't go in with the test since I think they are both horrible and evil. So I hung up.

Re:Lack of Options

[fa2k]

The options say "Neither / Not Sure" in the poll. The whole story is ridiculous, it's perfectly reasonable to think that neither Obama nor Romney will help with things like "Access to capital to advance start-ups and business expansion" etc

Re:Lack of Options

[CanHasDIY]

They didn't mention that the most common write-in vote among IT staff was Gordon Freeman.

Aide: Mr. President, how should we deal with this burgeoning international conflict?

Pres. Freeman: ... {Crowbar}

He's got my vote!

None of the Above

[Lord Apathy]

Put none of the above on all the ballots. So that people can send a message that they don't want any of the candidates in office. If none of the above wins the election then those that are running are disqualified from the election. Time to chose new candidates.

Re:None of the Above

[icebraining]

Can't you just put nothing on the ballot? At least where I live, blank votes are valid and counted separably from spoiled ones.

Re:None of the Above

[R3d M3rcury]

So...who runs the country in the meantime?

This always sounds like a neat idea--"None of the above! That'll show those bastards!" But if "None of the Above" wins, what do we do while we pick new candidates? Does the incumbent stay on office until new candidates are picked? Wouldn't this sort of push incumbents into negative campaigning in order to convince voters that you don't like anybody?

Re:None of the Above

[Lord Apathy]

Well I would think that some reasonably and well planned out plan would be put in place. Now that we can stop laughing, i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office. p. I also don't think it would put incumbents into negative campaigning because they to fall under the none of the above vote, only worse. If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection. If anything I think it would cut down on the negative campaigning.

Re:None of the Above

[R3d M3rcury]

i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office.

Well, that depends. For example, a "lame duck" president is in office for about 2 months. So assuming we have an election in, say, November and "None of the Above" wins, do we have only two months to decide? Considering that primaries run for about 5 or 6 months (and it takes time to set up primaries), I'd say you're looking at a minimum of one year of "lame duckiness."

If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection.

Unless he's the incumbent, in which case he stays on in a "lame duck" mode for another year.

Re:None of the Above

[Anonymous Coward]

Several nations have well organised provisions for caretaker governments in event of stalemate that aren't allowed to do anything to ruin the place. IIRC, Belgium spent quite a while without a full government fairly recently. Personally, I think it's a brilliant idea. In the case of a congressional election, "none" would simply mean that district sends nobody. If you leave the definition of majority based on the full number of seats, it effectively makes it harder to pass any laws, up to the point where you have majority "none," and you go into caretaker mode because there is no way to get a majority vote on anything.

Re:None of the Above

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you just put nothing on the ballot? At least where I live, blank votes are valid and counted separably from spoiled ones.

Yes, it's called spoiling your ballot.

Re:None of the Above

[Opportunist]

Why primaries altogether? Have them all on the ballot and stop the "either - or" mentality of the US elections. Maybe that way we'll eventually get people to realize that they actually DO have a choice and can't just choose between the turd sammich or the giant douche.

Re:None of the Above

[riverat1]

A federal judge just struck down Nevada's "None of the above" ballot option.

Re:None of the Above

[iphinome]

If no one gets a majority of the electoral votes (Plurality isn't good enough) the house of representatives gets to choose the new president with each state getting one vote. If they deadlock they keep holding ballots till someone wins. If the new president's term starts before one is chosen then the vice president chosen by the senate holds power till there's a president.

Re:None of the Above

[Lord Apathy]

Well that federal judge has stated his option, now its time to start treating it like what it is, his option. Time to stop treating these federal judges like they are gods. If this is a state issue, then its a state issue and the federal government has no business nor can it enforce a ruling there.

Ignore it.

Re:None of the Above

[riverat1]

I wasn't saying I agreed with the decision, just that there is an legal precedent now. I think if Nevada's "None of the above" option had some teeth in it the judge probably would have let it stand. Instead even if NOTA wins in Nevada the guy who gets the most votes gets the office so it has the same effect as a voter simply not voting on that race.

Re:None of the Above

[Lord Apathy]

I know its not easy to ignore what a federal judge says but I'm saying its time for the states to grow a pair. Tell judge's and the federal government 'no'. No, your tsa goons will not strip search our elderly and children.

NEITHER

[detritus.]

Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.

False choice

[roman_mir]

That's not a choice, that's lack of options, that's false choice.

Obama and Romney differ very little when it comes to the actual issues, the difference is that Obama is a convinced Marxist basically, he is completely convinced that the free market capitalism is the root of all evil. Romney on the other hand simply doesn't understand free market capitalism.

Both of them will do the same thing - spend more and more on government, will not do anything to reduce the actual size of government, will do nothing to reform SS, Medicare and will not stop wars (will have more of them) and will do nothing about the growing problem of the real interest rates.

The real choice is not between Romney and Obama, it's between both of them and people like Gary Johnson (Libertarian ticket in these elections) or Ron Paul (you can write him in if you want).

There is no difference otherwise, it's going to be more destruction of the real economy, bigger government, eventual destruction of US dollars and all dollar denominated credit.

I know that on /. this is going to be met with a huge outcry from all sides, there will be more funny kind of moderation, as if this is a 'troll' or 'overrated' or 'flamebait', but as far as I am concerned this is just the reality.

Re:False choice

[iluvcapra]

Obama is a convinced Marxist basically, he is completely convinced that the free market capitalism is the root of all evil

I'm not sure if Obama has taken a position on the labor alienation, commodity fetishism or historical materialism, let alone the Hegelian dialectic as it applies to capital. He might have said something once about the labor theory of value being wrong, or about the relative moral value of M-C-M' transactions in a market, but I may be mistaken.

This word, "marxism," I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:False choice

[David Greene]

I fundamentally disagree with your analysis. It displays a lack of understanding of political power and Obama is neither a Marxist or a Socialist. But that's not what I want to address today. What we need to address is this:

Obama and Romney differ very little when it comes to the actual issues

You're kidding, right?

One pushed through a big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people while the other is moving as far away from his (mostly identical) program as possible.

One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity. The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.

One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability. The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.

One has invested in renewable energy and the other says he will fund "traditional" energy sources and dismantle decades of environmental law.

One may agree or disagree with the candidates on these points but one cannot honestly say there is no difference between them.

Re:False choice

[roman_mir]

Obama does not believe in private ownership and operation of means of production and he has displayed this in practice, GM was confiscated from its rightful owners, the non-union labourers also lost their share and the company was given away to the labour union.

I don't need Obama to be theoretically a Marxist, he is practically a Marxist.

Re:False choice

[jfengel]

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if more people who talked about economics read, you know, actual economics? Instead of partisan blogs?

Thanks for that. You'd get mod points, if I had any. Instead, you are alienated from the fruits of your labor.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the facts don't agree with you.

Re:False choice

[roman_mir]

Obama has shown what he is very clearly when he confiscated GM from the owners and handed it over to the union labour (in fact the non-union labour was also left out to dry). He does not believe in ownership of means of production. As to him being a socialist, it is you, who must be kidding.

One pushed through a big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people while the other is moving as far away from his (mostly identical) program as possible.

- They are identical on this topic. First of all Romney's plan is Obama's plan. Secondly Romney is not going to cut anything from either Medicare or SS. It's not his plan.

Paul Ryan is a complete joke, total sell out, a fraud. His 'plan' makes rosy assumptions that will never come true about the interest rates and growth of economy and he never cuts anything from any budget.

Even his supposed cuts to the rate of growth of the government are nonsense, they can't start for another 10 years, that's what the point is that he is bringing across - if you are 55 or over, you will not be affected by his cuts.

But there are no cuts. No cut is a cut unless it's done in the first term of presidency, everything else is a funny game they like to play. Even the so called 'sequestration', or automatic cuts that were the deal to avoid the US rating from being cut further by the rating agencies (political beats, not real rating agencies), even this is not going to happen and this was the agreement just 1 year ago.

Why would anybody care what anybody says about any cuts 10 and more years into the future? USA doesn't have 10 years, the US dollar and bonds will be destroyed much earlier than that.

One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity. The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.

- ha, the ONLY difference between Romney and Obama in this is that the top earners will have the SAME CUTS as the rest of them under Romney's plan, and Obama, as the Marxist that he is, is leading the class warfare, so he is going to give tax cuts to everybody except the top 1% (that's his platform).

(As to 'believing in progressive taxation' - what a stupid idea. Progressive taxation is simply theft, nothing else, it cannot grow anything by definition, it removes the investment funding from the productive part of society and moves it to the unproductive part).

One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability. The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.

- USA has over 100,000 regulations of financial institutions in place, that's first. Secondly - Obama is not going to do anything more than than Romney.

Here is the real problem - the financial sector is the symptom of the dying economy, it's not the cause of it. It doesn't produce anything on its own, it can only discover prices and allocate resources, the production is dying not because of the financial sector, but because of the size and power of government, that destroyed the savings, investments and incentives to create the welfare state. Regulating or not regulating the financial sector will do absolutely nothing to fix the economy, this is about as meaningful as your idea on progressive taxes.

By the way, James Calaghan was one of the PMs in UK, here is what he said at the 1976 Labour Party conference, when UK was doing what US is doing now:

"We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending, I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion⦠by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next stepâ¦

As to the energy sources, this is again, a market decision, not government decision to make and it will not be.

There is no difference between Romney and Obama.

Re:False choice

[trout007]

This is because you are very closely aligned with the status quo. Romney isn't really going to deregulate banks. He's not going to get rid of fractional reserve banking and go to 100% hard money. He is just going to use the power to benefit a different group than Obama.

From the libertarian point of view both of these guys just want to use their power to punish their enemies and reward their friends. Would you call it socialist, capitalist, or fascist or some other term?

Re:False choice

[iluvcapra]

On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"? Did the state ever hold title on GM? It did make loans to GM, and it only tendered these loans with conditions, the sort of conditions any lender in such a situation might do, but it never appropriated or "nationalized" GM in the style of a popular socialist government (you're actually accusing him of socialism, not Marxism).

If you want to argue about the priority of labor contract claims over shareholders and bondholders, you need to take your argument up with three hundred years of bankruptcy law.

I'm not sure if, by your standard, there's ever been an American president who wasn't a Marxist. Your criteria, if the GM bankruptcy liquidation to New GM is your predicate, is indistinguishable from an FDIC bank reorganization. We could call it Marxism, but given that Obama is more right-wing than a French UMP deputy, more militaristic than a British Tory, and more free-marketeering than the median German libertarian, I'm not sure where that leaves the terminology.

Re:False choice

[roman_mir]

On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"?

The bankruptcy was challenged from the start by bondholders, who held $27 billion in GM debt. Senior bondholders, by law, are supposed to receive 100% of assets before anyone else gets anything. However, the bankruptcy judge gave them a minor 10% stake of the company. In contrast, the union, for $20 billion owed to its health trust, received 17% if the stock, $2.5 billion in cash and $6.5 billion in preferred stock. So the union received over three times in value what the secured debt holders received and they should have been behind them receiving anything at all. The government, for $50 billion, received 61% of the company, also disregarding the senior bond holder's first-place position.

Many bondholders were furious, and rightfully so. There is anecdotal evidence that there was threats and strong-arming that eventually had them back down. Here is a clip of the transcript of a radio interview of Thomas Laurie, the attorney representing the Chrysler creditors at the time:

Lauria: "Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence, opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

This administration's actions in designing the GM bankruptcy was gangster-like and an outrageous disregard of bankruptcy law. The Obama administration essentially confiscated the assets of the bondholders and gave them to the union; wealth distribution at its finest! If this is what it took for GM to remain alive, should it be alive..."

read more

The company was confiscated against by the government from the rightful owners against all judicial precedent.

---

As to FDIC - this is just another policy, designed by the government to ensure that the banks do not lose their business and in the process of doing it, the government has created the very moral hazard that was responsible for the banks behaving like the casinos, which coupled with the government fake insurance and fake money created the housing bubble and it is now creating the dollar and bond bubble.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

He has, however, taken the position contra Marx that building the reserve army of labor is important, as seen in his recent executive order granting "temporary permits" to illegal aliens to stay in the country and work, at a time when millions of Americans can't find jobs.

Obama's Aunt Zeituni was an illegal aliens on Section 8 when she wrote her book "Tears of Abuse", presumably tears of shame for abusing welfare. She since returned to Kenya.

Obama's Uncle Omar is still in the country, having received his first deportation order in 1989, appealing deportation after having been arrested for drunk driving in 2011.

Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" protects one illegal alien who assaulted a federal agent. Instead of being charged, and deported, he is currently seeking that temporary permit Obama's executive order creates for aliens who came here as teenagers and haven't been convicted of a crime.

Re:False choice

[iluvcapra]

I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?

Governments interfering with large bankruptcies is quite common; George W. Bush was no Marxist, but he initiated TARP. If you wanna argue the merits of your approach do so, but your attempts to label your enemies are obnoxious and lacking in any kind of rational basis.

I'm sorry the world doesn't live up to your standards, but as the saying goes, you can either carpet the earth or wear shoes. (OTOH you might have a point: George Bernard Shaw, A FUCKING SOCIALIST, once said that all progress depended on the unreasonable man. So shine on you crazy diamond.)

Re:False choice

[roman_mir]

I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?

- not so. Almost politicians on this planet are using socialist agenda to stay in power and under the covers they use fascist methods to stay in power.

The socialist agenda is the promise to steal from the productive part of the economy and to subsidise the unproductive.

The fascist agenda is to create the rules, laws, regulations and taxes to ensure survival only of the monopolies in the market and then to milk those monopolies for support money.

Marxists are not as common as socialists and fascists, Marxists are the true believers that there is class warfare, that ownership of means of production is the wrong idea, socially, economically, politically. That's Obama.

If you actually did read my comment, and if you understood it, then you should realise that what was done was not a normal bankruptcy procedure, it was confiscation of means of production and transfer of those means of production to the labour union.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obama does not believe in private ownership and operation of means of production and he has displayed this in practice, GM was confiscated from its rightful owners, the non-union labourers also lost their share and the company was given away to the labour union."

And then Obama, the Marxist, apparently let GM buy back what was "confiscated" from the government?

I don't get it. Where's that part in the communist manifesto or whatever source you're using?

"I don't need Obama to be theoretically a Marxist, he is practically a Marxist."

By that rationale, so was Roosevelt for that whole "New Deal" thing, but I think the case would be a lot stronger for his example. Not that it is a convincing case (it's ridiculous), but it would be more plausible. Ironically, it was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act from that era that is widely held to be one of the reasons for the 2008 financial crisis. Those free-market capitalists. Always looking for a little less constraint on their operations. Always looking out for the interests of the free market and the general economy, of course.

I guess the correct free-market, non-Marxist thing to do was to let the whole economy crater. Alas, the start of the whole "bailout" approach can't really be pinned on Obama. He can only be blamed for continuing it. It started with George W. Bush in the last few months of his term, who, I presume, is also regarded as a Marxist for starting the process.

Frankly, I think the economic policies of these guys has more to do with the Marx Brothers than Karl Marx. Same for your understanding.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm the person that reads your bullshit, then tells you you're fucking retard.

You're a fucking retard.

Your deluded statements prove you don't respond to reason, so ridicule it is.

Fucking retard.

You asked for it.

Fucking retard.

Re:False choice

[MightyMartian]

Only an American would call Obama a Marxist. The United States is made of up 300 million political ignoramuses. Have you even read Marx?

Re:False choice

[MightyMartian]

What we've understood is that you know little or nothing about Marxism, socialism or political theory. How can you possibly b an adult when you have the political sense of a three legged dog trying to chew his apps off.

Re:False choice

[roman_mir]

Congratulations then, you have proven how worthless your education was (whoever gave it to you, they shouldn't have bothered), because you don't understand how to build arguments at all.

I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too.

Now, do you have an actual argument, or was that it?

Re:False choice

[MightyMartian]

On bOth points I think you're likely lying. Making absurd. Pains to cover you're incredible stupidity is not unusual. And your post has all the hallmarks of some pathetic partisan trying to find cover.

Wake me up when Obama is instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

They're only different in how they want to screw over the country. So, please stop trying to make Obama look good.

big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people

The new health insurance rules won't help anyone. If you couldn't afford healthcare 5 years ago, you won't be able to afford healthcare 5 years from now. By forcing everyone to have health insurance, they're going to bring in huge profits to the insurance industry. The best way to fix healthcare from a liberal perspective would be to have the government pay for everything. The best way to fix healthcare from a conservative perspective would be to stop forcing people to get it from their employers, by allowing it to be payroll tax deductible, or making all healthcare a taxable income.

One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity

Which one is that? Like most politicians, they both favor their corporate overlords, and support laws, taxes, and contracts that will most benefit the people who donated to their campaigns. Giving huge contracts to corporations is effectively a regressive tax.

They are different only in that they have different corporate overlords. They each support a different 1%.

The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.

Neither has ever proposed a regressive federal income tax, aside from the already existing regressive payroll taxes like social security, which they both support.

One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability

Are you referring to Obama? He passed weak new financial regulations, but they wouldn't prevent the disaster from happening again. Also, Obama voted FOR the bailout, even though it was done in the worst possible way.

The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.

I don't doubt that Romney would tear down regulations that hurt his campaign's corporate sponsors, but rest assured that he would keep the regulations that make it difficult to compete with them.

When you say "little regulation", are you aware just how much banks are already regulated? They are one of the most highly regulated industries. The IRS requires it.

One has invested in renewable energy

Corporate sponsors

other says he will fund "traditional" energy sources

Corporate sponsors

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Only an American would call Obama a Marxist.

Americans also think that Obama is in the "left" on the political scale, while in reality he is a moderate right by any measure.
Sad indeed.

Re:False choice

[TapeCutter]

do you have an actual argument

Yes, Obama is financially conservative and socially liberal and rarely strays far from the center. The reason you think he's a socialist is because you are way out on the right wing, the left wing is over your horizon and it's difficult for you to even see the center.

I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too

We've crossed paths before, I believe you are sincere and passionate but it comes across as ignorance and arrogance, unfortunately you routinely believe the most outlandish propaganda and then repeat it as truth. You grew up in a land and time where intense state propaganda was the norm and motivated the behavior of the adults around you. Pravda and Fox are two faces of the same evil, I hope that one day you can get past resenting the adults from your childhood and realize that you've been fighting dragons for so long that you have become one.

Re:False choice

[Cytotoxic]

Would you call it socialist, capitalist, or fascist or some other term?

Corporatist. That's the word you were looking for. Both parties are heavily statist and deeply invested in corporatism. When these guys trumpet new regulations that are going to "punish the bad guys and clean this industry up", just bet that there is some big, entrenched interest that is getting its nest feathered. Creating barriers to entry and protecting the incumbent works for the politicians and it works even better for the corporations.

Re:False choice

[Cytotoxic]

Socially liberal? What, because he "evolved" to a position of tolerance on gay marriage? Exactly what socially liberal policies does this government have?

He claimed he was going to roll back the drug war - and promptly ramped up raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Is he better on civil asset forfeiture? No, decidedly not. What about warrantless wiretaps? Not really, no. How about the whole stupid USA Patriot Act? How about undeclared wars? Not so great there. How about due process - that's a pretty basic civil liberty. Yet this government has declared for the first time that the President has the authority to issue a death warrant for an American citizen without charges, trial, defense... just on the say-so of one man they can target and kill an American citizen. That's really socially liberal....

Don't listen to the rhetoric, watch the actions. Other than the soaring rhetoric and excellent image-making, exactly how much different is this "socially liberal" president from the previous "paleo-conservative" president on civil liberties? His position on Roe v. Wade vis-a-vis supreme court nominations? I suppose that's a difference. Hardly enough to warrant a label of "socially liberal" in my book, but hey, opinions differ.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has shown what he is very clearly when he confiscated GM from the owners and handed it over to the union labour (in fact the non-union labour was also left out to dry). He does not believe in ownership of means of production. As to him being a socialist, it is you, who must be kidding.

If GM had failed, then the bond holders would be out the money anyways. You might disagree with who ended up with money and who didn't, but in either case, your example doesn't prove that he doesn't believe in private ownership or that he is socialist. Most of the ownership of various corporate entities have been sold off already. If he were truly socialist, then where are the big efforts for national takeovers of entire industries? Where are the overt price controls? It might have been nice to be able to set the price of gas to $2.50/gallon by law and taken over the entire industry to make it so. That didn't happen. Either your definition of socialism != dictionary definition, or you are just falling into the Republican name calling/fear mongering trap.

First of all Romney's plan is Obama's plan.

The problem is that we don't know what Romney's current plan is other than the fact that he's now against the plan he used to be for, just most of the Republicans when it was the Heritage Foundation's plan. The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't go far enough... it's just mostly the old Republican plan with a big buy-in from the insurance industry (which is Obama's big win) which made it possible to even get this far. We just don't know about Romney in this regard, other than the fact he's raised flip-flopping to a new art form.

- ha, the ONLY difference between Romney and Obama in this is that the top earners will have the SAME CUTS as the rest of them under Romney's plan, and Obama, as the Marxist that he is, is leading the class warfare, so he is going to give tax cuts to everybody except the top 1% (that's his platform).

(As to 'believing in progressive taxation' - what a stupid idea. Progressive taxation is simply theft, nothing else, it cannot grow anything by definition, it removes the investment funding from the productive part of society and moves it to the unproductive part).

Hmm... taxes... marxists or communists don't believe in taxes. You see, you don't pay taxes in a marxist or communist system. Instead, you work. The government pays you and your family just enough to live. The government pays roughly the same to you as everyone else. Except for the elites. But most people make roughly the same amount regardless of the job you perform. The very fact that you are talking about class warfare, taxes, or any of that and still calling Obama a Marxist just shows the level of brainwashing you've suffered.

As for your comments on progressive or regressive taxation, and whether or not government spending is "unproductive", if you look at our past history of taxation and government spending, it is not true that periods of high government spending or high taxes caused economic hardship. Actually, it is very hard to find evidence that trickle down economics works. Obviously the very rich want you to believe that they aren't hiring because they've been paying too much taxes or other nonsense. Instead, they aren't hiring because of uncertainty, especially of consumer demand. But make no mistake, corporate balance sheets on a whole are flush with cash. Whether or not government can force a change in demand there is a different debate.

- USA has over 100,000 regulations of financial institutions in place, that's first.

But often there is no appetite for enforcement... and the enforcers are too close to the entities they are supposed to regulate. I do agree that regulation to remove all risk is stupid. The whole idea is skin in the game. However, too big to fail is a huge structural problem that we do need to fix. Obama is not likely to be able to fix it. But Romney

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Beginning with Bush II the right started moving the goal posts so far to the right in an attempt to make the "near right" look centrist. The left has now done the same thing in the opposite direction. That's why you see anyone who calls him a socialist as "way out on the right wing."

Obama is neither socially liberal nor financially conservative. I'm not sure he's anything except by mouth. He's simply doing what he wants to do with an authoritarian approach. That you see him as "rarely stray[ing] far from the center" just tells me that he supports your particular ideology. To me, he's just Bush III.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama and Romney differ very little when it comes to the actual issues

You're kidding, right?

Are you living in the American Dream fantasy world?

PROTIP: It is 100% COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT who's the president. He's nothing more than a decorative veil of distraction. It could be your perfect dream candididate... It could be *you*... It's meaningless!

(Disclaimer: I work in the field.)
Because whoever it is, he gets to live in the engineered fantasy world that the lobbyists / social engineers create for him. And *anyone* in that world, *wants* to do what the lobbyists want, because in the perceived reality, it's the rational, fair and good action. You'd fall for it. I'd fall for it. Everyone would.
Hell, you fall for it *right now*, even with the third-class social engineering done on TV, and you can't even tell. And I did most of my life. (Denial is a bitch.)

Anyone who still gives a flying fuck about politicians and parties, is living a delusion on the level of religion, and must ask himself, if he's even still an individual!
The right way to go... and I'm telling you this as a professional with more than a decade of experience in the field... is to either make your own lobby and keep them under very tight mental control and *well*-paid... or lobby the *lobbyists* themselves.

Think of lobbying lobbyists as a transistor. the big companies feed major cash into the lobbyists, yet you control them. Giving you huge leverage.
(But beware: It won't work long, if the companies catch on. So my suggestion is to back-lobby the fueling company too, creating a positive feedback-cycle for you, and destroying their cancer from within.)

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called "the law of the jungle". Or as you know it by its current name: "the free market". (Which has as much to do with capitalism, as the Soviet Union had to do with communism.)

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Or by the standards of THE REST OF THE WORLD, he's a extreme right-wing lunatic.
It’s just that the others are EVEN WORSE. (NSDAP worse. And I say that as a German.)

(Assuming we're talking perceived appearance here. Of course, behind it all, they are exactly the same, because they are all controlled by companies via their lobbyists / social engineers.

Re:False choice

[shiftless]

Yes, Obama is financially conservative

LOL

Yeah, you lost me there

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, it is YOU who are on the far left and are blind to your position.

Re:False choice

[udachny]

Here is what Obama does to the productive class in USA, this is an audio interview from today, the interview I am talking about is between minutes 19:19 and 49:19

The interview is with a small business entrepreneur who was framed by Obama to be his poster boy when it was profitable politically, when Obama wanted to sell the idea that he is for 'small-business', while giving money to huge industry and what he actually did to small businessman, destroyed him.

Re:False choice

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference is that both of them will sell you out to whomever gives them the biggest contribution.. if you believe different you're a moron..

Re:False choice

[David Greene]

PROTIP: It is 100% COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT who's the president. He's nothing more than a decorative veil of distraction. It could be your perfect dream candididate... It could be *you*... It's meaningless!

(Disclaimer: I work in the field.)

As do I. Frankly, your dismissal of the power of the executive makes me seriously question exactly what you do in this field. Obama has made a huge difference in important areas. Transportation is one of them. With an obstructionist Congress there's not much he can accomplish in the legislative arena but he can very well influence the way existing law is carried out.

No, I'm not delusional. I've seen and experienced the difference Obama has made. Personally.

Executives and integrators?

[adewolf]

We all know who they want Mittens and his money buddies. Executives and integrators have no interest is "what's best for the IT industry", they only care about the $$$$$.

Missed opportunity

[gmuslera]

A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.

Re:Missed opportunity

[kat_skan]

I'd vote for him just to see what the talking heads would do when he delivers the State of the Union address and then the Vice President shows up to deliver the same address again two hours later.

Well, the answer is obvious

[the_humeister]

One or both of them should change his/their name(s) to Not Sure.

IT IQ CHECK

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they are all libertarians who just can't admit they're going to grind their teeth in disgust and vote for Romney. The chance of growth (Romney) beats the hell out of certain stagnation (Obama) even though they're both "government is the solution guys" because growth will throw more work towards IT.

Lining up to donate more of your own free will?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Interesting. There was a time, not so long ago where a low 6-figure salary made you the enemy. Some of you are probably getting bit in the balls by the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed and never indexed to inflation, because a handful of evil rich in the 60s used legal tax loopholes to vastly redce or eliminate their tax.

not so remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

"including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably)"

Some people might think that in the long run lower taxes is not necessarily "best" for the IT industry.

Re:not so remarkable

[Kergan]

Or more simply, that cutting taxes makes it hard to balance a budget:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Re:not so remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

So lets just continue raising taxes until everyone is rich. Isn't that your suggestion?

wrong question

[CAIMLAS]

This is the wrong question.

IT is highly, highly dependent upon a strong business economic situation to do well. Without actual production, there is no market for IT products and services (other than the bare minimum to keep things running). Many, many businesses have cut back over the past 10 years on IT spending, and it shows in both jobs available and the current state of most company's IT infrastructure: many 'big companies' are still running 8-10 year old equipment because it still works.

The correct question is, "Which Presidential candidate is better for business long-term profitability?" I'm not saying that one has an answer, either, but short of vacuous venture capital and angel funded trendy shit, it's the same answer.

Paul Ryan

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with everything you've said. I'd like to point out the Paul Ryan is the only candidate that's willing to bring up Medicare's problems and the fact that it's not sustainable at current income and spending levels.

Now it's a question if one agrees with his solution - cut spending - as opposed to increasing the Medicare tax.

Unfortunately, I agree that some serious looks must be taken at federal finances but the Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting everything else and refusing to increase taxes.

The democrats as far as I can tell, are willing to make some cuts but more than likely they will increase taxes to make up the shortfalls while making token cuts here and there.

As a fiscal and government consevative, I find both parties solutions inadequate and doomed to failure.

I just wish the public would get over the distraction issues - everything the social conservatives care about. The Government has no business in our personal lives and religion has no business in government.

No Confidence

[fustakrakich]

That should beat 'Not Sure'

A vote either Romney or Obama is wasted chance for something different. But if you like things the way they are, you can't beat those two.

Wrong people are being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

This poll would have been more informative if they surveyed people working in the IT industry rather than the executives running it. The latter party has different interests than the former. For example, they might want to see the H1B visa cap lifted, whereas, I being somewhere in the trenches, do not.

Re:Wrong people are being considered

[trout007]

Reminds me of Frederic Bastiat. He said we are all consumers and producers. We want what we consume to be cheap and abundant and what we produce to be scarce and expensive. A prosperous and free society tends to move towards abundant and cheap things. This requires we don't pass laws that protect producers from competition.

Re:Wrong people are being considered

[GameboyRMH]

Wow even the execs aren't sure if they want to vote for the guy who's going to make it rain for them at the expense of the middle and lower classes? Ouch for Romney.

Re:Wrong people are being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only shit would be more scarce and expensive...

Uh...

[Shoten]

The fact that "derp" is generally a more popular choice than a reasoned, deliberate stand on one side of a choice is news because...?

Translation

[EverlastingPhelps]

Very very few people are really not sure. What this really means is that most people are voting "I'm not a republican but I'm voting Romney anyways and don't want to admit it."

Re:Translation

[jfengel]

Yeah, I'd kinda like to follow it up with a few questions:

* Did you vote for somebody last time?

* Did you vote for somebody of the same party the time before that?

* Do you expect me to seriously believe that you're not going to do the same this time?

* On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is "Not even the slightest bit independent" and 7 is "A raging partisan hack", where do you fall?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. Outside of Slashdot, IT is pretty conservative so there is little reason to lie in that direction (especially considering the participants were executives). Even on Slashdot, it leans more libertarian than anything. I think its more of two things:
1. Does anyone really know who will be better for IT? For example, a candidate who's against network neutrality might be better for IT because someone needs to implement/deploy the extortion schemes and someone on the other end needs to figure out the best way to get around the extortion schemes. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him. Someone who's pro censorship might create jobs via the great American firewall project. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him either.
2. People have been programmed to not talk about politics at work. You mix a political survey with professional questions - I bet you'll get more neutral answers.

Re:Translation

[rrohbeck]

"Obama didn't cut it so I might vote for Romney, let's see if his policies will fail as hard as Bush's or even harder. We haven't had a serious bubble bursting in years."

While it wasn't a choice,

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd rather suck a dick" would probably win.

Yeah, like I'm going to vote for a third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Not Sure may be relatively popular among the IT crowd, but why should I throw away my vote on someone who isn't going to win?

I'm voting for Kodos.

Re:Yeah, like I'm going to vote for a third party

[SternisheFan]

Unless you're from an electoral college state, you are throwing your vote away. You might as well vote for Kodos, I for one, would welcome.....

Re:Yeah, like I'm going to vote for a third party

[iphinome]

I think you mean battleground state or perhaps swing state which amounts to the same thing, one that's actually being contested.

"Remarkably"?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read the conspicuous, "tax policy (remarkably)," I immediately clicked on the link to see what kinds of other bias TFA harbored.

And I found none - not even the original glaring "remarkably...."

So now /. allows such blatant editorializing to be added by any submitter who otherwise copy-paste?

Romney's just like Bush jr.

[SternisheFan]

Romney just doesn't do well with off the cuff remarks, at all' His latest gaffe, his birther remark, shows once again what a loose cannon he is. I don't think he means to sound malicious and mean, he just can't help himself. Someone glue a teleprompter to him 24/7.

Re:Romney's just like Bush jr.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't make that remark. Someone else made that happen.

Obama's gaffs are FAR FAR worse. Just because you fail to see or acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist. Just ask him how many of the 57 states hes been to since being president.

Re:Romney's just like Bush jr.

[GameboyRMH]

Wasn't that "57 states" thing from shortly after his election? Hasn't he made any mistakes since? Gimme some fresh material dammit, the reruns are killing me.

Re:Romney's just like Bush jr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think harder. This "gaffe" is clearly designed to take air out of the outrage over the GOP's war on women. We have one party in this country actively trying to turn us into a Christian version of Iran and all anyone can talk about *again* is a fucking birth certificate.

Re:Romney's just like Bush jr.

[iphinome]

I saw the video of that. For whatever my opinion is worth, not much I admit, he looked half awake and I got the impression he was trying to say 50 states in 7 days but his sleep deprived brain didn't quite make it.

Big flubs bother me, little ones form either party don't. When you make fun of Bush for saying misunderestimated or Obama for saying 57 states you're not engaging in political commentary you're just being an asshole. I save my jerkass comments for the people who's slip-ups reveal what they really think like that Akin fellow.

Re:Romney's just like Bush jr.

[riverat1]

Romney's birth certificate remark was merely a dog whistle for the birthers saying "I'm on your side." but something he could pass off as a stiff attempt at humor to others.

TFA does NOT say people picked "Not Sure"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Submitter seems to have presented the poll result quite inaccurately, assuming we can believe TFA. The choice wasn't "Not Sure" ; it was "Neither / Not Sure". People might have been very sure about which candidate was best, but it wasn't listed in the previous two choices, so they picked "Neither."

What's is your favorite pet to cuddle with?

1. Skunk
2. Porcupine
3. Neither / Not Sure

People who like to cuddle with dogs, when they pick the third choice, are not actually signalling any sort of lack of conviction. They can be very sure and saying they answered "not sure" would be a damn lie.

Net Neutrality is a big one for IT folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitt doesn't want it, and Obama is for it. I would suspect most /. people would side with Obama on this issue?

The crazy is strong in this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama does not believe in private ownership and operation of means of production and he has displayed this in practice, GM was confiscated from its rightful owners, the non-union labourers also lost their share and the company was given away to the labour union.

Which planet did this happen on? Speaking as a GM stockholder I can assure you it did not happen on Planet Earth.

Let's add "None of the above" as a choice...

[Tangential]

Let's add "None of the above" as a choice and require the winner (of a states electoral votes) to have a simple majority in that state's race.

Of course, if we did that, we'd need to shorten the length of the election process dramatically or we'd all go insane.

Re:Let's add "None of the above" as a choice...

[the eric conspiracy]

> The Affordable Care Plan makes investing in Insurance companies, Pharma and MalPractice Litigation Firms very attractive

So does the preceding system.

Re:Let's add "None of the above" as a choice...

[CrimsonAvenger]

> The Affordable Care Plan makes investing in Insurance companies, Pharma and MalPractice Litigation Firms very attractive

So does the preceding system.

Difference is that now the insurance companies have a mandated customer base - you're REQUIRED to buy their product, even if you don't need it. Unless, of course, you can get an exemption - surprising the number of unions that managed that...

Better solution (IMHO) would have been to change Medicaid eligibility requirements to include "everyone under 18", then lower Medicare eligibility age by two years for every year that pass (or faster, if you want a shorter transition - the two year per year thing would transition us to Public Healthcare in about 20 years).

Note that my preferred option would have resulted in a law that could be written on a single sheet of paper. Rather than the monstrosity they came up with....

& check it out:

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard he ain't even got a tattoo...

(but then again I also heard Obama ain't even got a birth certificate or Romney tax returns so what the hell...)

Re:& check it out:

[Anonymous Coward]

No tattoo? No tattoo?! Why come he ainâ(TM)t got no tattoo?!!

What a great choice!

[Paracelcus]

Between a lying, two-faced, hypocritical tyrant wannabe and a lying two-faced, hypocritical, predatory mega millionaire either one of which will say absolutely anything to get elected!

Oh wait! there ARE "OTHER" candidates and political parties, all of which have been systematically ignored by the corporate media and excluded from any presidential debate!

Assuming ANY presidential election isn't rigged and assuming that your vote matters (BIG ASSUMPTION) vote you conscience, but keep both eyes open!

Simple enough to figure out what's going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[presidenteloco]

That's what happens when you elect a Democrat president and Republican congress.

You get a government that can't actually do anything. i.e. that acts exactly as if it's not sure of anything.

And thus the libertarians actually win a lot of the time, since there are so many castrated governments in the US.

Re:Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[presidenteloco]

"Democrat president and Republican congress."
or vice versa, of course. Doesn't really matter. Impotence is what you get either way.

Re:Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[riverat1]

It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were willing to compromise to help get things done. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would sit down together over a drink and hash out a compromise. On the day that Obama was inaugurated a number of national Republican leaders got together and decided to say no to anything Obama tried to accomplish regardless of whether it was a reasonable idea or not. To me that borders on being treasonous.

Re:Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[Magius_AR]

t used to be that Republicans and Democrats were willing to compromise to help get things done. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would sit down together over a drink and hash out a compromise. On the day that Obama was inaugurated a number of national Republican leaders got together and decided to say no to anything Obama tried to accomplish regardless of whether it was a reasonable idea or not. To me that borders on being treasonous.

Polls show that both sides have grown more hyperpartisan over the years. Obama himself wanted Republicans to "sit in the back" and just follow along with his marching plans. Don't pretend one side is attempting to compromise here. They're both assholes.

Re:Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[riverat1]

Maybe it's bias but from where I sit there's been a lot more willingness to compromise from the Democratic side. For instance Obama initially wanted to include a pubic option in the Affordable Care Act but dropped that in hopes of getting some Republican buy in. Particularly since the election of all of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 there's been a lot of just plain obstructionism from that side.

Re:Americans elect "Not Sure" most times

[Magius_AR]

For instance Obama initially wanted to include a pubic option in the Affordable Care Act but dropped that in hopes of getting some Republican buy in.

The only reason he dropped it was because he couldn't sell it to Blue Dogs: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works

When it came down to it, those compromises were put in to get his own party on board. Couple that with the fact the entire 1000-page monstrosity was written behind closed doors by a single partisan side and I find it hard to give Dems credit for "compromise". There's a difference between hashing out something together and hashing out something on your own and then trying to buy off the other side with riders.

whats needed for 2016

[RobertLTux]

All the folks stumping for Not Republican AND Not Democrat need to get in a room and then hash things out so that there is a Single Viable Candidate (or at least maybe a Green and a Purple Candidate). Then hit they can hit the road and when 2016 gets here we can attempt to break the Red/Blue lockup.

right now what we have is Donkey Elephant and a Zoo full of chattering Critters

Re:whats needed for 2016

[Velex]

Like these guys?

It's hard to be a viable canidate when you have to fight an uphill battle just to get on the ballot, and then good luck getting any major media coverage. Just look at how the media treats Crazy Uncle Ron.

If the red-colored Republicrats were serious about repealing Romney/Obama-care, Ron Paul has the perfect credentials. It's almost as though the red-colored Republicrats are trying to lose. And just think of all that delicious money medical insurance companies will make with their 10% overhead cap on 100% of the country. Everybody who's been arguing that insurance premiums will come down because of the bigger risk pool is right in theory. I'm not holding my breath for it to actually happen, though. My bet is that magically, the cost of medical care will somehow go through the roof, and combined with some Hollywood accounting, insurance premiums are going to keep on rising at about the same pace while wrecking the budgets of anyone who isn't a single mother with 5 kids and won't qualify for assistance. Romney/Obama-care is just a "what could possibly go wrong" waiting to happen when it kicks all the way in.

Now where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

Re:whats needed for 2016

[Convector]

I don't think a contest between Green and Purple is likely to turn out well.

OBAMA'S A DICK!

[ogdenk]

Obama's a DICK! That's right!!! South Carolina!!! REPRESENT YA'LL!!!

Re:OBAMA'S A DICK!

[ogdenk]

I guess whoever modded me down as a troll didn't get the idiocracy reference or THEY are a dick.

Which of these would lead Obama and Romney?

[Greyfox]

I have several other potential candidates I'd love to see polled against those two:
1) "Some Puerto Rican guy"
2) "Lance Armstrong"
3) "None of the Above"
4) "Seymore Heinee"

I'm pretty sure they'll all do better than Obama or Romney. Just goes to show you Romney should have chosen Seymore Heinee as his running mate.

idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

idiocracy is becoming true Not Sure is leading in the polls for president

Romney is neocon, just like McCain

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of Romney's foreign policy advisors are from McCain's camp, complete with warmongering views. I hoped the election of Obama had ended neocon influence in the presidency, but I was wrong. I hoped that Donald Trump could talk Romney out of the advisors' warmongering ways, but I am wrong. I am not voting for another Neocon. Obama has been a disappointment on Iraq, but I might have to choose the lesser evil... again.

obamacare is better on the outsource Contract side

[Joe_Dragon]

obamacare is better on the outsource Contract side where Contractors have more choice then the Romney plan.

I don't see athletes being good candates for any b

[Joe_Dragon]

I don't see athletes being good candidates for any big office I will take bill gates for the office

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps "Not sure" was a choice on the survey, and "none of the above" wasn't?

In this “He/She with the most money wins” version of democracy, if this is the best government money can buy, I say we really need a complete over-haul.

Here’s something I think would help:

1a. A representative’s pay will be equal to the average income of the citizens they represent.

or

1a and.. 1b. From now on, we select our representatives by random lottery. (Of non-fellons, with some minimum level of education, 2-yr College?, competancy exam? Mental Eval?) We can’t possibly do any worse.

These seem to be the only alternatives left in the 21st century where money equals speech, and more people vote for crap like American Idol than President.

Re:Sigh...

[Opportunist]

Well, to be fair, the outcome of American Idol has more effect than the outcome of the US president elections.

I mean, sure, in both cases no matter who wins, they'll get their text from the same writer, but at least with American Idol it will SOUND differently depending on who wins.

what a coincidence

[Eponymous Hero]

both obama and romney gave that answer when asked "what the fuck are you doing here?"

2000 years of waring

[hamsjael]

If you elect that stupid sleazebag of an asshole for president, you are going to learn a lesson in humility, the hard way, and you are going to deserve it to !

some danish guy with 2000+ years of waring/democratizing in the backpack, and btw best of luck to you :-)

Magic underwear.

[Anonymous Coward]

You vote for someone who believes in magic underwear your a moron. I mean Mormon.

Obama vs. Romney / Alien vs. Predator

[Opportunist]

Whoever wins. We lose.

All that proves

[Anonymous Coward]

President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category

All that proves is that the tech industry is still full of morons.

In other words, nothing has changed from the dot-com bust or the Windows era. So, par for the course.

IT industry executives

[sl4shd0rk]

Seriously? They polled the CEOs and CFOs from major IT Industries and found out the wealthiest people in the industry were 'not sure'? I'd actually call that quite amazing when you consider wealth in the US often leans Right. No, topples.

I can explain that

[rsilvergun]

we opened up education to more people. Regular people started going to school, instead of just the elite idle rich and the occasional genius. This is why test scores have been failing in America. It's not because people are dumber, it's because we're trying to uplift more of them. In the past they would have worked like slave for 40 years and then died. The cool thing is that the powers that be are using the lower test scores as an excuse to privatize the school system and reduce the quality of education in America. Ain't American Great?

those damned slashdot marxists!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that on /. this is going to be met with a huge outcry from all sides, there will be more funny kind of moderation, as if this is a 'troll' or 'overrated' or 'flamebait', but as far as I am concerned this is just the reality.

Being as you lied repeatedly in your post, you can expect to be moderated down. The real question in, in light of how many of your comments in this thread have been moderated down, at what point will you switch to a sock puppet in your attempt to further propagate your beliefs here in this discussion?

And of course, how many sock puppets do you have? We know about one for sure, but why would you stop with one?

Sucks

[h8sg8s]

Romney sucks less.

Train wreck

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither one is capable of preventing the coming train wreck in the economy, so it doesn't really matter.