Beta
×

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!

Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the eh-is-the-new-awesome dept.

Businesses 461

redletterdave writes with an excerpt from IB Times that should be met with a bit of skepticism: "A new study released by international law firm DLA Piper Monday morning shows that among technology companies and their executives, Republican nominee Mitt Romney is the preferred presidential candidate for improving and advancing the technology industry. The study surveyed thousands of entrepreneurs, consultants, venture capitalists, CEOs, CFOs, and other C-level officers at technology companies, asking them their opinions about the 2012 presidential election and the issues facing their particular industry. The majority of respondents said Mitt Romney would be better with the technology industry, with 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president. This is a complete turnaround from 2008 when the numbers were heavily in favor of Obama, with 60 percent of respondents saying then-Sen. Obama would be better for the sector than the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain." There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad. Would you like six politicians, or half a dozen? One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.

cancel ×

461 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Correction (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591675)

Corporate fat cats, who would otherwise be engaging in control fraud, and ripping off investors -- hate SOX.

Re:Correction (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 2 years ago | (#41591743)

It said CEOs and CFOs didn't it?

Re:Correction (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591975)

Yes, ask their employees if they'd also vote for someone who would reduce taxes for their bosses, but raise theirs.

Re:Correction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592145)

I realize you probably have personal issues with rich people, but I do agree that Obama's plan to raise taxes in this economy is a very bad idea. (BTW if you were referring to Romney then you haven't really been listening to what he's saying.)

Re:Correction (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591903)

So are the small guys who would love to have a chance at the big board, but can't afford a 10% cut to profit for compliance.

Re:Correction (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41592003)

The "small guys" trying to get NYSE listed are being kept down by a 0.5% cut to revenue? How small do you think is small?

Re:Correction (0)

Just Another Poster (894286) | about 2 years ago | (#41592221)

Compare what happened before Sarbanes-Oxley, and what happened after Sarbanes-Oxley; before SOX, you were able to find out that Enron's books were full of shit before you lost money. After SOX, you only found out about this sort of strange accounting after your financial institution went under, and you found yourself left with nothing.

The fucks the difference? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591681)

They're basically the same person. We're going to be screwed either way - Obama with the debt, or Romney giving all his rich friends tax breaks. Take your pick, neither is going to help me out or quite frankly even cares about the middle class.

Re:The fucks the difference? (5, Insightful)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | about 2 years ago | (#41591929)

We're going to be screwed either way [...] take your pick

But it's so difficult to pick one... Oh, why can't we just have FL and OH decide for everyone?

As a technopreneur ... (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41592071)

... and I've been in the field for decades, my choice is neither.

If I have to choose from the existing pool of American politicians - except for tweedledee and tweedledum - I'll choose John Paul as the presidential candidate and Romney's running mate Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate.

But then, I ain't a power-broker in D.C.

My vote doesn't count.
 
 
 

 

 
 

Re:As a technopreneur ... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#41592171)

I'll choose John Paul as the presidential candidate and Romney's running mate Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate. ... My vote doesn't count.

Um... Do you mean Pope John Paul, or Ron Paul?

P.S. Ryan is a tool, as fast and loose with facts as he is with his marathon times...

Re:The fucks the difference? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41592209)

Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?

Re:The fucks the difference? (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41592019)

And yet... millions of people who feel that way are going to vote for them anyway.

Seriously people, grow a pair and vote for a third party or none of the above. Not voting is a vote. If record lack of turn-out at the polls isn't a strong enough sign of dissent to get a response then there is no peaceful action left.

Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits. No more herding everyone like brainless cattle into two corals.

Re:The fucks the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592135)

You are precisely wrong.
Not voting is considered a win for BOTH sides. If you don't vote, you don't vote for the wrong canidate.

Re:The fucks the difference? (0)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41592237)

Newsflash, BOTH sides are the same side.

Re:The fucks the difference? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41592151)

I disagree: don't refuse to vote. Get out there and vote. But vote third-party. If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic, you're not interested in politics, etc. But if you vote, and vote for a third-party, they can't pull the apathy card; if lots of people are pissed off and vote for third-party candidates, that will show that people aren't apathetic, they care, but they're totally pissed about the mainstream candidates and want a better choice.

If you don't vote, your "no-vote" won't show up, except in turn-out polls and raw voting numbers. When people look at the results, they'll see something like 48% Romney, 49% Obama, 3% other. If lots of you vote third-party instead, we could see something like 35% Romney, 36% Obama, and 29% Other. Suddenly, the idea of a non-Dem, non-Rep candidate becoming President looks like a real possibility.

Re:The fucks the difference? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592191)

Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits.

What do we do now?

Wait for Godot.

Slightly (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591685)

I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.

Re:Slightly (3, Informative)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 2 years ago | (#41591797)

The word "slightly" is editorializing of a 64:41 ratio.

Re:Slightly (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41591813)

if you RTFSummary, you would've learned that the same high-paid execs preferred democrat Obama over the republican McCain back in 2008.

Re:Slightly (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41591833)

You'd think it would be a landslide

Only if you are one of those people who thinks that the Democrats are not equally pro-corporate-system as the Republicans are. Just because the Democrats claim to be working for the benefit of "commoners" does not mean they actually are. In case you have forgotten, it was a Republican administration that kicked off the "bail out the companies that screwed up" plan, and a Democratic administration that put the plan into action. Let's not forget the various hand-outs to corporations that we have seen from Democrats: the DMCA, continued support for a standing army and the military industrial complex, widespread propaganda campaigns that help pharmaceutical companies (ahem war on drugs), the current campaign to make trademarks, copyrights, and patents more restrictive, etc.

In America, your choice is between one set of right wing pro-corporate fascists, and another set. Or you can vote third party.

Re:Slightly (4, Interesting)

spikenerd (642677) | about 2 years ago | (#41591995)

Or you can vote third party.

As a Libertarian, I spent many years preaching that people should vote for a third party. Over time, I started to realize that it wasn't really so much of a social problem as a technical problem. Specifically, plurality voting has a known weakness, and it is gamed by considering only the two most-likely parties, and picking among only them. In other words, even if you manage to bring a third party into popularity, plurality voting will soon "fix" the situation until only two dominant parties remain.

So, the answer, it turns out, is not to try to bring a third party into popularity. It is to pick one of the parties and work to reform it. Yeah, I know, it sounds imppossible, but hey, it's more possible than bringing a third party into popularity (without revising the constitution). You really do have more sway in the primaries than in the main election anyway. So, pick one of the big two, and get active in their primaries. Then don't even waste your time voting among the final two contenders--you cannot make a difference there.

Re:Slightly (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41592095)

Only if you are one of those people who thinks that the Democrats are not equally pro-corporate-system as the Republicans are.

When was the last time the Republican Party thought regulating anything other than abortion or gayness was a good idea?

I'm not disputing that both parties have significant agreements on fundamental policy issues that we both seem to disagree with,
but most of those issues would be a complete disaster if "right wing pro-corporate fascists" were allowed to deregulate.

Re:Slightly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592099)

Pot-smoking libertarians ALWAYS say Dems and Pubs are equal so vote third-party. It's an oversimplification to promote your own ideals, and you're a broken record.

Re:Slightly (5, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41592137)

Third party doesn't accomplish much either. I wouldn't want most of those guys as president either.

Don't feel compelled to pick one, if there is nobody there worth picking then vote none of the above. Lack of participation in the political system is a vote as well. A vote that you are no longer fooled by the political system or buy that it is anything more than a rigged game to control the masses. We need reform but nothing you do in the voting booth will EVER end the system put in place to divide society into economic classes.

They revise the system now and then to more effectively yoke the lower classes and solidify the position of the upper class but the end goal is the same as it was in feudal society. The voting booth only exists to give enough illusion of participation that people don't feel oppressed enough to actually do something about it. If people did do something about it, people of the upper classes would worm their way in and make sure the new regime served the same purpose as the old one. Easy to do, just help make sure some of the new guard becomes the new old guard and greed will do the rest.

As long as wealth can be passed from generation to generation; taxation isn't applied to entrenched wealth but new wealth; and paper entities exist that allow one to profit from abuses without assuming liability for them; nothing will change. So long as these things remain, it won't matter who is voted in or what form the government takes.

Funny how Republicans do the 'bad as each other' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592143)

It always seems to be Republican supporters who do the "they're both as bad as each other" game.

So a Republican will attack women, and the next minute a Republican apologist will be claiming Democrats hate women too.
Republican will be calling 'evolution a lie from the pit of hell and an apologist will claim it's Democrats that are anti-science.
Republicans will spend into the ground, and an apologist will blame Democrats for doing it.

You're pretending that the Democrats are as corporate as the Republicans, yet they corps are lined up behind the Republicans and spending accordingly on fake ads.

They are not the same as each other. The Republicans are the problem with American.

Re:Slightly (2, Insightful)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about 2 years ago | (#41591957)

Obama has hit a Trillion dollar deficit per year since he took over. A lot of that money was 'stimulus' paid directly to these asshats. Its almost like when random joe public awards a giant payday to someone in court. Everyone knows its a bad idea but they do it anyway in the hopes that maybe one day they'll be the lucky one to get a free payday at someone else's expense.

Re:Slightly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592105)

I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.

Really?

Government power goes to the highest bidder. Democrats like big government and more power.

High-paid execs already have the power to buy the rules they want - and Democrats sell more rules.

Why the hell do you think Wall Street and Big Insurance spent overwhelmingly for Obama? The banks a MINT off the latest "reforms", and the insurance companies got a windfall of new forced customers with Obamacare.

Don't believe me? Look here. [opensecrets.org]

Wow. The energy industry (which includes Big Oil, BTW) donated 3-1 for Obama. Hmmm, how much of that came from Solyndra, one wonders.

Of course (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41591687)

If you have money Romney is your man. A 15% tax cut if you make $200,000 a year could net you $30,000! I am surprised it is this low actually as the very rich support Romney by a very large margin.

Having low regulations to rip off citizens and guarantee corruption too is a plus for your business.

Re:Of course (2)

shmlco (594907) | about 2 years ago | (#41591777)

Among tech executives? Romney, of course. Much more likely to deregulate, support offshoring, and expand the H1-B visa pool.

Re:Of course (2)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about 2 years ago | (#41591795)

Came here to say this. When you're C-level and you're getting thousands of millions of shares/options awarded to you, plus golden parachutes, it only makes sense to support a candidate whose tax policies favor these methods of income.

Re:Of course (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about 2 years ago | (#41591801)

Er.. thousands "or" millions.

Re:Of course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591819)

...rip off citizens and guarantee corruption...

That;'s why I'm voting for Obama... It just feels more natural to have a black man stealing my wallet. Comes from living in the city, I guess.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591965)

Flamebait?! Whatsa matter? Can't handle the truth?

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592127)

The truth is that if you really want to rob people you own the bank.

Re:Of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591871)

I kind of favor giving tax breaks to people working rather than giving handouts to people that are not.

Re:Of course (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41591893)

A 15% tax cut if you make $200,000 a year could net you $30,000!

I really, really hope you're joking. Because this is kind of idiotic math has no place in politics (except maybe Keynesian economics). A 15% tax cut means "the amount you pay in taxes is reduced by 15%", not "you keep 15% more of your annual salary." For instance, someone making $200,000 and getting taxed at 33% effective is paying about $66,000 in taxes a year. A 15% tax cut is "15% of $66,000", a bit under $10,000. Well, it's not that exact because of the progressive structure, but it's SURE as hell not $30,000 a year.

Re:Of course (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41592113)

What is it when the capital gains was changed from standard to 15%, and people in the 35% bracket would be paying 35% on capital gains, but got a "20% tax cut" down to 15% for capital gains tax.

Even the economists understand that math, and to keep people like you from complaining, often refer to percentage points (or fractions thereof, in some cases) as, just "points." Stocks go up or down "points" and you must use context to determine if that's percentage points or dollars share price. "I knocked 3 points off my mortgage by refinancing" indicates a decrease in the rate to a rate 3% lower than before, not a decrease in the rate by 3%. That's the "normal" use of percentage change, and your definition may be mathematically correct, but not linguistically. You don't get to define the language, the users do, you can only use it or object to it. You are objecting, but you don't get to define him as "wrong" because you started correcting before you even knew for sure what he meant, and even if you were correct you still don't get to define the language.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592197)

> capital gains was changed from standard to 15%, and people in the 35% bracket would be paying 35% on capital gains

That was in the 90s by Bill Clinton. You are thinking dividends. The only part of the "Bush tax" cuts that benefit the wealthy in any substantial way. Don't forget the corp is 35%+ federal at $75K corp. AGI.

So basically the Fed takes. 50% of your money vs. 70% if you are a C - Corp shareholder with a personal AGI north of $350K.

Re:Of course (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41592187)

Yeah, 10k that would SUCK! Of course the "people" that make up the backbone of this country have part-time jobs at office supply stores these days (because they no longer offer full time positions, benefits and scheduling flexibility, full-time staff have too much leverage) and make 8-12k TOTAL per year.

Related. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591691)

Study shows tech execs slightly prefer being shot in the head over the chest.

Word it how you like.. We're still stuck with a no-choice choice and can not 'win'.

How do you know? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591693)

Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?

Re:How do you know? (1)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | about 2 years ago | (#41591707)

Why did you just apologize for Mitt Romney?

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney

Re:How do you know? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591747)

Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?

Given his stage charisma and lack of honesty, I suspect Romney may be a sociopath.

Re:How do you know? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41591863)

Romney ......Given his stage charisma

Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that.

Re:How do you know? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592023)

Romney ......Given his stage charisma

Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that.

Look who he had to compete against.

Anyone remember what Obama did four years ago when Hillary finally figured out that she might lose and she actually went after Obama in a debate?

Yeah. Hillary crushed Obama - just like Romney did.

It was Obama's last debate of the 2008 primary season. He refused to debate after that.

Last week was no fluke. That was the REAL Obama.

Re:How do you know? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41591865)

Well, people wondered why someone with strong political opinions would say, "I am not watching the debate tonight" when I told them just that. I do not vote major party, because no matter what they say, they do the same thing. Neither party has worked to end the "leave people with inescapable debts when they are just starting out in life" system, neither party has worked to end the "send paramilitary assault teams into innocent civilians' homes" approach to drug policy, and neither party has worked to end the standing army / military-industrial-complex money sink. Romney is not going to work to advance goals that benefit commoners, because he is just as beholden to corporations as Obama or any other major party candidate.

Re:How do you know? (-1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41592225)

YOU ARE WRONG SIR!!! Obama worked to end the military-industrial-complex when he voted to privatize NASA! Except he voted to do it with public money in the form of funneling the NASA budget to private contractors of course. And it really wasn't much of a change, because NASA already funneled all its money to private contractors instead of building for itself. But it's the spin that counts!

Tech execs how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591695)

Include tech execs in the title to make it seem relevant to this site yet it's just a underneath the BS it's just a business/politics article.

Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? (4, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#41591701)

I mean, it seems good for the gander, why can't we apply it to the goose?

Any business that operated the way the USG operates would be under investigation faster than you could blink.

Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41591841)

Because senators don't want to be regulated.

Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? (2)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#41591963)

Any business that operated the way the US govt does would declare bankruptcy and be forced to sell off all it's assets after a year.

Our politicians are so corrupt and so sold out that I see very little hope that any one presidential candidate could fix this. The two parties we currently have have conspired to lead us to ruin. They will never ever give up their power. They'd all rather see the country burn then admit that they truly totally and completely cannot provide even mildly competent leadership.

So..? (4, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | about 2 years ago | (#41592133)

Any business that operated the way the US govt does would declare bankruptcy and be forced to sell off all it's assets after a year.

Any government that operates the way a business does would execute the disabled at birth.

One would not care to have a government run like a business any more than they would care to have a business run like a government.

(fill-in-the-blank) execs, you mean (1)

Kyd_A (243948) | about 2 years ago | (#41591725)

Surely we can save everyone the time and trouble and just assume that for nearly every business:
Study Shows ________ Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama

No, Romney is Bad (0)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | about 2 years ago | (#41591729)

Why you shouldn't let religious kooks run the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w [youtube.com] Scientific progress stopped because mathematics are created by the devil.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591809)

not only that but romney hates net nuetrility.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591883)

Obama is a religious kook who happens to be a Muslim because that he was indoctrinated as has a child in Indonesia. In 2008, he tried to hide that as best as he could, as well as other aspects of his life. Ask yourself, if you are better off today than you were when he took office. If you are a liberal you will probably blame Bush anyway. If you are not better off today than you were when Obama took over the reins of government, then vote accordingly. This of course does not guarantee that you will be better off with Romney. After all, all politicians make promises which they have no intentions of our ability to keep.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591919)

Holy fuck, you really need to lay off the Fox News crack pipe, pull your head out of your rear end and actually look at reality, rather than your nutty fantasies.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592029)

proving again that Democrats are the easiest to troll

Re:No, Romney is Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592091)

Poe's law, dude. Poe's law.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592157)

You don't have to be a Democrat to think Fox News is completely fucked up.

Re:No, Romney is Bad (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#41591997)

And that link has what to do with Romney? (Hint: Nothing)

Welcome to The Presidential RACE (4, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41591733)

Unfortunately in order for THE MEDIA to make any MONEY off this RACE it requires there to be a competition.

Analysts In The Know have made it VERY clear that Romney is pretty close to a complete NON STARTER and all this MEDIA HYPE about how close (insert airquotes here) this election is amounts to nothing more than bulldust, baloney, hot air, media hype, manufactured statistics, and damn close to out and out blatant lies.

As you can see from TFA, MUCH loud ballyhoo'ing about "CEOs Prefer Romney" but when you read the numbers in actual fact that is "only just barely not actually a complete lie".

Despite their preference for Romney, 76 percent of all respondents said Obama will win the November election.

Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591783)

Why can't you admit that Romney will emerge glorious and victorious over the socialist-communist-fascist-terrorist-activist-hippie-marxist-islamist-environmentalist fringe that encroaches upon our great country today???

Why do you hate freedom?

Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#41591799)

Is THERE something wrong WITH your keyboard? Your shift KEY doesn't seem to be WORKING properly. Or did you BUY your typeface from a KIDNAPPER who made his FONT out OF assorted magazines? Maybe you HAVE been infected with a STRANGE virus on YOUR computer. I sure HOPE it doesn't get transmitted to MY pc.

An an Engineer living under SOX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591755)

My company is fairly strict about SOX.

The result is that engineers are not allowed to know how much the products we're designing cost. We're not allowed to know the cost of the components. We're not allowed to know what we sell them for. Nothing.

When we design a new product, when we look for parts, we ask the commodity team whether we can use it, and they give a yes or no, based on cost. But, we're not allowed to know the numbers.

Complying with SOX is a royal pain in the rear for engineers.

Goofy headline (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | about 2 years ago | (#41591775)

Because 2 percentage points away from a super-majority is only a "slight" preference.

Here's another survey (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41591779)

Ask a whole bunch of excessively wealthy men who they're going to vote for:
- The man who will do what's best for the country even if that's going to be difficult and unpopular
- The man who will do nothing of the sort, BUT will directly put more cash into the pocket of rich men like yourselves.

WhoDaThunkIT: Survey of CEOs says Most Would Vote For Romney

Re:Here's another survey (3, Insightful)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about 2 years ago | (#41591829)

The second option describes either Obama or Romney. What is the name of the candidate for option 1?

Re:Here's another survey (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 2 years ago | (#41592057)

Exactly what I was thinking. This is supposed to be "news for nerds" or what? *yawn*

SOX (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | about 2 years ago | (#41591785)

Put it on the pile of the other failed "reforms" of the last generation.

I wouldn't vote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591803)

I wouldn't vote right if I was paid. Obama has done some good things, but he's not left enough so far for my liking. Perhaps in his second term with nothing to lose, he'll actually be able to get something done and past the thugs in congress.

Re:I wouldn't vote... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592083)

Yes, he will get past the “thugs” in Congress by trashing the Constitution the rest of the way. Hitler got past the “thugs” in the German Parliament and declared himself supreme dictator. If Obama gets reelected, he will be the last legally elected ruler of the USA, just as Hitler was the last legally elected head of Germany. It took World War II to get rid of Hitler. What will it take to get rid of Obama if he gets reelected? What he will “get done” is to take the rest of your freedoms away. Making the rich poor, has never in all the history of mankind made the poor rich. What makes you think this will change if Obama is reelected?

Two cheeks of the same ass (1)

OldSport (2677879) | about 2 years ago | (#41591811)

What would be nice is to see a couple of prominent figures come out and endorse a third-party candidate. Hell, maybe other people would start to follow suit and we would actually have something more resembling an actual, like, democracy, rather than the ridiculous excuse for "choices" we have now. Coke or Pepsi, McDonald's or Burger King, FOX or MSNBC, Crest or Colgate, Romney or Obama.

One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX. (1, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41591821)

Let's try that again.
One thing is universal: everyone hates the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act

"Business leaders" against accounting reform and investor protection?
How... unsurprising.

Re:One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592015)

I routinely need to go through SOX audits. I can tell you from first-hand experience that they are retarded and pointless. They don't actually do anything that they purport to do.

64+41 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591823)

no damn wonder americans aint no good at math.....

Re:64+41 100% (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#41591915)

RTFA:

The majority of respondents said Mitt Romney would be better with the technology industry, with 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president. (The reason the percentages don’t add up is because respondents were allowed to choose more than one option.)

Obama was a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591825)

Worse one term President since Jimmy C. Good riddance.

Re:Obama was a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591939)

I actually think Obama is a pretty good president, all things considered. But it's not politically correct to say that around here.

Wealthy people (5, Insightful)

Teckla (630646) | about 2 years ago | (#41591847)

Wealthy people are biased in favor of the candidate that promises them yet more tax cuts, film at 11.

Re:Wealthy people (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591853)

And people who live on entitlements are biased in favor of the one who promises them yet more entitlements...

Re:Wealthy people (0)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41591947)

And everyone on all sides is biased toward whoever shoves their god down everyone else's throat, because that's more important than upholding our Bill of Rights.

Re:Wealthy people (1)

don.g (6394) | about 2 years ago | (#41592149)

You'd think so, but they're often enough caught up in the culture wars to vote for the other guy anyway.

I assume you're in the USA and need reminding that your defense and agricultural industries are hugely dependent on government funding or subsidies, but somehow get missed in the "government needs to spend less" arguments.

I'm a bit confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591861)

What am I missing here?
64% for Romney
41% for Obama
105% total

No I haven't read the article to see if those numbers in the summary match...

Re:I'm a bit confused... (4, Funny)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about 2 years ago | (#41592249)

What am I missing here?
64% for Romney
41% for Obama
105% total

No I haven't read the article to see if those numbers in the summary match...

-5% for Ron Paul

Would you six or half a dozen politicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591877)

Why can't we deep six a half a dozen politicians?

You are know by what you despise.... (2)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 2 years ago | (#41591905)

One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.

And why not? Most thieves hate the Law....

slight bias (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591917)

.... I see a "slight" slashdot bias here. The title says Romney is only "slightly" preffered with 64%, while the clip says they were "heavily" in favor of Obama in '08 with only 60%.

Now the article doesn't mention how many were in favor of McCain in '08, so it might be that most of the rest of the 40% were undecided or not voting, in which case 60%-0% would be a huge margin compared to 64-41, but the headline is still misleading

A vote for Obama | Romney == vote wasted (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41591949)

Gary Johnson or Mickey Mouse for prez.

Obama = NDAA
Romney = I'll say whatever you want to hear for your vote.

I've never voted for a third party whacktard in my life. I'm sure Gary is full of crack ideas and won't get much accomplished with the senate and house but I don't much care anymore. Enough is enough.

A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (3, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#41591951)

Really I've not been interested in voting this next election as the POTUS in particular seems to be elected not much differently than people would vote for their favorite sports team, or vote for the high school prom king. I've heard everything from "because he's a cool guy" to "because my friends are voting for him" and the scary thing is that this seems like the majority of those I've run into. So I wonder, why bother?

Well, in trying to convince me to get out and vote for Obama, a liberal pointed out to me that Romney is has ripped off the poor and killed jobs at Bain Capital, namely through selling companies and pilfering their pensions. I looked this up, and found that Bain Capital was actually responsible for the success of many companies that have tons of employees (Staples and Domino's among them.) While some have faltered, it seems to be a slight minority of them (as in somewhere less than half.) As for the raiding of their pensions, it appears that there was only one incident that could remotely be interpreted as that, however it wasn't what you could call raiding it. Apparently, Bain Capital owned a company called GS something, but took no part in their management. Somebody within that company wasn't properly funding the pension, and when they went bust, they couldn't pay the employees their full pension, reducing $400 a month from it. I'm not sure how you pin that on Romney.

Another one was that Romney's campaign was being funded by banks, and therefore he must be in bed with them. I looked at his source, and it included a disclaimer that said it wasn't the banks themselves, but their employees. Even if they did support him, I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. The argument was that he was in favor of TARP, so the banks want him in. That didn't make sense to me because no politician has been a bigger supporter of TARP than Obama. On that same token, I noticed that Hugo Chavez endorses Obama, but I somehow doubt that will make Obama sympathize with him.

Although I did find out (from seeing excerpts of the debate) that Obama gave very large government loans to several corporations who contributed to his campaign (the actual corporations, not the employees,) and then went bust, effectively pilfering government money. When Romney threw that argument out there (albeit in far less harsh words) you could see the expression of "yeah, that wasn't one of my best moments" in Obama's face.

I also heard the argument that Romney will make the rich richer. Looking back though, that is exactly what has been happening over the last four years under Obama's watch, but I'm supposed to believe that giving him another four years will make that go away? I've also heard the standard argument of "If X gets elected, he'll sell out our country," which is the same argument I've heard every election.

So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.

Still though, I don't see any convincing reason to vote for that particular office at all. The only person I'm thinking of voting for is Jeff Flake who came out against SOPA/PIPA, and actually does have a record of reducing spending, which I as a libertarian do find attractive.

Unknown Lamer (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 years ago | (#41591983)

There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad.

Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.

Re:Unknown Lamer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592185)

True to liberal dem form you resort to name calling. Good work.

Math? 64 + 41 = 105% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592049)

I am pretty sure that people can't favor both Romney -and- Obama over the other.

How can you... (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 2 years ago | (#41592199)

expect a capitalist to support a socialist of uncertain national origin?

Breaking news... (1)

nighthawk243 (2557486) | about 2 years ago | (#41592205)

Our news team has learned that C-Level executives lean toward the republicans. Stop the fucking presses.

Duh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592213)

Studies show those making mid to high 6 figure incomes also support Romney. How about a demographic that is not more interested in their money than everything else next time?

Honestly this whole damned election has glossed over the real issues. Is Mitt going to end the wars and bring our people home? IS Mitt going to demand china start playing nicer with trade? Is Mitt going to stop the US policy of pissing off the rest of the world?

He wont answer any of these questions or any others in any real detail. And how is he going to deal with the fact that the Senate is mostly democrats and will go into a "dont pass anything" mode?

Waaa, complying with the law is hard (SOX whining) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592245)

Whining about Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) will get no sympathy from me.

Basically, SOX makes you do the most basic, low-level, elementary internal controls for publicly traded/owned companies. You have to count your money, check on IT security, and not lie. That's it.

The biggest problem is that executive officers have to sign a paper that says "We are not committing Enron/Worldcom/TYCO/Countrywide/BofA/CITIBank/MorganStanleyVampireSquid-style fraud, under penalty of going to PMITA prison." It's that last part that executives don't like and whine about -- being accountable and responsible for their own failures. Executives are very accustomed to not being questioned, not being accountable for failures, and are generally a selfish bunch of single-spoiled-child five-year-olds.

Suck it, spoiled rich people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>