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.
Thread beginning with comment 541432
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Voting
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 14:10 UTC in reply to "Voting"
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

If you believe, even for a second, that your chance to vote means anything in our government, then I urge you to read up on how our election system works. The most power you have is at the local level. That's all the power you get. The President is not chosen by your vote, but by the votes of the electorals. Once the President is chosen, he or she gets to appoint whomever they want to various positions of power. You do not get to vote on the supreme court justices. You do not get to vote on the chairman of the FCC. You do not get to vote on our economic plan, nor do you get to vote on our foreign affairs policies, nor on our net neutrality policy (if we ever get one). I wish people would stop trying to promote this theater bullshit but, then again, that's exactly why we do it. They make you think you have enough power to pacify you and, while the people sit smugly in their homes going "hey, I voted," they're going to do whatever the blazes they want and you, my friends, have no choice. Enjoy it.


In addition, depending on your state & party affiliation, your vote doesn't even count. Democrat votes don't count in TX. Texas is overwhelmingly republican. It doesn't matter how many democrats vote in TX, because it's a winner take all system & the winner's going to be a republican every single time. It's the same way with California & democrats. A republican vote means nothing in CA. If you really want your presidential vote to count, you'd have to move to a swing state. But afterwards, whoever you put in office is going to do whatever they want to do. 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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Voting
by Alfman on Thu 8th Nov 2012 15:05 in reply to "RE: Voting"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

demetrioussharpe,

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.

Edit: I really do agree with all your other posts though...I just wouldn't be comfortable with literally handing over governmental oversight of corporations to those who are already running the corporations. It negates fundamental checks & balances.

Edited 2012-11-08 15:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Voting
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 15:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Voting"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

demetrioussharpe,

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

RE[3]: Voting
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 15:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Voting"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Edit: I really do agree with all your other posts though...I just wouldn't be comfortable with literally handing over governmental oversight of corporations to those who are already running the corporations. It negates fundamental checks & balances.


Well, we've already let the lawyers become president. Lawyers are a humongous part of what's wrong with this country.

Reply Parent Score: 2