Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Republicans The Almighty Buck Politics Technology

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans 485

Posted by samzenpus from the going-the-other-way dept.
phantomfive writes Silicon Valley is making a mark in Washington as Google has recently replaced Goldman as the largest lobbyist, but until recently, most of the money from Silicon Valley went to democratic candidates. In 2014, that has changed, and Republicans are getting most of the money. Why the change? Gordon Crovitz suggests it's because Harry Reid blocked patent reform. Reid gets a large chunk of donations from trial lawyers, who oppose the reform.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans More

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

Comments Filter:

  • This is great news! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:03PM (#48301397) Journal

    Republicans will bring back peace and prosperity to our land... just like before..

    • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:07PM (#48301417)
      Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.

      • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:18PM (#48302149)

        Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.

        I was out of work for two years (2009-10), had 20 job interviews, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before getting a new job. I was out of work for eight months (2013-14), had 60 job interviews, and took out a bank loan to pay rent before getting a new job. As a moderate conservative, I remembered when Republicans once stood for responsible government.

      • last time i was subjected to the democrats new round of peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job
      • Interesting. I'm guessing this was after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, because that is when the economy tanked.

    • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Funny)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:07PM (#48301423)

      Yes, thank God we have a Democrat President who won the Peace Prize, or who knows what a mess the world would be in right now.

      • Re:This is great news! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:35PM (#48301703)
        UUggh, I'm getting sucked into political bickering on ./ again.

        But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity? Especially, say, as compared to 10 years ago. I see tens of thousands fewer dying in American wars, and a booming stock market. It's like Clinton all over again, except without a salacious sex scandal.

        What is it you are thinking of when you say it? (With numbers please).

        • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ArcherB ( 796902 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:18PM (#48302153) Journal

          But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity?

          Well, the last time Republicans were in charge was Jan 2007. At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and falling, and the deficit was $161 billion. Since a year after the Democrats have taken Congress, neither the unemployment rate nor the deficit has been this low.

          As for now, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to the top 1% and the labor participation rate is at the lowest point since the '60s.

          As for "peace", we've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan in six years under Obama than we lost in eight years of Bush. Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men. ISIS, a group that makes Al Qaeda look like alter boys, has taken over much of Iraq and is even making money from the oil sales. In Africa, school girls are being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves or wives, as if there is a difference.

          Are these the numbers you were looking for?

          • Re:This is great news! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @03:16PM (#48303381)

            > "Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men."

            Hmmm. I wonder how that came to be. I think someone went and invaded the country and totally trashed its infrastructure and and political power structure. Any guesses who that might have been? I mean Saddam was an asshole and a murderer too, but at least the average Iraqi didn't have to worry about being blown up by a car bomb or beheaded by the thousands by ISIS, right? They're both bad, no doubt about it, but one is definitely worse. Like Saddam in charge was like having HIV, and ISIS in your country is like having ebola. All things being equal most people would go for the HIV if it was an either/or choice.

            If I'm reading the intent of your point correctly you look to absolve Bush and co of all blame for the mess Iraq is currently in, and blame Obama for not cleaning Bush's mess up properly despite massive public calls to bring everyone home from Iraq.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by kick6 ( 1081615 )
          the stock market, actually, makes a shit litmus test for the health of the economy anymore. At least in a vacuum. Why? Because the entire market is overvalued thanks to a supply gap of securities created by 401k plans. The government has blessed the market as *the* retirement savings vehicle of the middle class, and now there aren't enough securities to meet the demand that this has created.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by s.petry ( 762400 )

          So it is only "American's killed in wars" that counts? The US has increasing it's military presence and killing in foreign countries, not reducing. Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and now Syria are all being bombed by the US. US torture has not gone down, and the fact that we are complicit in spying on every nation including our own citizens does nothing to bolster a claim of a "peaceful" government, just that they can squash dissent before it reaches certain proportions (and control the medi

    • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sisukapalli1 ( 471175 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:10PM (#48301445)

      If you think the peace and prosperity (or war and destruction) are simply a matter of whether the red team wins or blue team wins in a game influenced by numerous vested interests, you are in for a surprise.

    • Obama's rich got richer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:12PM (#48301471)

      Let's just put that out there, with 2 years to do whatever they wanted with a supermajority, and then 6 years of controlling the senate and presidency, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has been destroyed, and the progressives keep trotting out the same "Blame Bush" canard while doing their best to sabotage the few remaining Democrats. All my party has left are the corporatists (Reid, Pelosi, etc) and a bunch of screaming tantrums demanding class warfare. At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win, just for being less dangerous and more honest about their extremism.

      • Re:Obama's rich got richer (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:57PM (#48301959) Homepage Journal

        At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win

        No, the Democrats deserve to lose. Protesting dishonesty and corruption by voting for dishonesty and corruption, is not a protest.

        Letting Republicans win, gets you nothing. If anything, that'll just tell the Democrats that they weren't dishonest enough.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Yes, I love the "The Republicans screwed us last time they were elected, let's vote in a Democrat!" "Oh no, Obama sucked too and screwed us like the Republicans did! I know, let's vote in another Republican and see if they're different now!"

          Meanwhile the few sane people left are screaming from the sidelines, "Hey, we've got GOOD people here that actually want to, you know, represent their constituents.....if you'd just pay attention! Hello?!? McFly?!?"

        • The *real* answer is to find the individuals out there who want to "break the cycle" and actually offer something more beneficial than the status-quo, and vote for them regardless of party affiliation.

          I know you don't get a lot of real options when you're talking about a vote for the next President. (Truth is -- I think a lot of the people best suited to do the job well have NO interest in ever running. That's why you get such poor candidates, time after time.)

          Personally, I would have really loved to see Ro

  • Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:03PM (#48301399)
    ... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.

    • Hilarious, really.

      Not ha-ha funny.

      Nor ho-ho funny.

      More like "democracy is fundamentally undermined" funny.

      • ...More like "democracy is fundamentally undermined" funny.

        Yup.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

        Bullshit! Just because the business of Silicon Valley are funding and endorsing republicans doesn't mean you have to vote for them. And they cannot legally occupy the office without your vote. The money can be rendered completely worthless by the conscientious voter. So please, quit your belly aching about the money. It is not an issue. The voters' obsession with it is. They keep voting for it.

        • Re:Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:41PM (#48301765) Homepage Journal

          This ignores the reality that advertising works.

          Without changing anything about products themselves, statistically significant numbers of people will select the more advertised one more often.

          Marketing is social poison.

          • you should watch Century of the Self [topdocumentaryfilms.com] if you haven't already. It gets into the "nuts and bolts" of how the modern marketing system has been created, starting with Sigmund Freud's cousin Edward Bernays in the 1930's. It's not just "more advertising", it's carefully crafted manipulation tested hundreds of times by various focus groups designed to affect our subconscious and get us to buy products and ideas that rationally we would reject. The part about the experimental marketing that convinced millions of

        • Re:Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:49PM (#48301855) Journal

          You don't seem to understand how representative democracy works.

          See... People vote for REPRESENTATIVES to do the the law making and governing for them.
          Then, people and corporations with money BUY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES.
          Regardless for whom the people voted.

          You wouldn't go around the world buying grain and sugar cane and cocoa plants and all other basic sources for ingredients for a cake every time you want one, right?
          You just go down to a bakery and pay the baker.
          Regardless of where the resources that allow him to work as a baker came from.

    • Re:Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:18PM (#48301531)

      It's just a shit headline. The real story is, "Political donations from businesses in Silicon Valley move in Republicans' favor."

      I don't expect that extremely liberal Berkeley and San Fran are going to be entreating Rick Perry to move to their area so he can represent them anytime soon.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by crgrace ( 220738 )

        You're probably right, especially considering neither Berkeley nor San Francisco are in Silicon Valley.

    • Re:Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:24PM (#48301583)
      And it's google who's now the country's biggest political donor, even over Goldman-Sachs! Here's an article from just one year ago, [theverge.com] when google became #8 by surpassing Lockheed-Martin. And just 10 years ago, [washingtonpost.com] in 2004, "the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital's pay-to-play culture."

      So I guess that establishes the pecking order, doesn't it? Just when all eyes are on the military-industrial complex, Wall Street takes over. And then as they are in the spotlight, in sneaks the new corporate Stasi.

    • Re:Funny how it's the business donations. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by njnnja ( 2833511 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:11PM (#48302091)

      I think the causality is backwards. Republicans aren't going to win because Silicon Valley is contributing to them; rather, Silicon Valley is contributing to Republicans because it looks like they are going to win. The relationship between ad spending and margins of victory are statistically small, and politicians (with certain notable exceptions) are generally not blatantly for sale to the highest bidder. The real reason for contributing is to give to people who generally already agree with you, so that if they get elected they will choose to focus on the priorities that are important to you instead of focusing on something else. In this case, patent reform.

  • Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:09PM (#48301433)

    Gotta be Harry Reid blocking patent reform.

    Can't be Obamacare failures, loss of press freedom, lowest labor force participation in many decades, incompetence on Ebola, lack of plans for ISIS, overweening regulation, politicization of DoJ and IRS, extrajudicial killings of US citizens, crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM, increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.

    Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.

    • Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:11PM (#48301449) Journal
      When have you ever known a political party supporter switch affiliation because their party's policies don't work? Because the parties ideology has shifted, sure, but because they've tried their policies and they didn't work? Very rare.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Didn't Reagan pick up a lot of previously Democrat voters after Carter's dismal time in the White House?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Well, to be fair, Carter did not achieve much because the political establishment (including his own party, by the way) blockaded whatever he tried. Reagan did not have the brains to try anything. So he made a better impression.

    • Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:55PM (#48301933) Homepage

      The problem with your laundry list of complaints is that most of they apply to the Republicans too. Plus there's an entire wingnut branch of the party that's probably openly hostile to you.

      A California geek in the GOP is like a black man at a KKK rally.

    • Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Art Challenor ( 2621733 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:22PM (#48302197)
      WTF, do you get all your "facts" from FOX news?

      Can't be Obamacare failures

      20M more people have health insurance: http://time.com/2950961/obamac... [time.com] Lives are being saved in states that accepted the medicaid expansion (which is why even some of the deepest red states are moving to accept). Jobs are being created in health care. Some premiums are decreasing, but most are going up by a modest (2-5%) rate, much lower than before Obamacare.

      loss of press freedom

      Who are you going to vote for to fix that? Wasn't it Bush who introduced the "Free Speech Zones" at rallies?

      lowest labor force participation in many decades

      Employment tanked as Bush left office and banks destroyed the economy. (No one was regulating the banks, so we'll go with them just happening to tank under Bush - could have happened under any president).

      If you look at job creation it consistently weak under republican leadership and much stronger under democratic. 5000+ jobs created under Obama vs just over a 1000 under Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

      incompetence on Ebola

      Despite the right wing terrorizing the population with the treat of Ebola, there is no threat from Ebola. Nigeria, hardly a bastion of high tech medicine and good government manged to contain a real attack. Sequestration and cuts at the NIH have slowed efforts to create a vacine (it's not profitable to create one since most fo the people with Ebola are poor). I trust you favor reinstating funding for that (and the many other) governement efforts.

      lack of plans for ISIS

      See "Ebola". ISIS is not a threat to the US and, frankly, there's almost nothing the US can do to help (unless you consider Iraq an overwhelming success)

      overweening regulation

      Tell that to the people you were killed in the West Fertilizer explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion)

      Or to the people of West Virgina. (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/dont-drink-the-water-west-virginia-after-the-chemical-spill-20140312)

      politicization of DoJ and IRS

      Listen, the IRS investigated many political non-profits of all stripes, it was not just the right wing groups. This is what the IRS is SUPPOSED to do, investigate possible tax fraud. They did it, and (despite the political disinformation) it was non-partisen.

      extrajudicial killings of US citizens

      Come on, that completely crossed party line. Extraordinary rendition and redefining torture as acceptable started under the Bush administration, but nothing has been done to fix that and it won't be for the forseeable future. The 100ml bottles on planes has the same problem.

      crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM

      The banks collapsed under Bush and (even though it stinks) a bailout was the least worst evil. GM turned out to be a good investment, certainly for the people who now still have jobs.

      increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.

      Easy, raise the minimum wage. Good for the economy, good for people working at that level. (Again, who you going to vote for who will do that?).

      Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.

      I don't know about just Harry Reid, but it sure seems that politician are going to have to take more care to see who's offering the highest bribe (sorry, campaign contribution).

    • Re:Nope, can't be "Dem policies don't work" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @02:43PM (#48303075) Journal

      Replies:

      1. Obamacare failures -- New large programs often have initial glitches. W's medicare D did, and so did Medicare's roll-out. The GOP refuses to help with adjustments, instead just complains and tries to repeal it over and over. That's not problem-solving.

      2. Loss of press freedom -- Both parties guilty of press games. It doesn't excuse anyone, but changing parties won't solve it.

      3. Lowest labor force participation in many decades -- Most "mature" industrial nations are facing the same problem; it's not special to the US. It appears to be a combination of offshoring to cheap-labor countries, and automation. GOP has shown no intention of doing anything different to solve those. They seem to believe that if you can't compete with slave commies and robots, that's your problem: Social Darwinism.

      4. Incompetence on Ebola -- I have not seen anything specific and verifiable, just cherry-picking facts to make O look bad. GOP tends to want to cut fed. health R&D in general. That's not going to help the next outbreaks.

      5. Overweening regulation -- The devil's in the details. Most new regulations relate to preventing another banking melt-down. The banks failed to regulate themselves last time, so they have more rules now. Do you want a repeat? See also #8.

      6. Politicization of DoJ and IRS -- Vague. There's no evidence of intentional bias at IRS. Sloppy procedures, perhaps, but not bias. DoJ has always been political for the decades I've been alive.

      7. Extrajudicial killings of US citizens -- I've seen no evidence the GOP is against such practices over-all. Both parties are arguably "war mongers".

      8. Crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM -- The real problem is lack of anti-trust enforcement. If companies and banks grow too-big-too-fail, then failure creates a domino effect, which can wreck a weak economy. And I've seen no evidence that the GOP is for stronger anti-trust enforcement. If anything, they see it as "gov't interference" and wish to do nothing to stop it in the name of "free markets".

      9. Increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever. -- See #3

      I realize "the other party also does it" doesn't sit well with voters, and they'll punish the party in charge regardless of what the other party would do instead. Voters are short-term thinkers, unfortunately, and that's why we get pendulum politics. Each side over-promises and then fails to deliver. Rinse, repeat.

  • Savage candidates who are regressive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by halivar ( 535827 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `reglefb'> on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:11PM (#48301457)

    Yes. Do this. But beware that the person you put in office in his stead is not the same. The GOP is feared by trial-lawyers, yes, but they have not said one whit about patent reform that I can see. Indeed, most of them, being reflexively pro-business, are all in favor of the same zany IP laws as democrats. If someone has some counterpoints, I'd love to hear them.

  • Democrat/republicans must keep congress as evenly divided as possible, lest one or the other absorb all the blame. So, what we have are people deciding between crazy and evil when they go to vote. And then, there's always the little wallflower that everyone ignores. Little do they know that if they give some water, it would grow into a tree to overshadow the weeds currently overrunning the place.

  • Every time I hear the word 'lobbyist' I feel sick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:13PM (#48301487)

    The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law. After that law is in place, anyone who formerly worked in the lobbying "industry", (and how odious to use that word in connection with lobbyists), would be forbidden forever from seeking public office or working for the government as either an employee or as a contractor.

    It's time to outlaw the purchase of favourable legislation altogether. In fact, it's long past time to aggressively outlaw ANY circumvention of democracy. Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen - but I can dream...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )

      The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether

      Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 1

      • I think the bigger concern should be the various artful forms of bribery that lobbyists use to buy legislation. Doesn't that bother you?

        • Bribery? Be specific. Every last dollar contributed to campaigns is a matter of public record. Unless you're talking about stuff like that Democrat congressman caught with $90k of cash in his freezer as he got arrested for obvious political racketeering, or Chicago-type blatant pocket-stuffing. When a lobbyist sits down for dinner with a congressman or a senator, that's on the books, right down to what the steak cost. What are you referring to, specifically?

      • Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.

        You DO have a valid point. But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf? Working single mothers, and people holding down two or three jobs spend a lot of their lives in survival mode. The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.

        Then there are all the sub-rosa deals made during lobbying - "My client w

    • Re:Every time I hear the word 'lobbyist' I feel si (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PseudoCoder ( 1642383 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:49PM (#48301857)

      Foundationally, lobbying is a good thing. It allows for a certain form of representation. What lobbying has turned into these days is disgusting. I know a lobbyist and know the difference between the two.

      This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). While popular election of senators is sold as "the people's voice", that is already achieved by the House of Representatives as originally intended. And what really happens is senators get elected and stop representing their constituents as soon as wheels hit the runway in DC and come under the influence of lobbyists, and other congressmen offering them deals, committee positions, etc. If senators were once again commissioned by their state legislatures, the state could recall them when they stop representing the state's interests.

      Instead, the existing power structures will cry about "muffling the voice of the people" if you repeal the 17th amendment, but in reality it would keep a leash on these supposed public servants who somehow end up staying in power for decades and becoming disproportionately richer at the end of their senatorial run by way of things like shady land deals that benefit them in roundabout ways (I'm looking at you Harry and Nancy; both have favored legislation that effectively increases the value of their land investments - shock!).

  • Theory is flawed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keith_nt4 ( 612247 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:19PM (#48301547) Homepage Journal
    I disagree with the thesis that silicon valley is in some way "swinging" toward the Republican party. It's more like the writing was on the wall which way the wind was blowing this midterm and the only way to have any influence or say on policy in Washington is via contributions. As in contributed == friend, didn't contribute == not friend. That's all it is. In 8 years (or whatever) when it's swinging the other direction again money will be flowing back the other direction. It's nothing more or less than that. Be on the good side of the people in power. It's the only way to get anything done. A lot of businesses actually contribute to both parties every election cycle, even if one is more heavily contributed to than the other. Just want to be on the good side for the next wind change.

    • Re:Theory is flawed (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:29PM (#48301631)
      Keep in mind this is a Wall Street Journal editorial article, so pronouncements to the effect that "Silicon Valley is Republican now" should be taken with a big grain of salt.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      It's not about the money, though. Democrats are spending MORE money than Republicans in trying to communicate their message, and they're still losing ground. It's about the entire Democrat party carrying around the stink left on it by a spectacularly incompetent administration - one that the party was supporting in a nearly religious way in order to get re-elected just a while ago. It's buyer's remorse, big time. And since the rest of the party can't bring themselves to say they don't support the administra

      • tl;dr: "Thanks, Obama!"

        It's not about the money, though. Democrats are spending MORE money than Republicans in trying to communicate their message, and they're still losing ground. It's about the entire Democrat party carrying around the stink left on it by a spectacularly incompetent administration - one that the party was supporting in a nearly religious way in order to get re-elected just a while ago. It's buyer's remorse, big time. And since the rest of the party can't bring themselves to say they don't

  • Bang-bang control in action. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sshir ( 623215 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:23PM (#48301575)
    for non-techie types [wikipedia.org]

    Basically, if democrats refuse to listen to us - this is what they'll get.

    I'm as liberal as people get, but that NSA thing pissed me off so bad that I consider voting Republican.

    For those, who say that Republicans will not act on NSA either, I say this: Listen, elections is what in game theory considered a repeat game. In such situations it's often advantageous to enforce beneficial cooperation by employing fear of retaliation. And we're not bluffing this time...

    "No Country for Old Men" tactics if you wish.

    • Re:Bang-bang control in action. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:33PM (#48301677) Journal

      The Republicans are in charge and they haven't done a thing about the NSA. No reduction in budget, no oversight changes, nothing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mc6809e ( 214243 )

        The Republicans are in charge and they haven't done a thing about the NSA. No reduction in budget, no oversight changes, nothing.

        The Republican majority in the House is 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government.

        They're hardly "in charge".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sshir ( 623215 )
        I'm fully aware that particular situation with NSA would not be resolved by republicans.

        The point was: how to remind democrats that they have to actually listen to us. Or else...

    • How about growing up instead of throwing a temper tantrum. Voting for conservatives because the progressives are not progressive enough is childish and stupid. There are plenty of democrats that don't like the NSA stuff either - most of the work in this area is done by the NCLU and EFF, which are not republican by a long shot - just vote and speak for more progressive democrats. Not against them! duh! (this is assuming you are not a shill paid to manipulate democrats into not turning out to vote. grrr)

  • Does not compute (Score:3)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:31PM (#48301661)
    So Silicon Valley (California) changes to Republicans because Harry Reid (D-Nevada) blocked patent reform. I suppose this means that Republicans are 100% in favor of patent reform, right? From what I can see both parties are split on this issue. Now there may be other reasons for Silicon Valley to be more Republican but patent reform is not one of them.
    • More likely Silicon Valley is tired to death of the grotesque regulator over-reach, a non-competitive business tax environment, endless waffling and lies about immigration reform, a disaster of a health care package, and the portrayal of the government as being completely feckless when it comes to international relations and the global economy. There's plenty not to like about some Republicans and the politicians they raise up ... but there's a LOT not to like about the Democrats if the current administrati

  • Two reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:33PM (#48301667)

    1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.

    2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.

  • Harry Reid (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jodka ( 520060 )

    Both parties deserve credit for cooperation. Republicans and Democrats have been working together in the House to enact many reforms, not just patent reforms.

    ... as of August, 356 bills passed by the House sat languishing in the Senate. Some 200 of those bills were passed with bipartisan majorities and 100 with the support of 75 percent of the House Democratic conference.

    link [hotair.com].

    The problem here is specifically Harry Reid, not the Democrat party in general. However, Democrats will not replace him on their

  • The enemy of your enemy is your enemy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2014 @12:49PM (#48301845)

    The saddest thing here is that for most people, every time they get disenchanted with the Democrats or Republicans, so many of them switch to supporting Republicans or Democrats.

    Which is best for clear throught: to take cocaine, or heroin?

    Which is the path to a long healthy life: to shoot yourself in the head or stab yourself in the heart?

    Which is more in the interests of America: Democrats or Republicans?

    Depending on your preferences and values, you might actually have real, valid answers to these three questions. But you ought to also know that all these questions are absurd. Why do we still take that last one seriously?

  • With Steve Jobs dead... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:03PM (#48302013)

    With Steve Jobs dead, he's having a hard time sending out his pre-election "I urge you all to vote Democrat" emails. And yes, I have about 5 of those archived.

    I don't think this is actually a major factor, I think it's more people are pissed off by the people currently in power, and want change - any change - from what's currently happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close