Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 13735 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Oh come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?
Grow up.
These are just fun, meaningless polls. Nobody really expects anything meaninful from the results because people who respond do so for any of the following reasons:
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean Cowboy Neal will be the 45-th president of the United States or will the people of Pakistan vote Romney into the White House?
Cowboy Neal is a member of the Illuminati and doesn't bother himself with such paltry matters as head of state of some country or other. He's content to pull the strings from behind the curtain.
Birthday! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Birthday! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Birthday! (Score:4, Informative)
I tend to prefer the Bad Seeds, but Grinderman was great.
They all suck (Score:4, Informative)
They all suck donkey balls.
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Funny)
They all suck donkey balls.
Like hell they do, you evil liberal hack. They suck ELEPHANT balls.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They all suck (Score:4, Funny)
They all suck donkey balls.
Like hell they do, you evil liberal hack. They suck ELEPHANT balls.
I never get invited to these kinds of parties
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Insightful)
In this highly politically charged environment no one seems to have a sense of humor anymore. Strange since we have two clowns running for President.
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, we're all stuck over on the right. That's the problem.
So we need a new song.
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
There must be some kind of way out of here.
Re: (Score:3)
All parties suck Democrats' balls? Wow. ;)
In related news: "The membership applications for the Democratic party have soared"
Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Favorite party as in I agree more or less with their philosophy...
or
Favorite party as in I love to grab a big bucket of popcorn and watch them do/say something incredibly stupid...
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:
"Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
They were pawned by the dixiecrats that jumped ship after the passage of the civil rights act in '64, which would not have passed were it not for many republicans in congress that voted for it. LBJ said, "There goes the South for a generation." when he signed it. Those same dixiecrats are what gave us the "Southern Strategy" during Nixon's campaign. All this is popular folklore. What really happened is that big business took more direct control of both sides to ensure that one or the other always remained in power for their benefit.
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
What really happened is that big business took more direct control of both sides to ensure that one or the other always remained in power for their benefit.
This hits the nail on the head.
Social Conservative Christians (Score:5, Informative)
Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:
"Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"
Social Conservative Christians - that's what happened. And we can blame Ron Regan for that cluster fuck.
If you look at a Republican before the party was taken over by the Christian Taliban, Barry Goldwater for instance, you will see what is considered a Libertarian today.
Of course that's not the whole story and a book can be written about what went wrong and the multitude of things that happened other than Christian nuts who want to increase the size of Government, throw the Constitution in the trash, and have government regulate people's personal lives - all because of values written in a book of iron age myth.
And then there is the fact that the American people completely forgot what happened between 2002 - 2008: the Republicans controlled BOTH the Executive branch and the Legislative branch of our government and went apeshit with the spending AND had the brass to lie and say it was ALL because of the wars. Only then to blame it ALL on the Obama administration.
But wait there's more ... Paul Ryan when he was a Congressman, made a really ballsy move and said that we need to do something about Medicare - like cut $700 billion+.
Now as a VP candidate, he has gone 180 degrees and the republicans have completely forgotten what he wanted to do in Congress or they are so horribly uninformed, that they don't know.
TO get the Rep vote, just say, "No gay marriage. No abortion. Cut taxes and spending." Because contrary to what they hear from their leaders on Talk Radio and Fox News, they think most of the Federal budget is going for paying welfare mothers and their pink Cadillacs; even though the largest expenses in the Fed budget is Medicare and Interest on the debt that they got rolling.
But wait there's even more! You see the Reps are allegedly against wealth transfer - from "rich" to "poor", but they are ALL for wealth transfer from young to old (Medicare and SS) and from poor to rich (capital gains are taxed less, home mortgage deductions [rich have more than one house and therefore get more Government subsides], and all the other loopholes that are only available to the 1%)
The Republicans are laughed at for good reason, I'm afraid. They used to be a decent counter to the Democrat's Depression Era thinking, but now they're just too loony.
Obama on the 6th, baby!
Sorry, have to comment on their label (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but named just like East Germany was the "German Democratic Republic" back in the day when it only nailed one out of three.
Social? Consider any social issue such as poor, homeless and anywhere that good Christian charity can help, and instead of doing what Jesus suggested they blame the victims and fill the jails with petty offenders. They are about creating social problems instead of solving them.
Conservative? No it's about reactionary rollback and almost Taliban style
Re:Social Conservative Christians (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the deficit crisis, it has fuckall to do with religeion and everything to do with class. Republicans will not do shit that will upset a single person earning over 250k.
Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
Would have been way funnier with a "Lemon" option.
Re:Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
If it's gonna be THAT kind of party, I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
Would have been way funnier with a "Lemon" option.
There ain't no party like a Liz Lemon party, 'cause a Liz Lemon party is mandatory
Pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, this is Slashdot - how can we ignore the pirates?
Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In which states do they have ballots?
Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Funny)
I pretty sure all states have ballots.
Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Dem: Do what you want in the bedroom, but we call the shots on your money.
Rep: Do what you want with your money, but we call the shots in your bedroom.
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Rep: Do what you want with your money (if you're rich), but we call the shots in your bedroom (if you're poor).
FTFY
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
And both of them seem to want draconian copyright laws, the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all that other fun stuff.
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:5, Informative)
For a Libertarian country to work the majority of the population has to be well educated, have resources, be well informed, be strong thinkers and have a sense of civic duty stemming for a sense of enlightened self interest.
That is the exact opposite of what we got in the U.S.
Libertarians don't talk about how they are going to get Americans ready to be libertarians.
The libertarians I have met have been Republicanish business types who want the government to leave them alone to abuse the environment and other poeple...........or.....they have been pot heads who want the government to leave them alone to do their drugs.
When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory. Well, even the worst democrats and republicans have a story to tell about how they are going to do things ( well, maybe not Mitt Romney, he doesn't think people need to know how he is going to pull off a mathematically impossible budget of tax cuts for the rich and military spending increases ).
Libertarians live in the world of ideas, without being burdeoned by how to make things work when the rubber hits the roads.
That is why Ron Paul has his popularity. Nobody knows more than he does that he isn't ever going to be POTUS, so he can uncomprising in his ideals, rather than someone who might actually have to do something.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course "have resources" is a relative phrase, which means that income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality. That's why Libertarianism is totally untried as a form of government. They sometimes claim the US pre-Civil War, but the US pre-Civil War was a slave-holding country. The government was technically Libertaran in the sense that the official Federal government was not officially oppressing anybody, but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then Moscow was in 1950.
Libertarians really do not understand that the greatest threat to freedom is not the US Army, it's your neighbors. To remain a free country the US Military has too have the power to intervene in private disputes. Which means taxes, the ability to break up huge concentrations of wealth (otherwise Bill Gates could hire his own army and beat the Feds), a welfare state that ensures everyone has the ability to ask the courts for help, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the biggest think the libertarians overlook when it comes to the U.S. pre-Civil War is that was a time when a man could just travel westward and live off the land. You could buy land off the government for like a penny an acre. Even adjusting for inflation, that's nothing, especially considering that aside from desert areas the land had enough resources to sustain the owner and provide enterprising opportunities.
Freedom is such an abstract concept - I don't believe any person has every been 'free,'
Libertarianism is community (Score:3)
Even if one is free from the government's influence they're still not free from the influence of others.
Libertarianism is all about the respecting the rights of others, and having your respected also. It does not pretend anyone lives alone, it's for addressing what happen when people live together.
all schools, K-12 and all, should be privately run for profit and parents should pay for their children's education.
But come on, the reality is there will always be some kind of subsidy for the poorest - even i
Re: (Score:3)
> income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality.
Anyone who uses the words "income inequality" seriously, without irony, automatically gets labelled a moron in my brain. Income inequality is so fucking stupid to talk about, that it's insane that people still use the term uncritically. The USSR had great income equality - everyone was equally poor, as they say.
>but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Informative)
Like most people, you seem to think that the only Libertarians are *RADICAL* Libertarians.
Few people who would call themselves "Libertarian" are anywhere near that extreme and do believe there is a place and need for public services and protecting the environment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then what use if the word "libertarian" if it's so flexible it can mean just about...anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course some people will quibble at the royalist bit, but that's really what setting up a feudal style system where the rich can do whatever they want is (Koch style libertar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Informative)
What use is any label, in that case? Republicans can be pro-choice, for instance. You don't have to agree with everything your political party does, you know.
Ah, but they line up and VOTE together. There is practically no dissent in Republican party when voting comes! Democrats sometimes scatter on both sides, but Republicans never do. The recent "give veterans jobs" bill failed with 4 Republicans dissenting (and Olympia Snow is retiring because she is sick of dealing with other Republicans), so it will be 3 dissenters next time.
I will hold them responsible for how they vote. The fact that they may privately/officially disagree is useless if that is not how they vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Since your argument is so flimsy: "Republicans never do;" I'll point out that I'm a registered Republican that voted for two Democrats and a D/R in the last two local elections. QED.
Sorry, that was not my point. I wasn't talking about voters -- I was talking about elected congressmen. Care to come up with at least a couple of legislations proposed by Democrats where more than 2-3 Republican congressmen went along? (recently)
By the way, we all know that Olympia Snowe really should have switched parties like Specter, but she didn't for political advantage.
I would assume that cases such as Snowe are rare to unprecedented - I believe Specter changed affiliation because he needed the Democrat votes (or money?). Snowe was on track to win - she would need very little effort to get reelected as-is. I am not even sure she'
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, look what happened to Bob Inglis (R-SC). His voting record was reliably conservative but because he said he believed the scientists about global warming he got primaried and lost 29%-71%. To be fair it wasn't only about GW because he was against the troop surge in Iraq and voted for the Economic Stabilization Act or 2008 (more commonly known as the bailout).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory.
I'm not a libertarian, but what? Who did you even talk to? They don't always have specific answers for fire (but then again they are not proposing administrative systems top-down do they do not need a single one to settle on) but they do have answers and their answer for libraries is obvious enough from their beliefs--fund it like any ot
Bottom up better because it helps at least one (Score:3)
So, the bottom-up is better than the top-down; Give your reason why.
It's pretty obvious - because bottom-up solutions address real problems. They see one or more things that need solving, and start some kind of program or action or group to resolve them.
And in the process, if they make any headway at all things get better.
In a top-down approach it's quite easy for problems to be made up just to get funding, and in the end millions spent with no-one actually helped. That's a waste of resources that could h
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Not a single one of them was able to point out to you that early U.S. fire departments and libraries were privately organized and funded? That there are still private fire departments and libraries in existence in the U.S. right now?
I agree, you apparently don't talk to many actual libertarians.
Re: (Score:3)
The principle of Libertarianism is nice, but the vast majority of them act more like anarchists, and an anarchy is the antithesis of freedom: it's a world where might makes right.
I believe in what I call Socialtarianism - a libertarian who believes in social responsibility. We form societies to cooperate for the common good, in which people do their best when they have maximal freedom, but there are always those whole will freeload given the choice. It's also often more efficient to centralize a lot of se
Small "L" libertarianism (Score:3)
A lot of people seem to confuse the platform of the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism. As others have pointed out, the party seems to have more in common with anarchists than anything else. True liberarianism is about both individual freedom and individual responsibility. It doesn't mean eliminate government, it just means that the goal should be to have the minimum "amount" of government necessary to have a successful society. That's the ideal that Ron Paul and some others like me
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I find funny about Anarchists/Libertarians is that if true Anarchy came they'd probably be the first ones to get pwned by roving gangs of thugs.
Being a skinny street punk or obnoxious capitalist won't save you from that.
Re: (Score:3)
As the parent post to this thread pointed out Libertarianism will only work if the populace is well educated and willing to engage in civic duties. Far too much of the populace is not and never will be to make that form of idealism work. What I see working is a pragmatism to realize that no pure ideology will ever work and the best possible outcome will be realized somewhere in the middle with a mixture of different ideologies.
Re: (Score:3)
Missing option (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
And why isn't the American Communist Party there?
Or anything else to the left of global moderate?
Has the person setting up the poll been so thoroughly indoctrinated that he only sees shades of blue, and consider the greens the far left?
Re:Missing option (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you can leave boxes blank. You can show up, vote for 3 out of X of the local/state propositions and leave the presidency blank if you want.
I tend to leave boxes blank for issues or offices that I didn't (for whatever excuse...what? It happens) properly research and thus only vote on what I feel I have an informed opinion on. I've only broken this on a few propositions in the past that crept up on me that were obvious bald faced horseshit.
Bullmoose? (Score:2, Funny)
I am, after all, voting for Teddy Roosevelt this time around.
Why would you want to? (Score:4, Interesting)
from James Killough's excellent article 'Do Republicans Dream of Electric Elephants':
http://purefilmcreative.com/killough-chronicles/do-republicans-dream-of-electric-sheep.html [purefilmcreative.com]
But the U.S. Has A Two Party System (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But the U.S. Has A Two Party System (Score:5, Insightful)
This type of apathy is why Big Money runs the country. The funny thing is the people who spout this idea tend to be those who know the least when it comes to politics. It's a convenient excuse to be ignorant: "Oh, why should I learn about these politicians and their policies when they're all just the same?"
Like it or not, but the things our congresscritters do have matter. You know one of the difference between Big Money and no money? People with big money vote. People who work for oil companies vote. People who work for the military-industrial complex vote. People who think that embryos are a precious life form the government is ethically bound to protect vote.
Yet it's the people who are most victimized by these policies that say, "Oh, gee, these forces are so insurmountable that my vote doesn't count for shit. It's raining today and the voting booth is a whole mile away and since my vote doesn't matter anyway, I'm going to jerk off and watch reality TV instead."
When you encourage this type of apathy you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and do something constructive instead, such as encouraging people to vote.
Do Libertarians == Republicans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>I remember during the Chick-Fill-A thing, a libertarian friend of mine who posts political stuff on their facebook feed made an about face when people started protesting the business. Actually, no, to his/er credit, s/he changed attitude when a governor (GUBERMINT) decided to enact policies against the business...which is understandable because that is plain wrong, still, his/er attitude changed towards the whole issue when that happened close to sympathizing with the business instead of protestors (who
None (Score:2)
Political parties are a crutch for people who can't think for themselves.
$2 Billion in electioneering (Score:3)
Obligatory missing option (Score:3)
There's an option missing (Score:3)
Royalist (Score:5, Funny)
I voted whig, but only because royalist and unionist (in the Irish sense) were missing. When you rebellious colonists come back to accept the supremacy of the crown and parliament you will cure all the social, welfare and cultural ills that are prevalent throughout "America".
Constitutional monarchy rules. OK
Missing choice? (Score:3, Funny)
I was looking for the American Christian Fascist Party, and I'll admit that it took me a minute to realise that you still call them Republicans.
Missing option: (Score:3)
Re:It couldn't be more obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats will become the new Stalinists.
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Dumbest thing I have read in a while. Democrats are the right-wing of the corporate party. Republicans are the far-right, proto-fascist wing of the corporate party. There is no "left" in the Democratic party or the fucking country for that matter.
You need to turn off the right-wing hate radio, and look around at reality a bit.
There is no political representation of the left in this country at all. Obama is to the right of Nixon, as was Clinton. Facts. Not a bunch of propaganda by far-right blowhards talking out their asses.
Love that the far-right complains about Obama's health insurance company bailout plan, aka Obama Care. Which is the same damn thing as Romney Care. Which is the same fucking thing as the far-right Heritage foundation came up with in the 90s. The health insurance co bailout plan is a right-wing initiative. Hell it is a right-wing wet dream come true. Forcing folks to pay money to private entities under penalty of law. Couldn't get more true right-wing ideology than that.
This country is descending into fascism. And it is ignorant who are paving the way.
Re:1st vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I prefer the ostrich approach and find my world a much better place than that of those pissing and moaning over a world barreling down the rails, out of control, and no one competent at the wheel. Life is good!
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Political discussion is an activity for fools. It's like arguing which brand of anal lube or who's servant of satan is better.
Editors, there's two future polls right there! My money is on Prep-H and Lucifer.
Re: (Score:3)
spit and Tony Bliar.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
ouch! and explains a lot...
Re: (Score:3)
My buddy works at the prison in Lancaster, Ohio, and he told me a story about an inmate nicknamed "Applesauce." I won't go into details, but I will say that he didn't earn that nickname by using it on himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Political discussion is an activity for fools. It's like arguing which brand of anal lube or who's servant of satan is better.
Editors, there's two future polls right there! My money is on Prep-H and Lucifer.
Ummm, Prep-H is for hemorrhoids not lubrication and Lucifer IS satan. Try Anal-eze and Azreal. Or, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both work better.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, Prep-H is for hemorrhoids not lubrication and Lucifer IS satan. Try Anal-eze and Azreal. Or, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both work better.
I did not know that George W. Bush is a brand of anal lube.
Re: (Score:3)
I did not know that George W. Bush is a brand of anal lube.
Plenty of people got fucked up the arse with number 42, though I'm not sure he was a very effective lubricant.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Would Santorum count as an answer to both?
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I understand your sentiment and while I also share your disillusion, did you know that the origin of the word "idiot [wikipedia.org]" is someone who stayed clear of political life?
Please don't take it as an insult. By this definition, I'm the foremost idiot here.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all personal lubricants are the same, silcon based are more effective in the short run but have the nasty side effect of hanging around for days. Water-based lubes are easier to wash off but need to be re-applied more frequently.
Even in thoose categories, the lubes widely differ beteween manufacturers, some are too viscous, others are too thin..
So I must wholeheartedly d
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Hate America and go liberal? I always thought that the liberals were the ones that loved America. You know, the real America. The one they taught us about in school. I don't remember them teaching me that America was a country of torturing, free-speech inhibiting, third-world-country suppressing people. But you probably went to a different school than I did.
Pardon me if you were being facetious and I missed the joke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your administration is not liberal.
The Democratic party is not liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congress. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, one of the first acts of the Obama administration was ordering the closure of Gitmo [cnn.com], ordering military interrogations to return to the policies in the Army Field Manual pre-Bush, and shutting down Bush's secret overseas torture centers. However, the authority of the Executive branch is limited by the United States Constitution, making it possible for Congress to delay funding allocated to move prisoners until the Republican majority elected in 2010 passed legislation making it unlawful to move the remaining prisoners to either the US or other countries [guardian.co.uk].
The continued travesty of Gitmo is on Congress, the truly impressive part is how many effective measures Obama has put in place [typepad.com] despite massive willful obstruction from the Legislative branch.
Re:Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congres (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't have a super-majority for 2 years, idiot. Between the time Franken was allowed to assume his seat (7 July 2009) and when Kennedy died (25 August 2009), they had their 60 votes in the Senate for around six weeks, and most of that time was used in negotiations for the healthcare law.
Re:Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congres (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The reason they needed 60 votes in the Senate to get a damned thing done is the GOP's party discipline and willingness to abuse the filibuster. 60 votes are needed to break filibusters and the only time they had the ability to get anything done without the GOP scuppering it was during that six weeks, because the Republicans could and did filibuster anything with their 41 votes.
The filibuster rules were changed in IIRC the '70s. You don't need one senator standing up and reading from the DC phonebook for 24 hours straight to block action anymore. You just need 41 votes and bam, that house is at a standstill until the minority (you know, the people who lost the '08 election badly because America was tired of them) gets what they want, which in this case was usually thumbs in the eye like completely unacceptable amendments offered just so they could say next election "Senator X voted to allow imprisoned sex offenders to get Viagra".
I get that you're unhappy with the Dems (I am too, but probably for different reasons), but it's stupid and ignorant to blame them for things outside their control. Do try to educate yourself some more about how things are really done in this country before you vote next week.
Only partially true (Score:3)
The might get a few things done. However when congress goes Republican the Democratic President becomes a lame duck.
He is unable to do anything important. As a result, the country suffers.
Does this sound familiar?
The US political system is broken (like its legal system). It is no wonder that US standing in the rest of thw rold is plummetting like SCO shares once did.
The republicans in congress/Senate are out to stop any Democratic President from doing anything worthwhile. Thie is why IMHO, if Obama gets re-
Re: (Score:3)
Because now I'll know what percentage of the comments to dislike.
Interesting to see the distribution. I figured that /. is mostly democrat-leaning (whatever that means nowdays)...
but 21% Democratic, 19% Libertarian and 14% Green followed by 7% Republican is quite a surprise. Is there really 3x Libertarian and 2x Green support vs Republicans here?
Republicans aren't too popular here, with the party now dominated by the evangelicals. The slashdot crowd tends toward 'liberal' when it comes to social issues, which puts a heavier emphasis on either Democrat and Libertarian. After that it's a matter of whether you think taxes are evil or the only way to fund necessary programs.
Re:Useful poll (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it also needs to be taken into consideration that the majority of those who clicked 'libertarian' on the poll will vote Republican in the election. The Republican party is more a coalition of anti-Democrats than a coalition formed around a common political philosophy. They get the evangelicals by playing on their opposition to abortion, homosexuality, marijuana, etc. They get the libertarians by playing on their opposition to socialism/Rawlsian economics. The sad thing is that the power brokers who fight to keep this coalition intact do so to achieve objectives that aren't particularly helpful to either of these groups: corporate welfare (sorry libertarians) and actively trying to make criminals of the poor by limiting their opportunities so the police/prison systems have livestock to deal with (sorry Christian values).
Yeah, those evangelicals aren't likely to hang out around /., but very few of those 'libertarians' put their vote where their mouth is. Also, the libertarians around here are by far the most vocal group when it comes to discussing politics, but their rants usually conclude that it's best to vote Republican.
Re:Useful poll (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I interpreted the 'adolescent joke' option as a vote of "no confidence" for any of the parties, which is why I chose it. My political leanings are libertarian, but I have been unimpressed and disappointed with the LP machinery during this election cycle.
So called "tech heads" may be more introverted than the population at large, but that doesn't translate into "detached from reality". I would argue that they are also more intelligent, more adept at problem solving and more self reliant than the population
Re:My dream party - anti-Republican coalition (Score:3)
This is much like my dream party as well. What I would like to see if for all the socially liberal parties -- Democrats, Green, Libertarians, etc -- to get together and beat the shit out of the socially conservative religious right. That alone would be a huge, huge step forward.
If you watch the third party debates, you will see that except for the Constitution party candidate, all major third parties agree with each other on a large swath of issues, and between the two major parties the Democrats come close
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and bad taste as it is to reply to myself, it occurs to me I should weigh in on where my real dream party would settle on how much we should be spending on what, and other assorted issues:
- Reduce overseas military spending drastically and focus on maintaining a strong national defense, based predominantly on the National Guard and Coast Guard. Maintain development of military technology (focusing also on nonmilitary applications of that same technology to maximize bang for buck, see below) so that we c