News flash ... We're back in Iraq. Cutting gov jobs is more money saved than potential unemployment cost increases.Only if you're a blind partisan, a masochist or a subversive.And finally, PoliticalShit, it may surprise you completely, but there are reasons for why it is called the "secret ballot", you have no fucking business asking people whom they voted for. It must be a really strong fascist thing deep within you to want to know who voted for whom. I have never in my life, not even once, asked someone about their voting habits in any way. Real adults don't do this kind of stuff. So, now that I have torn your argument to shreds on two very important points, go play with your dolls or something.
If it's part of an informative survey and confidentiality is ensured then there is no ethical conflict.
I am not talking about the survey, although I find it to be total quatsch.
I am talking about PoliticalShit's thread title.
Obama was and remains the superior choice to his opponents in both 2008 and 2012.
Or someone who pays attention during the campaigns to the promises of the candidates. McCain would still have us in Iraq. That is a given. Romney wanted to cut 10% of the federal jobs--some of which would be at the CDC doubtlessly--adding to the unemployment rolls. Both would have sponsored the same "hands off" regulatory policies that lead to TARP.
I am proud to have voted for President Obama...twice.