8 ms·

Its nice to see the GOP getting behind this rather than the Dems. I dont mean to bring up politics, but this article invokes the discussion. I would have expe

Its nice to see the GOP getting behind this rather than the Dems. I dont mean to bring up politics, but this article invokes the discussion. I would have expected this kind of support from the Dems but not the GOP. Biggest reason I say that is because the online community has mostly always swung to the left rather than to the right.

jacoblyles 14y ago
I think this is a case of Democratic politicians being afraid to criticize one of their own, as Ortiz is a Democrat with significant political ambitions. The GOP has plenty of tech-friendly elected representatives despite the GOP's low share of the tech vote (Issa, Moran, Paul, Amash, etc). Tech freedom issues have a natural home in the GOP's free market wing. One of my hobbies (along with many other folks) is getting together the GOP with the tech industry. I still can't over the fact that both of California's Democratic senators cosponsored PIPA and we haven't done anything about it. If we had elected Fiorina, maybe we would have had one less cosponsor from our state. That shows me that the tech industry still sucks at politics. Silicon Valley's Democratic representatives in the House (Lofgren) are great on tech issues. But we get our asses kicked by Hollywood and unions at the state level.
- btilly 14y ago
  My opinion is that nobody with knowledge of what a disaster Fiorina was as CEO could vote for her as senator. Even if they did agree with her political positions (which few in California do). If it were Meg Whitman running for senator, I'd have voted for her in a heartbeat. I respect her. But Fiorina? No way!
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    I'm not knowledgable on her time at HP and your concerns sound legitimate. But Fiorina couldn't have been worse than Boxer/Feinstein on tech issues. They just voted for the internet tax in the Senate for chrissakes. Fiorina's and Whitman's double defeat in 2010 was a big setback for those of us trying to convince the GOP that courting the tech vote is worth their trouble.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      > I'm not knowledgable on her time at HP and your concerns sound legitimate. Really, and you read hackernews? Florina was close to a sociopath. It's about time we started paying our taxes, we were supposed to anyways, nothing new here. > Fiorina's and Whitman's double defeat in 2010 was a big setback for those of us trying to convince the GOP that courting the tech vote is worth their trouble. It wasn't a setback, they were running a sociopath and a soso ex eBay exec in a year when obama was running for reelection. The GOP just put out some sacrificial bodies out there and forgot about it.
      - btilly 14y ago
        There is no "close to" when it comes to Fiorina's sociopathy. And she doesn't even have the saving grace of competency. Also 2010 was not actually an Obama re-election year. But the Republicans have a fundamental demographic problem in California, and I think that the national party understands this. According to national trends, in 10-15 years, the problems that they are having in California are likely to become national problems until they can change their political identity. (Why do you think that the Republican leadership is trying to be soft on immigration reform?)
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >According to national trends, in 10-15 years, the problems that they are having in California are likely to become national problems until they can change their political identity. (Why do you think that the Republican leadership is trying to be soft on immigration reform?) The fundamental problem the Republicans have is that they have kind of an unstable coalition. The Democrats have a lock on the urban working class. That's close to half the country by itself, so the Republicans need a majority of everyone else in order to win. But "everyone else" is not a homogenous group. It's libertarians, religious conservatives, Wall St., rural blue collar workers, small business owners, etc. And it's shrinking as a percentage of the country, largely because "urban working class" is growing. So the problem they have is that to get more voters, they have to gore somebody's ox. There are a huge ton of libertarian-leaning Democrats who would switch parties if the Republicans would stop pandering to religious extremists on social issues, but then they risk losing the huge voting block of religious conservatives. I personally think that could be a good strategy: Just say "screw it" and go to the left of the Democrats on social issues. If the Democrats stick with liberal social positions then the religious conservatives don't have any religious conservative candidate anymore, and they're still largely pro-free market people who may continue to vote Republican. Meanwhile if you can push the Democrats to the right on social issues then all the better, because now the Republicans can claim the growing demographic of urban voters who want liberal social positions, to say nothing of what it would do for women voters. But that's a pretty radical change. Changing their position on immigration instead makes a lot of sense, because the growing Hispanic demographic leans pro-market and religious and is mostly disgusted with Republicans for their immigration policies. The problem is the result will be to increase polarization, because it allows the Republicans to double down on "monopolies are good + gays are bad" while making all the races closer, because it allows the Republicans to gain with Hispanics in urban areas, while giving the Democrats more votes among blue collar voters in rural areas who don't like the new immigration policy. And having a larger number of contentious races with more polarization is not likely to be good for the country.
- coldpie 14y ago
  Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights) and a not-insane view of copyright law, I think I'd choose basic civil rights. The Right needs to get their social positions into the 20th century, or preferably the 21st century, before they can expect any kind of youth (read: techie) vote[1]. [1] "Fully 81 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 support same-sex marriage" http://daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=505164 http://daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=505164
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights) and a not-insane view of copyright law, I think I'd choose basic civil rights. What makes you think you have to choose between them? Marriage is a state issue. The federal government has no business in it, and when try (e.g. DOMA) the courts can strike it down. Which means you can vote for Republicans federally and Democrats at the state level and get both of the things you want.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    >"Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights)" It's funny that you lump those two together. Public opinion has been moving quickly in favor of gay marriage, but the trench warfare over abortion is the same as it always was. One NRO writer claims the country has gotten more more pro-life and more pro-gay over the last 30 years, and that sounds correct given my memory of the last time I found raw stats. More female voters identify as pro-life than pro-choice last time I checked, though you wouldn't know it in blue states. Personally, I have too much libertarian in me to call myself pro-life. But I find that the left lacks intellectual honesty and serious engagement with the stance of the other side whenever I hear their rhetoric. They seem to convince through loud shouting and calling their opponents names, or labeling their own positions "basic civil rights". Killing a human fetus may not be "murder" but it surely carries some moral weight. And no middle ground position will be stable without recognition of that.
philip1209 14y ago
This strikes me as more old-school GOP
- rayiner 14y ago
  No, this is new-school GOP: attack the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney. It was the "old-school GOP" that pushed, for decades, for ever-escalating prosecutorial powers and tougher laws to put away the "bad guys." In the 1970's, it wasn't the "old-school GOP" pushing for accused criminals to be afforded their 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment rights.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    There are a few voices in the new GOP that are better at civil liberties (Rand-effing-Paul). But you're right that the GOP has traditionally focused too much on law and order and too little for the rights of the accused. I have voted Democrat for prosecutor/DA type positions for this reason. It wouldn't have helped in MA though.
    - drzaiusapelord 14y ago
      >There are a few voices in the new GOP that are better at civil liberties (Rand-effing-Paul). Wake me when he gets bills passed. As far as I can tell he and his father are master grandstanders who don't really caucus with anyone or work to get bills through. They make pithy speeches to make young people feel good about voting straight-line GOP and guarantee their reelection. Unfortunately, voters seem more swayed by speeches than results.
      - jacoblyles 14y ago
        He's sponsoring a bill repealing mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana crimes. You might want to send me your number so I can call and wake you up when it passes.
        drzaiusapelord 14y ago
jonchang 14y ago
This is actually kind of in line with Republican beliefs. Small government and less federal interference.
- pyre 14y ago
  Except when it comes to legislating religion, fighting the war on drugs, increasing defence spending/budget, etc... The "small government" idea is almost just a talking point now for the Republicans (Note: I realize that some Republicans are truer to those values tha nothers).
  - SkyMarshal 14y ago
    Yup, I used to believe it until the Bush administration drove up the deficit more than any Dem administration ever had and all but the Tea Party gave him a pass. The GOP pays lip service to the idea, but they are anything but small government.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      I have a hard time believing that accurately describes the evolution of your viewpoint. For one, there was no Tea Party during the Bush administration. That term and the associated movement, such as it is, didn't come into broad use until early 2009. For another, the final Federal deficit pre-debt crisis in 2007 was a mere $158B and had been steadily trending downward since the height of the previous recession five years earlier. Now we're four years past the peak of the last recession and deficits are routinely $1T+. At least the GOP occasionally cares about spending discipline: Even Bush took his second term pledge to halve the deficit seriously. All the while Democrats were chiding the GOP for not spending enough, and today they describe a small cut in spending growth in apocalyptic terms.
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        > For another, the final Federal deficit pre-debt crisis in 2007 was a mere $158B and had been steadily trending downward since the height of the previous recession five years earlier. Now we're four years past the peak of the last recession and deficits are routinely $1T+. I'm tired of these freaking lies. Debt per GDP shot way up under Bush and didn't stop shooting up at basically the same slope until after 2009. The intellectual dishonesty on the right is absolutely amazing. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html > Even Bush took his second term pledge to halve the deficit seriously. No he didn't. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit Notice any trends? Really, why the unfounded Obama hate?
ataggart 14y ago
That's the same GOP candidate that Elizabeth Warren slighted for supporting marijuana legalization: http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/19/sen-elizabeth-warren-takes-dig-at-pro-legalization-senate-candidate-dan-winslow/ http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/19/sen-elizabeth-warren-takes-...
- cadlin 14y ago
  If you watch the video, it's clear that she's joking. It was a roast-style speech. http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-st-patrick-drove-the-snakes-out-of-ireland-to-wall-street/ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-st-p...
  - ataggart 14y ago
    I'm not clear on why that matters. She's been explicit about her opposition to legalization: http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/elizabeth-warren-flunks-marijuana-question/10062011/ http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/elizabeth-warren-flunks-mari...
Danieru 14y ago
Hello spoiledtechie, I wanted to mention why I downvoted. I am worried someone will misunderstand if I follow usual protocol and skip commenting. The reason I downvoted your comment is because I think it crosses the "interesting to hackers" and "politics" greyline. As you know politics permeates society and avoiding all politics is just not possible. I understand that your comment was in good faith and not in the least bit antagonizing. I am conservative as well and it is always nice to see politicians doing the right thing. Double so if a group has often ignored their founding principles. The core reason for my objection is that we must be active in the fight against conversation degradation. To this end I hope we will avoid politics even if the article itself is political.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > To this end I hope we will avoid politics even if the article itself is political. So if the article is about politics, specifically, and how that involves tech, what's to be done? A comment thread about kung pao chicken? That's not useful.
- kefka 14y ago
  Considering someone got thrown in the federal pokey for creating a script that increments the number in a URL, and then saved that output to a file..... Yeah, I think we DO need to have that discussion on politics with regards to Hacker News.
- asveikau 14y ago
  > we must be active in the fight against conversation degradation. Pardon me for using slightly political terms, but I feel this phrasing has weird totalitarian undertones.
BryantD 14y ago
I see two reasons for that. First, the GOP candidates are all further from the political mainstream than the Democratic candidates. I'm not criticizing any of them or their politics, but they're very unlikely to get elected -- Scott Brown was the Republican with a chance and he opted out. This provides a certain degree of freedom to be bold. Second, the prosecutor who pushed the Swartz case was a Democrat, so you'd expect Republicans to be pushing back. When a Republican Attorney General infringes on civil rights, the Democrats push back.
sampsonjs 14y ago
I just hope the GOP doesn't find out Swartz was a Chomsky fan. We can't defend Swartz, he was soft on terror!

jacoblyles 14y ago

I think this is a case of Democratic politicians being afraid to criticize one of their own, as Ortiz is a Democrat with significant political ambitions. The GOP has plenty of tech-friendly elected representatives despite the GOP's low share of the tech vote (Issa, Moran, Paul, Amash, etc). Tech freedom issues have a natural home in the GOP's free market wing. One of my hobbies (along with many other folks) is getting together the GOP with the tech industry. I still can't over the fact that both of California's Democratic senators cosponsored PIPA and we haven't done anything about it. If we had elected Fiorina, maybe we would have had one less cosponsor from our state. That shows me that the tech industry still sucks at politics. Silicon Valley's Democratic representatives in the House (Lofgren) are great on tech issues. But we get our asses kicked by Hollywood and unions at the state level.

btilly 14y ago
My opinion is that nobody with knowledge of what a disaster Fiorina was as CEO could vote for her as senator. Even if they did agree with her political positions (which few in California do). If it were Meg Whitman running for senator, I'd have voted for her in a heartbeat. I respect her. But Fiorina? No way!
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  I'm not knowledgable on her time at HP and your concerns sound legitimate. But Fiorina couldn't have been worse than Boxer/Feinstein on tech issues. They just voted for the internet tax in the Senate for chrissakes. Fiorina's and Whitman's double defeat in 2010 was a big setback for those of us trying to convince the GOP that courting the tech vote is worth their trouble.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    > I'm not knowledgable on her time at HP and your concerns sound legitimate. Really, and you read hackernews? Florina was close to a sociopath. It's about time we started paying our taxes, we were supposed to anyways, nothing new here. > Fiorina's and Whitman's double defeat in 2010 was a big setback for those of us trying to convince the GOP that courting the tech vote is worth their trouble. It wasn't a setback, they were running a sociopath and a soso ex eBay exec in a year when obama was running for reelection. The GOP just put out some sacrificial bodies out there and forgot about it.
    - btilly 14y ago
      There is no "close to" when it comes to Fiorina's sociopathy. And she doesn't even have the saving grace of competency. Also 2010 was not actually an Obama re-election year. But the Republicans have a fundamental demographic problem in California, and I think that the national party understands this. According to national trends, in 10-15 years, the problems that they are having in California are likely to become national problems until they can change their political identity. (Why do you think that the Republican leadership is trying to be soft on immigration reform?)
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >According to national trends, in 10-15 years, the problems that they are having in California are likely to become national problems until they can change their political identity. (Why do you think that the Republican leadership is trying to be soft on immigration reform?) The fundamental problem the Republicans have is that they have kind of an unstable coalition. The Democrats have a lock on the urban working class. That's close to half the country by itself, so the Republicans need a majority of everyone else in order to win. But "everyone else" is not a homogenous group. It's libertarians, religious conservatives, Wall St., rural blue collar workers, small business owners, etc. And it's shrinking as a percentage of the country, largely because "urban working class" is growing. So the problem they have is that to get more voters, they have to gore somebody's ox. There are a huge ton of libertarian-leaning Democrats who would switch parties if the Republicans would stop pandering to religious extremists on social issues, but then they risk losing the huge voting block of religious conservatives. I personally think that could be a good strategy: Just say "screw it" and go to the left of the Democrats on social issues. If the Democrats stick with liberal social positions then the religious conservatives don't have any religious conservative candidate anymore, and they're still largely pro-free market people who may continue to vote Republican. Meanwhile if you can push the Democrats to the right on social issues then all the better, because now the Republicans can claim the growing demographic of urban voters who want liberal social positions, to say nothing of what it would do for women voters. But that's a pretty radical change. Changing their position on immigration instead makes a lot of sense, because the growing Hispanic demographic leans pro-market and religious and is mostly disgusted with Republicans for their immigration policies. The problem is the result will be to increase polarization, because it allows the Republicans to double down on "monopolies are good + gays are bad" while making all the races closer, because it allows the Republicans to gain with Hispanics in urban areas, while giving the Democrats more votes among blue collar voters in rural areas who don't like the new immigration policy. And having a larger number of contentious races with more polarization is not likely to be good for the country.
coldpie 14y ago
Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights) and a not-insane view of copyright law, I think I'd choose basic civil rights. The Right needs to get their social positions into the 20th century, or preferably the 21st century, before they can expect any kind of youth (read: techie) vote[1]. [1] "Fully 81 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 support same-sex marriage" http://daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=505164 http://daily-journal.com/archives/dj/display.php?id=505164
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights) and a not-insane view of copyright law, I think I'd choose basic civil rights. What makes you think you have to choose between them? Marriage is a state issue. The federal government has no business in it, and when try (e.g. DOMA) the courts can strike it down. Which means you can vote for Republicans federally and Democrats at the state level and get both of the things you want.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  >"Given the choice between recognition of basic civil rights (same sex marriage, reproductive rights)" It's funny that you lump those two together. Public opinion has been moving quickly in favor of gay marriage, but the trench warfare over abortion is the same as it always was. One NRO writer claims the country has gotten more more pro-life and more pro-gay over the last 30 years, and that sounds correct given my memory of the last time I found raw stats. More female voters identify as pro-life than pro-choice last time I checked, though you wouldn't know it in blue states. Personally, I have too much libertarian in me to call myself pro-life. But I find that the left lacks intellectual honesty and serious engagement with the stance of the other side whenever I hear their rhetoric. They seem to convince through loud shouting and calling their opponents names, or labeling their own positions "basic civil rights". Killing a human fetus may not be "murder" but it surely carries some moral weight. And no middle ground position will be stable without recognition of that.

philip1209 14y ago

This strikes me as more old-school GOP

rayiner 14y ago
No, this is new-school GOP: attack the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney. It was the "old-school GOP" that pushed, for decades, for ever-escalating prosecutorial powers and tougher laws to put away the "bad guys." In the 1970's, it wasn't the "old-school GOP" pushing for accused criminals to be afforded their 5th, 6th, and 7th amendment rights.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  There are a few voices in the new GOP that are better at civil liberties (Rand-effing-Paul). But you're right that the GOP has traditionally focused too much on law and order and too little for the rights of the accused. I have voted Democrat for prosecutor/DA type positions for this reason. It wouldn't have helped in MA though.
  - drzaiusapelord 14y ago
    >There are a few voices in the new GOP that are better at civil liberties (Rand-effing-Paul). Wake me when he gets bills passed. As far as I can tell he and his father are master grandstanders who don't really caucus with anyone or work to get bills through. They make pithy speeches to make young people feel good about voting straight-line GOP and guarantee their reelection. Unfortunately, voters seem more swayed by speeches than results.
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      He's sponsoring a bill repealing mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana crimes. You might want to send me your number so I can call and wake you up when it passes.
      - drzaiusapelord 14y ago

jonchang 14y ago

This is actually kind of in line with Republican beliefs. Small government and less federal interference.

pyre 14y ago
Except when it comes to legislating religion, fighting the war on drugs, increasing defence spending/budget, etc... The "small government" idea is almost just a talking point now for the Republicans (Note: I realize that some Republicans are truer to those values tha nothers).
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  Yup, I used to believe it until the Bush administration drove up the deficit more than any Dem administration ever had and all but the Tea Party gave him a pass. The GOP pays lip service to the idea, but they are anything but small government.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I have a hard time believing that accurately describes the evolution of your viewpoint. For one, there was no Tea Party during the Bush administration. That term and the associated movement, such as it is, didn't come into broad use until early 2009. For another, the final Federal deficit pre-debt crisis in 2007 was a mere $158B and had been steadily trending downward since the height of the previous recession five years earlier. Now we're four years past the peak of the last recession and deficits are routinely $1T+. At least the GOP occasionally cares about spending discipline: Even Bush took his second term pledge to halve the deficit seriously. All the while Democrats were chiding the GOP for not spending enough, and today they describe a small cut in spending growth in apocalyptic terms.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      > For another, the final Federal deficit pre-debt crisis in 2007 was a mere $158B and had been steadily trending downward since the height of the previous recession five years earlier. Now we're four years past the peak of the last recession and deficits are routinely $1T+. I'm tired of these freaking lies. Debt per GDP shot way up under Bush and didn't stop shooting up at basically the same slope until after 2009. The intellectual dishonesty on the right is absolutely amazing. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html > Even Bush took his second term pledge to halve the deficit seriously. No he didn't. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit Notice any trends? Really, why the unfounded Obama hate?

ataggart 14y ago

That's the same GOP candidate that Elizabeth Warren slighted for supporting marijuana legalization: http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/19/sen-elizabeth-warren-takes-dig-at-pro-legalization-senate-candidate-dan-winslow/ http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/19/sen-elizabeth-warren-takes-...

cadlin 14y ago
If you watch the video, it's clear that she's joking. It was a roast-style speech. http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-st-patrick-drove-the-snakes-out-of-ireland-to-wall-street/ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-st-p...
- ataggart 14y ago
  I'm not clear on why that matters. She's been explicit about her opposition to legalization: http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/elizabeth-warren-flunks-marijuana-question/10062011/ http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/elizabeth-warren-flunks-mari...

Danieru 14y ago

Hello spoiledtechie, I wanted to mention why I downvoted. I am worried someone will misunderstand if I follow usual protocol and skip commenting. The reason I downvoted your comment is because I think it crosses the "interesting to hackers" and "politics" greyline. As you know politics permeates society and avoiding all politics is just not possible. I understand that your comment was in good faith and not in the least bit antagonizing. I am conservative as well and it is always nice to see politicians doing the right thing. Double so if a group has often ignored their founding principles. The core reason for my objection is that we must be active in the fight against conversation degradation. To this end I hope we will avoid politics even if the article itself is political.

danilocampos 14y ago
> To this end I hope we will avoid politics even if the article itself is political. So if the article is about politics, specifically, and how that involves tech, what's to be done? A comment thread about kung pao chicken? That's not useful.
kefka 14y ago
Considering someone got thrown in the federal pokey for creating a script that increments the number in a URL, and then saved that output to a file..... Yeah, I think we DO need to have that discussion on politics with regards to Hacker News.
asveikau 14y ago
> we must be active in the fight against conversation degradation. Pardon me for using slightly political terms, but I feel this phrasing has weird totalitarian undertones.

BryantD 14y ago

I see two reasons for that. First, the GOP candidates are all further from the political mainstream than the Democratic candidates. I'm not criticizing any of them or their politics, but they're very unlikely to get elected -- Scott Brown was the Republican with a chance and he opted out. This provides a certain degree of freedom to be bold. Second, the prosecutor who pushed the Swartz case was a Democrat, so you'd expect Republicans to be pushing back. When a Republican Attorney General infringes on civil rights, the Democrats push back.

sampsonjs 14y ago

I just hope the GOP doesn't find out Swartz was a Chomsky fan. We can't defend Swartz, he was soft on terror!