US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[Ser Greguh]

No, it wasn't. Please quote the passage where I said that. My point was that we were investing in a company that had to ship production jobs out of the country. There are lots of jobs other than production jobs, but I think it is an indictment of the extent to which our manufacturing sector has either declined, or priced itself out of competition. Or, perhaps, where green ideology trumped job creation.

And again, would your complaint be as vocal (or even present) if it weren't the production jobs that were being shipped overseas, but instead the raw material business? Because practically every investment ever made in an American company has done that; it's a globalized world and it's virtually impossible to make any kind of business investment in ANY country where another country, directly or indirectly, won't siphon some of the benefit of that investment. By the very nature of your objection you are characterizing this one example of outsourcing as something that it's not.

R&D work does not help the working class or restore manufacturing. Not if the production work is being shifted overseas. Shit, I'll bet a bunch of that R&D work was done by people over here on work visas. And shit, if we're going to subsidize something, isn't there something we could have found that would have produced manufacturing jobs in our own country?

Oh, so now an investment doesn't mean anything unless it helps the working class, and the middle class engineers that perform the R&D are suddenly irrelevant! It's, like, totally awesome how quickly the goalposts shift out from under an untenable position.

To answer the question, yes, we could have (and did) find an investment that will produce manufacturing jobs in our country. But no, we couldn't have (and will never be able to, nor could practically anyone) find an investment that will produce manufacturing jobs in only our country, which is as far as I can tell the only substantive gripe in your statement. So no matter what investment anyone makes, loudmouths that don't understand how manufacturing actually works will have one complaint or another.

What are their wage rates compared to ours in the auto industry?

I don't know, but I do know that if worker wage rates are your primary concern, you stay the fuck out of Europe as a whole (I work in manufacturing btw). What they do have, and probably had in this case, was a specific plant that was more up-to-date with the required technologies than ours currently are. To the degree that that trend is systemic, that's a problem, but it's not nearly so dire as you claim; the fact that the second-gen plant is being built in Delaware is a concrete indication that it won't be a long-term hindrance to US job creation. Second gen always trumps first gen.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Never Gingrich. Romey... I doubt it.

[Ser Greguh]

Gingrich will never, ever come close to the presidency, and here's why:

FADE IN:

Black text over a white screen reads:

Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was on her cancer bed.

Hold for duration of spot.

FADE OUT

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates a formal "Declaration of War" before U.S. forces may engage in hostilities. Nor does the Constitution prescribe specific verbiage or limitations of any kind for such a Declaration.

Whatever the war authorizing power is, the Constitution grants that power to Congress exclusively. It's as clean and unrestricted a grant of authority as you can get, requiring only the specified majority of both houses to be valid.

Whatever the objection to Presidential uses of force without Congressional authorization, there is no legitimate basis to challenge Congressional authorizations for the use of force as somehow invalid just because they come with more strings attached than a full Declaration of War.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So Newt divorced his wife while she was laying in bed dying of cancer? Yeah, sure he did.

I think you've been watching too much Lifetime television.

[Galactus]

I don't know, but I do know that if worker wage rates are your primary concern, you stay the fuck out of Europe as a whole (I work in manufacturing btw).

Depends. Wages are actually lower in Europe, but it's made up for by significantly higher regulatory and taxation costs. (IE: A finnish worker likely gets out less of his paycheck than an american dito, but I'm not certain his employer pay any less)

[Ser Greguh]

So Newt divorced his wife while she was laying in bed dying of cancer? Yeah, sure he did.

I think you've been watching too much Lifetime television.

There's a reason I phrased the post in the form of a political ad: it doesn't have to be unambiguously true, just true enough that you can't really call it an outright lie (even that is fuzzy), and more importantly, it has to speak to a more true, but more subjective statement: that Gingrich is, by any meaningful standard, a completely repellent excuse for a human being.

[The Progressive]

Remember when Flow got really worked up and valiantly defended Gore over the bullshits orchestrated by the Repubs that Gore claimed he has invented the internet?

Lol, me neither.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I'm sure I'm late again, but: No, Greguh was very careful to leave out 'dying'. But, as we saw even when it was debunked here a while ago, people already have this vague half-recollection of Newt doing exactly what you just said. People would then associate this lie with Gingrich everytime the "ad" played, even though it's not explicitly there.

Of course, a number of people think that his personal douchebaggishness would not happen in an official capacity, so might vote for him even if they did still think the false story about the deathbed divorce. (AFAIK, the "not pretty enough" comment hasn't been denied or countered, so opponents could also take that tack if they wanted. Easy enough to rebut that you say mean things things you regret about someone you're divorcing, though.)

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

It occurs to me that Rick Santorum's Iowa results give me the perfect excuse to post

from his 2006 campaign.

[Ser Greguh]

It occurs to me that Rick Santorum's Iowa results give me the perfect excuse to post

from his 2006 campaign.

Holy shit. LOL. I'm sure that's one of those concepts that worked on the drawing board, I guess.

[The Progressive]

You know, if the Newt cries more often, maybe that would help his sagging poll numbers, lol.

[TerraPrime]

So Newt divorced his wife while she was laying in bed dying of cancer? Yeah, sure he did.

And Obama's a socialist, Muslim atheist. You act as if the truth is relevant these days.

Remember when Flow got really worked up and valiantly defended Gore over the bullshits orchestrated by the Repubs that Gore claimed he has invented the internet?

Or the Death Panel ads? Anyone else remember FLoW's response to those? Yeah, me too.

[Ser Greguh]

To be clear, I wasn't attempting to prop up the statement as a truth; I don't want to go down that rabbit hole and didn't mean to spark a general discussion on the nature of honesty (or the lack thereof) in politics.

I just meant to reiterate that his opponents have enough ammunition to throw at him that will resonate more than enough with the average voters. You don't come back from that, not at the level of a presidential election.

And he is truly a repellent human.

[Shryke]

Well besides try in vain to extend the deadline to keep the troops there, only pulling out when the Iraqis would no longer consider our troops immune from criminal acts. (individual criminal acts, don't worry, obama can still bomb away)

even if he didn't say it explicitly, he implied to many of he people that voted for him that he would at least decrease the foreign adventurism. He hasn't

What? Dude, Obama's entire position on the wars in 2008 was "Get out of Iraq and double-down in Afghanistan". I mean, I guess if you weren't paying attention you might be disappointed but he's pretty much done exactly what he said he would.

Also, Obama didn't want to extent the occupation, he wanted to leave behind a small number of forces (the same way the US has done all over the damn world). The Iraqis said no.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

No, I suggest we limit government power so people aren't so desperate to be in control of it.

So no government then. Cause with any amount of power comes those that covet it. It's like you've never seen a condo or HOA board or something.

And that's even discounting the effects of less government power. Having been reading some stuff about environmental sustainability today, I can tell you without the government your life is a hell of alot more cyanidey. That's a synonym for fun, right?

[Shryke]

Did I miss the part where Awlaki got a trial, or the part where his killer's where charged with a crime?

http://www.salon.com...09/30/awlaki_6/

Typo on the 4th, I meant the 5th amendment - and I admit, it is a melodramatic phrasing, but the NDAA is extremely worrying.

No, you missed the part where what happened to Awlaki was already legal.

And the NDAA does have issues, but it's not like Obama is the one writing it. Shit, he's said:

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Which, you know, doesn't unpass the law, but is at least something.

In general, be careful with Greenwald. The man's got a serious bout of paranoia going on about security-state stuff.

So you'll take the guy who signed the NDAA directly after he said he would veto it? The president who promised to close Guantanamo Bay, to come up with an alternative to Military tribunals, create a centralized database of lobbyists and ethics information, reduce earmarks, and introduce a comprehensive immigration bill inside a year?

Ron Paul is far from my ideal candidate, but he's be consistently supportive of the same things for almost thirty years. Hardly hypocritical. And while he doesn't do nearly enough to recognize the rights of minorities, he at least wants to reduce the power of his office to do damage in that direction one way or the other.

Obama can't veto the NDAA (too many votes) and did try to shut down Guantanamo (Congress refused to fund it).

Ron Paul is against earmarks ... and yet funnels pork to his own district like crazy.

He claims to be libertarian, but is anti-abortion, anti-civil-rights and flat-out racist.

The only thing Ron Paul has been consistent on is being bat-fucking insane and anti-federal government. Of course, he just wants to replace the power of the government with oppressive state-level government, so you know...

Nowhere that wasn't Libya, or does that not count for some reason? I'm not saying we were wrong to be there, but we have a process for declaring war, and a limit on what the president can do without a declared war, and he didn't abide by it.

When did the US invade Lybia again?

[sologdin]

doesn't unpass the law, but is at least something.

the hype over the recent NDAA is astounding, even within the context of the regular low standard of US journalism.

section 1021 grants, inter alia,

authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection B pending disposition under the law of war.

covered persons includes

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

that's fairly limited, but includes US citizens.

however:

Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

and further however:

Nothing

in this section shall be construed

to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of

United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,

or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United

States.

section 1022 on the other hand allows detention of covered persons

in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

covered persons[/i[, again, are:

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an

associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant

to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B to have participated in the course of planning or

carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the

United States or its coalition partners

Somewhat limited, that.

Further limitations:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain

a person in military custody under this section does not extend

to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain

a person in military custody under this section does not extend

to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis

of conduct taking place within the United States, except to

the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

　

so, to summarize: section 1021 alters no power of the president and no right of the citizen. section 1022 is inapplicable to citizens and applicable to residents only in conformity with the constitution.

what’s the big deal about this, apart from the libertarian and leftwing critiques that have made the rounds about all of the war statutes? are there really teabaggers out there who seriously think that this statute is BHO’s attempt to imprison them in FEMA camps?

[Shryke]

are there really tea baggers out there who seriously think that this statute is BHO’s attempt to imprison them in FEMA camps?

Yes.

They also think he's coming for their guns and that he raised their taxes.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

You laugh now, Shryke, but wait until Obama uses the Fairness Doctrine to murder unborn babies.