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

[Shryke]

Ah, so when you say "I would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran", it actually means "I won't do anything about Iran.", unless you are a Republican, then it means "I will include nuclear strikes in the oath of office".

The key, again, is "I would be willing".

A Democrat especially can't be seen as weak on foreign policy. It plays too much into the narrative. Even a Republican would probably be lambasted for saying something like "No, I would back off from Iran if it came down to it".

What you have to look at is what they say they want to do, not what they say they are willing to do. Cause no serious presidential candidate is ever gonna say they aren't willing to go all the way to "defend America" or whatever. It's a platitude.

Obama hasn't said he wants to go to war with Iran. The GOP candidates on the other hand...

I think war is quite unlikely.

Sure, Obama has said he'll stop them from getting nukes. Okay, then why isn't he actually stopping them? Does he expect to get some reliable pre-announcement that they've "almost" got them, so that unless he bombs them right now, they will have them? It won't work that way. We'll just wake up one day, and Iran will have either detonated a weapon, or claim that it has one. And I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether it is Obama or Romney. We did a lot of blustering about North Korea, and guess what? They've got nukes, and there's no war.

The only real threat to attack Iran militarily to prevent it from acquiring a nuke will come from Israel, and that threat exists regardless of whom we elect.

At this point, US/Israel/maybe some others are gonna keep trying to sabotage Iran's nuclear program and Iran is gonna keep trying anyway. Without a major change in power in Iran, I don't see this working indefinitely though.

I figure Iran is eventually gonna get a nuke and then it's all up to in what way Israel shits it's pants about the issue.

The question, vis a vis the election, is whether the US will be content to keep just sabotaging the program with covert action. And the GOP seems very keen on saying they would go further.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hell, the US would be better served by a true multi-party system rather than the duopoly we've had for centuries.

What you'd really need to let have a multi-party system is proportional representation, but that option isn't on the ballot. Until it is, third party votes are symbolic votes to which nobody pays attention except the person casting them.

[Fez]

Shryke,

Why would I give my vote to anyone with whom I disagree on core principles? If that means I vote "third-party" so be it. Hell, the US would be better served by a true multi-party system rather than the duopoly we've had for centuries.

Best work to change our election system them.

And if its an incredibly close election and your vote for the third party helps lead to someone you agree with maybe 2% of the time win over someone you agree with 25-30% of the time is that something you are okay with? Why? Isn't best to have the best available option, even if its not so good, win?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Why would I give my vote to anyone with whom I disagree on core principles? If that means I vote "third-party" so be it. Hell, the US would be better served by a true multi-party system rather than the duopoly we've had for centuries.

Sure, but the US system won't allow that to happen. Certainly not since about early last century when the two parties basically consolidated power over the electoral process.

Your choice is always between the viable parties, not every party. This is true even in multi-party systems. I mean, I could vote Natural Law or Marxist-Lenonist up here in Canada, but don't kid yourself and think that just because there are like 9 parties on the ballot in my riding, that the race isn't actually just between Conservative/Liberal/NDP. (And Bloc if you are in Quebec.)

You don't vote for which party you want to win, you vote in such a way that your desires are best carried out. I may be, hypothetically, a communist at heart, but I know the communist party is never gonna win in my riding. So I instead vote NDP because they are the party that could win that will best reflect my desires for the political process.

For the US specifically, the primary process is the best place to change the potentially winners. See how the Tea Party moved the GOP more towards what they wanted from a candidate as an example.

Because it increasingly seems like that 25-30% that I agree with the "lesser evil" candidate on are on issues that I deem to be of lesser importance in the grand scheme of things. When it comes to the police state, the military-industrial complex, infringement on rights, the duopoly is in lockstep.

That's because the electorate is in lock-step on this too. There's no net gain in tacking hard against "national security".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

Advice which if followed guarantees a D or R in all positions of power for all eternity.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Sure, Obama has said he'll stop them from getting nukes. Okay, then why isn't he actually stopping them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-asks-iran-rq-170-sentinel-drone-back/story?id=15140133

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1.-us-bases-in-the-middle-east-a.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/iran-nuclear-scientist-bomb-attack

What else do you want? Actual war?

[Dinsdale!]

I think war is quite unlikely.

Sure, Obama has said he'll stop them from getting nukes. Okay, then why isn't he actually stopping them? Does he expect to get some reliable pre-announcement that they've "almost" got them, so that unless he bombs them right now, they will have them? It won't work that way. We'll just wake up one day, and Iran will have either detonated a weapon, or claim that it has one. And I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether it is Obama or Romney. We did a lot of blustering about North Korea, and guess what? They've got nukes, and there's no war.

The only real threat to attack Iran militarily to prevent it from acquiring a nuke will come from Israel, and that threat exists regardless of whom we elect.

Maybe he does expect a pre-announcement. My impression is that Mossad and CIA infiltration of Iran's nuclear program has been pretty successful. I have to admit that this impression is entirely anecdotal (and could even be US government propaganda), but it is entirely possible that the US and allies know exactly the status of Iran's nuclear program. And this is not the sort of knowledge that you or I would be privy to.

[Shryke]

Because Romney has already demonstrated that he isn't that great at getting the support of the general public.

If Romney can't get the support of the general public, he won't get elected in the first place.

The only way Romney wins is if he pulls in alot of support and that means he'll have coattails that will sweep in a bunch of other GOP politicians.

The chances of getting a GOP president and a Democratic congress are very slim.

So "I would be willing to do anything" means "I won't do anything" from Obama? This is your argument?

No one will ever say they wouldn't be willing to do anything. It's a meaningless statement from a president or candidate. The key is what he says he wants to do.

I'm not saying that gays should vote Republican, but the electorate doesn't do much for them, or the hardline christian nutjobs, because these are "safe" votes on each side. As long as that continues to be true, they aren't going to get much respect unless they start demonstrating or donating on a much larger scale.

Except DADT is gone now. And DOMA is getting seriously challenged as well. So this statement of yours just isn't even factual.

Given that he has possibly the best track record of anyone in Washington on not being bludgeoned into anything, I'm dubious. However, I'll agree that this is the thing most likely to cost him the GOP nomination.

What track record? All Paul has a track record on is ignored rhetoric and funneling pork to his own district. Paul is a non-entity except when he runs for President.

Because his first targets would be the police state - especially the massively corrupt and racist War on Drugs. More generally, our government has gotten way too bloated, and the bloodletting he'd bring would be no bad thing. As for foreign policy, I don't see what's wrong with 'live and let live'? He's already stated that he believes abortion and gay rights should be state issues, and while I disagree with that, I'm prepared to accept a president I don't like on some issues to get back some basic civil rights like the right to not be murdered by my government, or detained without charges or due process.

You might be, but I doubt it's gonna be your uterus at risk or your lack of getting served at a restaurant. And frankly, ending the War on Drugs is likely gonna be a pain in the ass without congressional support, whereas states-rights is an easy sell. You'd be silly to think the first would happen before the second.

On foreign policy it would just be a disaster for US interests. Paul isn't "Live and Let Live", he's isolationism (an idea that's dead in the age of the global economy) and mercenaries/war-crimes.

I view a choice between Romney and Obama the way I would a choice between arsenic and hemlock. The only winning move is not to play.

You don't get to not play. A Democrat or a Republican is getting elected. All you get to do is contribute or not. You can't leave the game though.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

http://en.wikipedia....ns_against_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=15140133

http://www.antiwar.c...ddle-east-a.jpg

http://www.guardian....ist-bomb-attack

What else do you want? Actual war?

I don't get your point. Personally, I don't want war over it, though if Israel wants to go to war, I'm fine with that.

I'm simply pointing to the reality that this is just poker, and I have no problem with either Obama or Romney beating the war drums because I don't believe they'll go through with it. It is a bluff, intended to delay the Iraninan acquisition of nukes, or possibly to make war-averse other nations cooperate better in sanctions. But I don't, for a moment, believe that either of them will actually go to war over this. The cost-benefit just isn't there. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

But if it helps you paint them as unreasonsable war-mongers just itching to actually go to war, so you can continue ranting against two political parties you feel are indisguishable and unreasonable, feel free.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm of the opinion that TAA doesn't really know what all is happening in the name of that "national security".

I'm of the opinion that you don't know as much about the rest of the country as you think you do.

Some PD's really are closer to Andy Griffith than to a paramilitary unit. It all depends on the locations, department, etc. I think most Americans understand that some PD's, because of their size, mission, etc. are a lot more "paramilitary" than others.

[Shryke]

I'm of the opinion that TAA doesn't really know what all is happening in the name of that "national security". I mean, how many people really know that your local police department is more of a paramilitary unit than it is Andy Griffith and Barney Fife? A growing number of people want to see the legalization or at least the decriminalization of a number of illegal substances, which means a scaling back or cessation of the War on Drugs, which has been responsible for many of the abuses of the police state. In my mind, it is the power brokers and the party elites who are invested in the national security police state, not TAA.

How many times has Sheriff Joe been reelected?

You'd be amazed what people will ignore if it's not happening to them.

[TrackerNeil]

I view a choice between Romney and Obama the way I would a choice between arsenic and hemlock. The only winning move is not to play.

How is refraining from choosing between the two major party candidates "winning"? And what exactly do you win?

[Just a peasant]

The local news media here in New England were reporting Romney with 47% of the likely primary voters in NH with the nearest competitor, I think Ron Paul, at 17.

http://www.wbur.org/2012/01/04/nh-gop-campaigns

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I don't get your point. Personally, I don't want war over it, though if Israel wants to go to war, I'm fine with that.

I'm simply pointing to the reality that this is just poker, and I have no problem with either Obama or Romney beating the war drums because I don't believe they'll go through with it. It is a bluff, intended to delay the Iraninan acquisition of nukes, or possibly to make war-averse other nations cooperate better in sanctions. But I don't, for a moment, believe that either of them will actually go to war over this. The cost-benefit just isn't there. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

But if it helps you paint them as unreasonsable war-mongers just itching to actually go to war, so you can continue ranting against two political parties you feel are indisguishable and unreasonable, feel free.

My point is that we're already at war. Economic sanctions? Check. No formal diplomacy? Check. Cyber attacks? Check. Terrorist and guerilla attacks? Check. Espionage? Check. Weapons of war being sent into their territory? Check. Troops massed on the border? Check.

I don't see how anyone can look at the facts and pretend that the US doesn't want war with Iran, since we're already making war on them.

How many times has Sheriff Joe been reelected?

You'd be amazed what people will ignore if it's not happening to them.

That's racism, not a desire for a continuation of the drug war.

We actually legalized medicinal cannabis last year, but our psychotic governor sued her own state (or something like that) in federal court to keep the confirmed will of the people from being law.

How is refraining from choosing between the two major party candidates "winning"? And what exactly do you win?

Dignity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sadly, I'm seeing a lot of Santorum signs in my travels through rural SC.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nice spin FLOW, Too bad for you it´s bullshit.

That's not a very nice thing to say, so I assume you can back it up. Here's the entirety of what you quoted from my post, so please tell me exactly what part of this was "bullshit":

We are losing manufacturing to a lot of countries other than China. For example, one of the recent green projects into which the U.S. taxpayer sunk over $500M to create jobs is going to result in the production of said autos in...Finland!

Because from everything I've read, the U.S. loaned over $500m to Fisker, which could not find any facility in the U.S. to manufacture the car. So, they did the research and other work here, but actually build the car itself at a plant in Finland, where they are still making them today. At the time the loan was made in 2009, they supposedly were going to be built in Delaware. But that hasn't panned out, and they're still being built in Finland.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14770875

The Administration's spin on this is that none of the loan money is actually going to the production facility in Finland. That seems rather immaterial given that money is fungible, and non-government money freed up by paying for workers and equipment in the U.S. with government money can then be spent elsewhere.

But regardless, that spin doesn't make the statement false. We loaned a company over $500B to develop and build this electric car, and it is being built in Finland. Maybe you don't take that as a sign of problems with the U.S. manufacturing base, but I do.

[Fez]

Fez,

Advice which if followed guarantees a D or R in all positions of power for all eternity.

What ensures that is a first-past-the-post election system. Work to change the system if you want to see other parties; then I'll be right there with you voting for the candidates that best represent me. Until then I'll take the best I can get.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My point is that we're already at war. Economic sanctions? Check.

Refusing to trade with someone is an act of war? And here I thought you were Mr. Libertarian. Or did you confuse "embargo" with "blockade"?

No formal diplomacy? Check.

So us not wanting to put an embassy in Tehran (gee, I wonder why....) is an act of War?

Cyber attacks? Check. Terrorist and guerilla attacks? Check.

I didn't see any evidence in your links that these were U.S., as opposed to Israeli, acts.

Espionage? Check.

Since when has espionage been an act of war? Good grief, by that definition, we're at war with Israel too.

Weapons of war being sent into their territory?

What are you talking about here? I assume you're not talking about an unarmed drone taking pictures....

Check. Troops massed on the border? Check.

Uh, what? What invasion force do we have massed on their borders, ready to roll at a moment's notice? And don't give me a map with a bunch on facilities marked on it. Facilities don't invade countries -- troops do. So what divisions do we have sitting on their borders?

I don't see how anyone can look at the facts and pretend that the US doesn't want war with Iran, since we're already making war on them.

You know, maybe you should join the military or something and see what a war really looks like. But anyway, since you think we already are at war, you don't think it would be an "act of war" if Iran blew up a couple of our ships with missiles, or started taking potshots at our troops, or took the U.S. mission staff in Tehran hostage?

[lupis42]

Best work to change our election system them.

And if its an incredibly close election and your vote for the third party helps lead to someone you agree with maybe 2% of the time win over someone you agree with 25-30% of the time is that something you are okay with? Why? Isn't best to have the best available option, even if its not so good, win?

Because continually voting for the "best of the bad options" helps to ensure that your options are equally bad next time around. The average politician's goal is, effectively, to be ever so slightly over the bar where you'll vote for him, and ahead of the other guy. Every time you lower the bar, they can lower their efforts. If you raise the bar, they may not rise to meet it, but the next guy is going to try harder. The Tea Partiers in several states are demonstrating the effectiveness of this.

If Romney can't get the support of the general public, he won't get elected in the first place.

The only way Romney wins is if he pulls in alot of support and that means he'll have coattails that will sweep in a bunch of other GOP politicians.

Romney is much more likely to win because of resentment and antipathy towards Obama stemming from the crappy economy than from any popular belief in his message. This will not help the existing Republican congress at all.

What track record? All Paul has a track record on is ignored rhetoric and funneling pork to his own district. Paul is a non-entity except when he runs for President.

A track record of voting against, and speaking out against, unconstitutional expansions of federal power.

You might be, but I doubt it's gonna be your uterus at risk or your lack of getting served at a restaurant. And frankly, ending the War on Drugs is likely gonna be a pain in the ass without congressional support, whereas states-rights is an easy sell. You'd be silly to think the first would happen before the second.

It's not my uterus, but it's also not my family being held at gunpoint by SWAT teams because we might own the wrong plant. I'm not going to stop getting served in restaurants, but neither am I that likely to be thrown in prison on a trumped up charge, or have a bomb dropped on my head from a drone.

I agree that abortion and non-hetero-normal people's rights need protecting, but we're imprisoning (like, in real, PIMTA prison, for decades) kids who get convicted of things that more than one former US president has admitted to doing. We have a president who considers himself to have the authority to unilaterally imprison and kill people, without any sort of due process. That's simply not acceptable, at any price.

On foreign policy it would just be a disaster for US interests. Paul isn't "Live and Let Live", he's isolationism (an idea that's dead in the age of the global economy) and mercenaries/war-crimes.

Free trade and free immigration do not equal isolationism. He opposes using our military to police the world, which was exactly what the left was screaming for after eight years of the cowboy-in-chief, but as soon as we got a brown guy in the WH, bombing brown people as the national military pastime became Ok again?

You don't get to not play. A Democrat or a Republican is getting elected. All you get to do is contribute or not. You can't leave the game though.

Voting third parties, donating to the opponents of candidates who fail to meet their promises (and telling them why), writing letters, and standing out in the cold holding signs still works. Otherwise, someday you (or your children) will be wondering why there's a black bag over their head and where the van is going.

How many times has Sheriff Joe been reelected?

You'd be amazed what people will ignore if it's not happening to them.

Coming from someone who seems to support the NDAA, the Patriot Act, and the use of extrajudicial murder by the executive branch, I agree.

[Ser Greguh]

I don't see how anyone can look at the facts and pretend that the US doesn't want war with Iran, since we're already making war on them.

War is war. Boots on the ground, invasion of a country, sending in our military to kill people and break their stuff on an overwhelming scale.

This is not war. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Just because our foreign policy doesn't coddle a nation doesn't mean we're actively looking to invade them. There is an enormous gulf between those two points.