11–20 of 31 posts
I would hate to see this become a partisan issue. There are plenty of people on every side who hate this crap.
Obviously, the best situation would be for majorities in both parties to be against this stuff. But a world where Republicans are against it and Dems are for it is much better than the world we've had for the last few years, in which both parties were on Hollywood's side.
Great! Now if the Republicans also cut their ties to religion and stopped wasting so much money on war zones, they could become a party worth voting for.
I would hate to see this become a partisan issue. There are plenty of people on every side who hate this crap.
I'd be happy to see the parties compete on this issue of how to make Hollywood and friends no longer a threat to free speech and the net. Democrats could push for European-style subsidy of production. Republicans could push for letting the market work - advertising, product placement, etc are all that's needed. Both programs can agree on eliminating copyright for entertainment works.
I can see the Republicans trying to strongly dissociate themselves from SOPA, but I give it approximately 0% chance that they're going to recant the DMCA or Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, or even loosen their position on the DMCA moderately to the extent of supporting more exemptions to the anti-circumvention clause.
While this may work in the short term, this is exactly what I was worried about - for Internet freedom to become a partisan issue - with some standing to defend Internet freedom, and others wanted to restrict it. Because that means that eventually a party or a candidate will be elected to implement those restrictions. That would be an awful outcome, and I hope we can maintain Internet freedom as bi-partisan, or bette…
This is idiotic. Silicon Valley and all the surrounding areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic. One stupid piece of legistation doesn't overcome the fact that the GOP are science-hating religious zealots. Republicans have a LOT of work to do before many people in this region would even consider a vote for them.
Keep in mind that a republican does't necessarily have to get a democrat's vote to come out ahead in this case. All it takes is for the democratic voter to be so disgusted with his party's position that he either votes third party or doesn't vote at all.
I despise the idea of it becoming a for & against partisan issue because of the swell of support that would ultimately result in, but it could be politically effective in an evil-ish way.
Great! Now if the Republicans also cut their ties to religion and stopped wasting so much money on war zones, they could become a party worth voting for.
I believe my time is better spent promoting federalism and other variations of "live and let live" than convincing others to drop their religion.
But this does highlight the fact that our overly-simplified view of political parties in the United States as monolithic entities of zombie-politicians who take marching orders from the party establishment is quite out of step with the reality, particularly where conservatives are concerned. The GOP is a surprisingly diverse political entity, accepting the likes of Ron Paul on one extreme and George W. Bush on the other. Indeed, in the "center", it can often be difficult to tell the difference between "moderates" of either party.
All of which is to say, it is often unwise to make sweeping statements about large political entities simply because prominent politicians within that movement are vocal about a particular issue. Often the fight within a large political party is as heated as the battles with other political parties. Savvy voters would do well to recognize that fact.