Slashdot Mirror
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."
I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!
Not Sure gets my vote. http://yellowbananasuit.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/idiocracy21.jpg
I posit that the only reason 'Not Sure' was the number one response is likely because 'None of the Above' wasn't an option.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.
A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.
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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
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?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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".
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.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
"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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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?