Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans
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.
... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.
Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
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.
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!).
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Keep in mind, the amount of cable-news time that can be devoted to something has no relation to how big an event it actually is.
You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.
If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little. The parties are almost identical on all important issues, so you put your money wherever your direct interests lie.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Can't be Obamacare failures
20M more people have health insurance: http://time.com/2950961/obamac... 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...
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).
You seem to completely ignore the other branch of government called Congress who controls the money. When you brought up Benghazi, you lost all credibility with me.
MighyYar's right, and this is coming from a bleeding heart California liberal that is not happy the GOP is going to get rewarded for its antics with increased power in DC, and is also really not happy that Silicon Valley (also known as where I work and live) is starting to tilt to the right.
The current difference between the two parties right now is pretty solely on wedge issues. They have the same monetary policy, the same foreign policy, neither party is realistic about tax policy on the middle class (it needs to be higher, along with the high earners), neither party wants to bust the cap on Social Security and Medicare (while I appreciate the extra bucks at the end of the year, I think those programs need it more than me), etc.
For all the hype about the "core differences" in the 2012 election, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama were so close on the political compass that it was a John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson situation.
I happen to feel that the social issues are important enough for the Democratic party to be the clear choice, but to get back to MightyYar's point -- Silicon Valley is very business-driven, and CA law would preserve nearly all protections that the Republicans could take away at the federal level (barring the PPACA) as far social politics are concerned. From a Silicon Valley business perspective, both parties are roughly the same when considering the direct effect they'd have, and even more so when you realize that FWD.US and other H1-B visa supporters are realizing that they only way they'll get those increased H1-Bs they want is to get some sort of immigration reform done, even if that means supporting an odious Republican policy rather than a Democratic solution that isn't showing any signs of life.
Not to mention that most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered Democrats down in Bakersfield or Orange County.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
The scale of the crap that the Republican party does is completely fucked up.
Yes, like when George Bush started monitoring all of our phone conversations? That sucked - I'm sure glad the Democrats fixed that when they assumed power.
Or when George Bush started "drone diplomacy"? I'm sure glad that Obama put an end to all of those drone attacks.
That huge Wall Street bailout? Yes, I'm sure glad that Obama came in and ended that program.
How about "Gitmo"? Obama really shined when he closed that down.
He got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, too!
Under Bush, we treated illegal immigrants shamefully, but Obama has really fixed that, too!
I'm sorry, but the difference between Republicans and Democrats in recent history has been a military that is slightly more gay and slightly more people on some kind of government assistance for healthcare (be it Medicaid or an "Obamacare" subsidy). Of course, George Bush enacted Medicare expansion as well, so...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And Obama fixed that, didn't he? If only he had passed some kind of comprehensive health legislation where he had an opportunity to fix that issue...
-Zippy
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.