Support NeoGAF

[Yellowtail]

After 2012, when pretty much everyone in the party, including leadership, was completely convinced that the presidential election was in the bag, I hesitate to make any sort of guess as to what the party thinks about their chances in 2016.

I don't think the GOP ever really understood why Obama was so successful - in their echo chamber he's some uppity Muslim looking socialist community organizer, and the 2010 midterms gave them reason (as delusional as it was) to believe that youth and minorities would stay at home after they'd voted only to make history in 2008.

On the other hand it's pretty clear they're terrified of Hillary - she's a white woman whose name is Clinton. They can see Middle America voting for her. Hence all their congressional investigations and attempts to throw every scandal at her right out of the gate. But this likely only benefits her: she incites so much instinctive loathing and fear that is unique to her as a candidate that Republicans are unable to contain themselves; instead of trying to offer a winning platform they're going to spend the next 18 months overreaching themselves into oblivion.

 

[Treechopper]

At this point I'm thinking the GOP is just praying they can pull off a miracle nationally while being content with their gains during the local midterms. I have a hard time thinking they don't realize their extreme right policies aren't electable nationally. They said as much right after they lost the last election and then doubled down on the hard right policy anyway.

I think they're forced into this position by the way. Mostly by their own hand. They created the tea party monster that forced everyone locally to shift further to the right. I feel like the establishment would like a return to a more moderate climate, they just have no fucking clue how to get there. Can't undo what's been done.

I agree with the notion that they know they're screwed nationally, but only on a presidential basis. Although their influence is waning (severely in some cases), Republicans will always have a pretty high lower bound of voters because they chose to be the other side of the coin for single issue voters on things like abortion, immigration, and so on.

As someone said last page, some of those issues are still a 50/50 split so local Republicans promote those views and focus on local issues they can fix. For the people that are pro-life, anti-immigration, etc. they feel like there's still a candidate for some office they can support. This is why Ted Cruz is even in office. The people I know that voted for him don't necessarily like him, he's just on the right side for the one issue that matters.

 

[Macho Madness]

 

[Metaphoreus]

Federal overreach at its finest: Obama Administration: Times Square Must Remove Iconic Billboards:

It is known as the “Crossroads of the World,” the “Center of the Universe” and “the Great White Way,” but Times Square could become like the “Black Hole of Calcutta” if the federal government has its way, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported Tuesday.

The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.

. . .

The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included, Kramer reported.

. . .

City Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg agrees.

. . .

Among the options the city is considering is to attempt to get an exemption from the federal government, Kramer reported.

Thanks, Obama.

 

[Coriolanus]

instead of trying to offer a winning platform they're going to spend the next 18 months overreaching themselves into oblivion.

When would be the last time they've done that?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Federal overreach at its finest: Obama Administration: Times Square Must Remove Iconic Billboards:



Thanks, Obama.

Why do these stupid articles go to print? They'll get the exemption.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Federal overreach at its finest: Obama Administration: Times Square Must Remove Iconic Billboards:



Thanks, Obama.

Yeah, it's horrible that there's no way to get an exem - oh wait, it's right in the article. It's almost like the law allowed for times when the law wouldn't cover 100% of cases, but would still be a good law the vast majority of the time.

 

[User 406]

Well, he does have a higher IQ than any man alive, and he's going to fix everything, and he's going to do it all in one week.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think Walker becoming the nominee and losing would be the best thing to happen to the current GOP in the long run. I have no doubt they'd try, but it would be much harder to make the "He wasn't conservative enough!" accusation stick with someone whose entire career has been the poster boy for all hard right policies

If Bush was the nominee and lost that tells them nothing - they can just blame it on him being a Bush.

Exactly. They'll blame it on the Bush baggage which begs the question. Why would they want to go that route if it came to it?

People like Reince Priebus privately should be hoping he isnt their nominee. They know the dynamics that would be at work in that situation. No way Jeb can escape his families baggage no matter how much he tries to separate himself from them.

If they lose with a "true conservative" this time, they can rebuild sooner. If they nominate Bush and lose, they will blame it on him and elect the "true conservative" next time and lose in a landslide.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/0...egion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0&referrer=

Get ready for the GOP to go on the abortion offensive and charges of liberals "not listening to science! Ignore our climate change stance both sides"

 

[The Technomancer]

Remember, Scott Walker has no college degree

I refuse to believe that poll was answered honestly. So at most 12% of Americans aren't comfortable with a black person in the white house?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I refuse to believe that poll was answered honestly. So at most 12% of Americans aren't comfortable with a black person in the white house?

Well it's a hypothetical. A lot of Republicans would be just fine with a black president if that black president was Ben Carson.

 

[thepotatoman]

Exactly. They'll blame it on the Bush baggage which begs the question. Why would they want to go that route if it came to it?

People like Reince Priebus privately should be hoping he isnt their nominee. They know the dynamics that would be at work in that situation. No way Jeb can escape his families baggage no matter how much he tries to separate himself from them.

If they lose with a "true conservative" this time, they can rebuild sooner. If they nominate Bush and lose, they will blame it on him and elect the "true conservative" next time and lose in a landslide.

I'm not sure which scenario I'd prefer. What would a rebuilt republican party even look like?

 

[BertramCooper]

Federal overreach at its finest: Obama Administration: Times Square Must Remove Iconic Billboards:



Thanks, Obama.

Try harder.

 

[Mario]

I'm not sure which scenario I'd prefer. What would a rebuilt republican party even look like?

If they ditched the Tea Party / evangelical aspects which is the stuff holding them back most (abortion, gay marriage, climate change, immigration reform), I assume they'd be a lot more successful if they took more of a Libertarian approach that was focused on personal freedoms, States Rights, "pro business", and "pro defense".

Would be a lot less scary for them getting into office based on that sort of platform that what they currently have.

 

[thepotatoman]

If they ditched the Tea Party / evangelical aspects which is the stuff holding them back most (abortion, gay marriage, climate change, immigration reform), I assume they'd be a lot more successful if they took more of a Libertarian approach that was focused on personal freedoms, States Rights, "pro business", and "pro defense".

Would be a lot less scary for them getting into office based on that sort of platform that what they currently have.

But how many libertarian types vote Democrat instead of Republican as it is? Are there enough libertarian types to build a majority coalition with?

 

[Mario]

But how many libertarian types vote Democrat instead of Republican as it is? Are there enough libertarian types to build a majority coalition with?

No idea whether they would ultimately be successful or not.

But I imagine removing the overly religious and discriminatory rhetoric and policy positions while retaining a "personal responsibility" angle would coax a lot of people across who are otherwise currently turned off by religious kooks and racist undertones.

 

[pigeon]

If they ditched the Tea Party / evangelical aspects which is the stuff holding them back most (abortion, gay marriage, climate change, immigration reform), I assume they'd be a lot more successful if they took more of a Libertarian approach that was focused on personal freedoms, States Rights, "pro business", and "pro defense".

Would be a lot less scary for them getting into office based on that sort of platform that what they currently have.

Meanwhile, there are evangelicals saying that a party that gave up on economic warfare via rich and corporate tax cuts and went back to religious roots by combining social conservatism with progressive social programs would finally be a healthy party again.

When a party coalition collapses, all the members of the coalition are pretty sure the solution is to get rid of the others and focus on their core issue.

 

[Trouble]

NOT SURE 2016

 

[Grexeno]

NOT SURE 2016

SHRIEKING WHITE-HOT SPHERE OF RAGE 2016

 

[Mario]

Meanwhile, there are evangelicals saying that a party that gave up on economic warfare via rich and corporate tax cuts and went back to religious roots by combining social conservatism with progressive social programs would finally be a healthy party again.

When a party coalition collapses, all the members of the coalition are pretty sure the solution is to get rid of the others and focus on their core issue.

Given the nature of the Tea Party and some Evangelicals who are somehow convinced they represent (or should represent) the majority of Americans, getting marginalized in a future Republican party would no doubt crystallize them and see them form their own new (smaller) party to "take America back".

Heck, they've already pretty much threatened the Republican establishment with that and occasionally operate as a pseudo-independent group in Congress anyway.

 

[User 406]

No idea whether they would ultimately be successful or not.

But I imagine removing the overly religious and discriminatory rhetoric and policy positions while retaining a "personal responsibility" angle would coax a lot of people across who are otherwise currently turned off by religious kooks and racist undertones.

The problem is, the "personal responsibility" thing is one of the racist undertones.

 

[Coriolanus]

Meanwhile, there are evangelicals saying that a party that gave up on economic warfare via rich and corporate tax cuts and went back to religious roots by combining social conservatism with progressive social programs would finally be a healthy party again.

When a party coalition collapses, all the members of the coalition are pretty sure the solution is to get rid of the others and focus on their core issue.

Y'know.

Assuming only two parties, one that wants massive infrastructure spending and a reworking of the welfare system and taxes in order to implement pretty much keynesian economics, but that is ye olde socially conservative party.... and the other that is a libertarian's wet dream...

Inclined to believe that the first is the considerably lesser evil.

 

[Mario]

The problem is, the "personal responsibility" thing is one of the racist undertones.

I think if they distanced themselves from older, white, religious fundamentals and some of their discriminatory language, then "bootstraps" wouldn't feel as racist.

 

[pigeon]

Y'know.

Assuming only two parties, one that wants massive infrastructure spending and a reworking of the welfare system and taxes in order to implement pretty much keynesian economics, but that is ye olde socially conservative party.... and the other that is a libertarian's wet dream...

Inclined to believe that the first is the considerably lesser evil.

Well, except that first party also wants to go to war with Iran as soon as conceivably possible, while the second is the dovish party.

(Incidentally, the characterization above of a libertarian GOP offshoot that's pro-defense is pretty incoherent -- libertarians are definitionally against defense spending, because it's part of the government. Cutting defense is rapidly becoming a mainstream GOP position.)

I think if they distanced themselves from older, white, religious fundamentals and some of their discriminatory language, then "bootstraps" wouldn't feel as racist.

I mean, sure, but it would still BE as racist. It's intrinsically a racist idea, because the entire concept of cutting social services was designed to deprive people of color of needed support. So I suspect people would notice.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I refuse to believe that poll was answered honestly. So at most 12% of Americans aren't comfortable with a black person in the white house?

I actually think even most right-wingers would be OK with a "good" black President like Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas. Not ya' know race hustlers or community organizers that the rest of the black people on the Democratic Plantation fall for.

 

[Mario]

I mean, sure, but it would still BE as racist. It's intrinsically a racist idea, because the entire concept of cutting social services was designed to deprive people of color of needed support. So I suspect people would notice.

Given the short memory and lack of effort and rigor a lot of Americans seem to apply to understanding what they are actually voting for, I suspect a lot of people wouldn't.

Besides, for those that do, I imagine it becomes easier to side with policy which only has subtle racist undertones than overtly racist ones.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Skim milk.

 

[JesseEwiak]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/06/ - In which Mike Huckabee begins to sound like a Republican I wouldn't hate in office, as long as the Supreme Court decided on gay marriage and like, ENDA was somehow passed in office.

Oh right, he'd still be appointing Supreme Court justices. Hrm...

 

[Mike M]

Huckabee's oratory ability is pretty great, but the content makes me grind my teeth. I don't want a preacher (former or otherwise) anywhere near the presidency.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/06/ - In which Mike Huckabee begins to sound like a Republican I wouldn't hate in office, as long as the Supreme Court decided on gay marriage and like, ENDA was somehow passed in office.

Oh right, he'd still be appointing Supreme Court justices. Hrm...

Yeah except his solution is to cut everyone's taxes.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Yeah except his solution is to cut everyone's taxes.

Well, since I don't care about the deficit all that much, as long as he's not using that as a cover to cut everything else in government that doesn't pay out money to white people in the South, he'd still be the least worst option. Which again, isn't saying much.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why do these stupid articles go to print? They'll get the exemption.

Yeah, it's horrible that there's no way to get an exem - oh wait, it's right in the article. It's almost like the law allowed for times when the law wouldn't cover 100% of cases, but would still be a good law the vast majority of the time.

Try harder.

Sheesh. Uncircle the wagons, kiddos. The election is still a year-and-a-half away and Obama's not even running. In your haste to discredit any criticism of the Obama administration, you've decided to defend the application of a law designed to beautify the interstate highway system to 7th Ave. and Broadway in the middle of Manhattan. The only "exemption" baked into the relevant statute seems to be one that would suspend the application of the Highway Beautification Act to the entire state of New York. Alternatively, and what the Federal Highway Administration has suggested, certain roads could be removed from classification as part of the National Highway System. We'll have to wait and see what the ultimate solution is, but it's obvious that they're improvising rather than following some well-thought-out Congressional plan.

In other news, Constitutional challenge filed to prior restraint of information about 3D-printed guns:

Today, my colleagues and I filed a complaint in federal district court in Austin, Texas against the State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry on behalf of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation. This case concerns the government’s censorship and prior restraint of information about 3D-printed guns. The suit alleges that the State Department’s enforcement actions have violated our clients’ First Amendment right to free speech, Second Amendment right to bear arms, and Fifth Amendment right to due process.

I will have a lot more to say about this case in the coming days. In the meantime, you can read a law review article I wrote in the Tennessee Law Review about regulations on 3D printed guns.

More from the NYT:

When is a gun not just a gun? When it’s also constitutionally protected free speech.

That is the legal argument being made by Cody Wilson, a Texas man who gained attention two years ago by posting what are believed to be the world’s first online instructions for how to build a 3-D printable gun. Mr. Wilson’s files for what he called the Liberator, a single-shot pistol mostly made of plastic, were partly a statement about freedom in the digital age and partly a provocation — and provoke they did.

A few days after the plans for the Liberator were put online, the State Department ordered Mr. Wilson to remove them, threatening him with jail time and million-dollar fines for having possibly broken rules that govern the export of military data.

Now, with a high-powered legal team behind it, Mr. Wilson’s company, Defense Distributed, has filed suit against the State Department, claiming that its efforts to stop him from publishing his plans, which are no more than computer code, amount to a prior restraint on free speech. The 25-page suit, filed on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Austin, Tex., is an innovative and apparently unprecedented effort to use the First Amendment in support of the Second.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Hey, a world where everybody can 3D print a gun and nobody can have Medicare if they live in a red state - Metamucial's dream world!

 

[Jooney]

Skewed. No way could an unnamed black candidate could beat these two patriots.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Good to see a black guy winning.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hey, a world where everybody can 3D print a gun and nobody can have Medicare if they live in a red state - Metamucial's dream world!

To be fair, the gun printing stuff is really interesting, as far as legal challeges are concerned. Especialy since it's a problem that the whole world will have to face.

Except for countries that already restricted gun bearing rights to high heaven, obv.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Except for countries that already restricted gun bearing rights to high heaven, obv.

I don't think they'll escape the issue, either. What are they going to do, restrict the sale of 3D printers or censor the Internet? Because if 3D printers are readily available, and the blueprints for printing a gun are readily accessible online, there's not much a government can do to prevent people from printing firearms without the government knowing ahead of time.

 

[Macho Madness]

May 27th. Santorum.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/06/rick-santorum-president-announcement/

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said on Fox News tonight that he will announce his decision on whether to make another run for the GOP presidential nomination on May 27.

I've seen the clip and he's all smiles and he's making the announcement in his hometown. Why USA Today is speculating I don't know.

 

[Coriolanus]

I don't think they'll escape the issue, either. What are they going to do, restrict the sale of 3D printers or censor the Internet? Because if 3D printers are readily available, and the blueprints for printing a gun are readily accessible online, there's not much a government can do to prevent people from printing firearms without the government knowing ahead of time.

Do the same thing they do with anything illegal: arrest anyone that they can get at.

And by anyone i mean mostly brown people.

Governments around the world still try to prevent people from growing a borderline harmless plant, ffs.

 

[B-Dubs]

Do the same thing they do with anything illegal: arrest anyone that they can get at.

And by anyone i mean mostly brown people.

Governments around the world still try to prevent people from growing a borderline harmless plant, ffs.

Making a gun out of plastic seems a little more serious than growing weed.

 

[Coriolanus]

It is. Which is why it's so interesting!

Best shot at new gun control legislation in the US, imo.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Do the same thing they do with anything illegal: arrest anyone that they can get at.

Well, sure, but that's after the gun has been printed and potentially entered into commerce. Presumably, governments that prohibit guns have a pretty good handle on the gun trade within their borders. But 3D printers and the Internet mean that there are suddenly many surreptitious points of entry for guns into the country.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, sure, but that's after the gun has been printed and potentially entered into commerce. Presumably, governments that prohibit guns have a pretty good handle on the gun trade within their borders. But 3D printers and the Internet mean that there are suddenly many surreptitious points of entry for guns into the country.

More than likely they'll put safeguards in 3D printers to prevent the printing of these parts, like modern printers and copiers have when it comes to currency. 3D printers aren't going to lead to every country rethinking their gun laws, it would be stupid if they did.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Well, sure, but that's after the gun has been printed and potentially entered into commerce. Presumably, governments that prohibit guns have a pretty good handle on the gun trade within their borders. But 3D printers and the Internet mean that there are suddenly many surreptitious points of entry for guns into the country.

If you want the population to start supporting heavy government interference in tracking Internet traffic, tell an European electorate American web sites will allow criminasl to 3D print guns on to their streets.

Even the leftie Commie parties will be voting for laws that'll make it easier for the government to track people and install stiff penalties for anybody who is found with the information on their computer.

 

[thepotatoman]

No idea whether they would ultimately be successful or not.

But I imagine removing the overly religious and discriminatory rhetoric and policy positions while retaining a "personal responsibility" angle would coax a lot of people across who are otherwise currently turned off by religious kooks and racist undertones.

Personal responsibility might not do as well without the more overt racist undertones you see today. It's also hard to do personal responsibility without racist undertones when one race is financially doing so much better than others.

I think it might have to ultimately become Canada/Europe's version of conservatives who just want to move forward slowly v liberals who want to move forward quickly, instead of the regressive republicans that we see today.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Even the leftie Commie parties will be voting for laws that'll make it easier for the government to track people and install stiff penalties for anybody who is found with the information on their computer.

Even?

 

[Gotchaye]

More than likely they'll put safeguards in 3D printers to prevent the printing of these parts, like modern printers and copiers have when it comes to currency. 3D printers aren't going to lead to every country rethinking their gun laws, it would be stupid if they did.

This seems like a very hard problem. Like, the value of a 3D printer is in its ability to make durable objects to precise specifications out of a variety of materials. It's relatively easy to prevent counterfeiting of money with a paper printer because the money can be specifically designed to require printing technology which is basically useless outside of money-printing (so there's no legitimate demand for printers that can do that). I guess printers do try to detect when you're trying to print money, but again this problem is a relatively easy one because good printed money is money that looks as much as possible like other money. The 3D-printed gun problem is more like having a modem that detects when you're trying to pirate music and doesn't let you. It's really hard to specify in advance what a gun looks like, as far as the printer is concerned.

 

[B-Dubs]

This seems like a very hard problem. Like, the value of a 3D printer is in its ability to make durable objects to precise specifications out of a variety of materials. It's relatively easy to prevent counterfeiting of money with a paper printer because the money can be specifically designed to require printing technology which is basically useless outside of money-printing (so there's no legitimate demand for printers that can do that). I guess printers do try to detect when you're trying to print money, but again this problem is a relatively easy one because good printed money is money that looks as much as possible like other money. The 3D-printed gun problem is more like having a modem that detects when you're trying to pirate music and doesn't let you. It's really hard to specify in advance what a gun looks like, as far as the printer is concerned.

Well with 3D printed guns the printer just prints the parts, you have to do the actual assembly. Just put in a thing that won't let a unique but vital part be printed and problem solved.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well with 3D printed guns the printer just prints the parts, you have to do the actual assembly. Just put in a thing that won't let a unique but vital part be printed and problem solved.

Right, but that's not how guns work. You can do that with money because you can design the money to look unique. Guns are pretty simple machines and what the user cares about is how all the parts end up working together to function rather than the specific details of any one part. So you can't just load every printer with a particular specification that it will always refuse to print. Someone will design a modified version of that part that still serves the same function but which is different enough that the machine will have a hard time identifying it as the kind of part it's not supposed to print.

It's very similar to the problem of detecting whether someone is downloading a particular song or a cover of that song. Your detection system basically has to be able to exercise nearly-human judgment about similar-but-not-identical objects and it's got to be able to figure out if the target object is being hidden inside of a larger object or is being delivered in pieces or anything like that.

Now, if the printers are somehow forced to always be updating with the latest gun designs to block and it's feasible to identify new gun designs and patch all printers quickly, you could pull this off, but that seems like a hard problem in itself.

Edit: I feel like the most promising way to stop printers from making effective guns in the way you're talking about would be to just prevent them from making holes the right diameter for common kinds of ammunition, but that's potentially pretty limiting depending on how well bullets tolerate slightly-too-big barrels.