IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney 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."
NEITHER (Score:4, Informative)
Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.
Re:False choice (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:What's the difference? (Score:2, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:1, Informative)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.
If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?