Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the all-glory-to-the-hypnotoad dept.

IT 238

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."

cancel ×

238 comments

The toilet water guy?!? (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#41115245)

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

Re:The toilet water guy?!? (5, Insightful)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | about a year ago | (#41115393)

"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?!? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#41116309)

YEAH NOT SURE 2012!!

Re:The toilet water guy?!? (1)

todrules (882424) | about a year ago | (#41116343)

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

Re:The toilet water guy?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116329)

"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?!? (2, Funny)

burning_plastic (164918) | about a year ago | (#41115469)

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?!? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116157)

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

...and Microsoft. Fuck you, I'm designing for Windows 8!" [acousticmonster.com]

Re:The toilet water guy?!? (4, Funny)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year ago | (#41116261)

Came for this, leaving satisfied.

Preference cascade (-1, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | about a year ago | (#41115269)

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 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#41115413)

"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 (1, Funny)

jmorris42 (1458) | about a year ago | (#41115481)

> "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 (2)

CokeBear (16811) | about a year ago | (#41115929)

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

Re:Preference cascade (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year ago | (#41116225)

You ought to be a member of the Prohibition Party [prohibitionparty.org]

Re:Preference cascade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115539)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115641)

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 (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#41115733)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115849)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116177)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116303)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115535)

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

Re:Preference cascade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115611)

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 (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#41115743)

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 (1, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | about a year ago | (#41115881)

> 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 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#41116183)

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.

We've got this guy Not Sure (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115273)

He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!

What's the difference? (2)

blackt0wer (2714221) | about a year ago | (#41115299)

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? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year ago | (#41115581)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116311)

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? (2, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#41115587)

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? (2, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year ago | (#41115739)

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? (5, Informative)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about a year ago | (#41116277)

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? (0, Offtopic)

jmorris42 (1458) | about a year ago | (#41115783)

> 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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115937)

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? (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about a year ago | (#41116097)

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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116219)

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? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116115)

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? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116241)

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? (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about a year ago | (#41116119)

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? (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#41116009)

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? (2)

gtall (79522) | about a year ago | (#41115795)

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? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116131)

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? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#41115861)

"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.)

He's the smartest man alive! (3, Funny)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year ago | (#41115333)

Re:He's the smartest man alive! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115491)

That's Secretary Not Sure, dumbass.

Those aren't the only choices (1, Troll)

intertrode (1564753) | about a year ago | (#41115343)

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 (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#41115845)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116283)

Ron Paul is even a bigger shill than Romney.

Lack of Options (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41115359)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115543)

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

CowboyNeal for president!

Re:Lack of Options (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year ago | (#41115771)

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

Re:Lack of Options (2)

trout007 (975317) | about a year ago | (#41115799)

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.

None of the Above (3, Interesting)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about a year ago | (#41115361)

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 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#41116231)

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 (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year ago | (#41116237)

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?

NEITHER (4, Informative)

detritus. (46421) | about a year ago | (#41115363)

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

False choice (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#41115369)

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.

Paul Ryan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115545)

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.

Re:False choice (5, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#41115573)

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 (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#41115663)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115859)

Too bad the facts don't agree with you.

Re:False choice (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#41115975)

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 (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#41116111)

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 [greenfaucet.com]

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 (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#41116255)

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 (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#41116361)

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.

The crazy is strong in this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116073)

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.

Re:False choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116363)

"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 (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year ago | (#41115763)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116221)

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 (5, Informative)

David Greene (463) | about a year ago | (#41115595)

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 (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#41115905)

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: [telegraph.co.uk]

"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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116415)

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 (3, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | about a year ago | (#41115921)

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?

Executives and integrators? (2)

adewolf (524919) | about a year ago | (#41115389)

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 (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#41115415)

A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.

Re:Missed opportunity (3, Funny)

kat_skan (5219) | about a year ago | (#41116213)

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 (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about a year ago | (#41115447)

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

IT IQ CHECK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115479)

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? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#41115497)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115503)

"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 (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year ago | (#41115811)

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

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

wrong question (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year ago | (#41115529)

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.

No Confidence (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#41115563)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115623)

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 (2)

trout007 (975317) | about a year ago | (#41115997)

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.

Uh... (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year ago | (#41115649)

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 (1)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about a year ago | (#41115677)

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 (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year ago | (#41115821)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116227)

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 (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year ago | (#41116327)

"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, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115707)

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

Yeah, like I'm going to vote for a third party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115985)

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 (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#41116101)

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.....

"Remarkably"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116007)

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. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#41116011)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116267)

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.

TFA does NOT say people picked "Not Sure"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116035)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41116037)

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

Let's add "None of the above" as a choice... (1)

Tangential (266113) | about a year ago | (#41116323)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...