Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
In the News "This election won't hinge on technology issues. Just look at prevailing discussions this year at the national level: major candidates have sparred over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the role of government, inane comments on the female body, and to nobody's surprise, the economy. Despite that fact, many decisions will be taken up by the next US president and those in Congress that will affect the world of tech, and by consequence, the real lives of citizens and human beings around the world - from alternative energy, to the use of killer drones, the regulation of wireless spectrum, and policies that aim to control content on the internet. Your chance to vote is just around the corner. Here's what's at stake in tech this election, and how the major candidates could influence our future." Happy voting, American readers. Whatever you pick, please take at least a few minutes to consider that the implications of your choice do not end at the US border.
Permalink for comment 541449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Voting
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Voting"
Member since:


I agree, up until this comment:

"It's a shame that we've never elected a filthy rich & highly successful businessman like Ross Perot or maybe even Bill Gates. Say what you want about them, at least our country's balance wouldn't be in the red anymore."

Did we really forget about George W. Bush already? He was a multimillionaire who *did* run the government like a business. In fairness to him, he did create great wealth for himself & his business associates. But as president his responsibility was to the public, whom he left in the greatest recession since the great depression. By the time he left, everything was in the red.

An effective leader shouldn't have to be wealthy, he needs to be able to bring people together and promote prosperity for everyone, not just a select niche. It's a very tough job though, especially when political ranks are filled with those who'd rather selfishly promote their own interests even at the expense of the very public they're supposed to be serving.

Dig a little deeper. Little Bush wasn't a highly successful business man. In fact, Little Bush ran every single business (that he was in charge of) into the ground. The only reason he was allowed to keep running companies is because his dad was the president & the president's business partners (the Saudis) were trying to encourage his favor by spending tons of money on Jr. Little Bush failed as a business man, failed in the 2000 election, & still somehow became president. Now, if that isn't proof that the system is broken, then no such proof exists.

Reply Parent Score: 2