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

[Ser Greguh]

Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive.

"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland."

Your claim was that US money was meant to be spent on American jobs but that went to Finland instead. As your quote shows this is patently untrue. The money was spent on American R&D work, which is where (by far) the lion's share of the work will go when it comes to a project such as this. The fact that the initial 500 manufacturing jobs (a paltry sum of the $500M budget) for the first iteration of the design went to a Finnish company is almost immaterial. I wonder, would your complaint be so vocal if it went to an American company and involved American manufacturing jobs, but if some of the parts used in that manufacturing came from another country? The ultimate cash distribution (American vs. non-American) would probably be similar.

The fact that a single plant of 500 people was the only one equipped to handle the manufacture of one specific prototype design in this instance existed in Finland, and not the US, is hardly a meaningful condemnation of the US manufacturing base as a whole; it's just a cherry-picked talking point. And the fact that the country we are (*sniff*) losing to (imagine a pouty lip and puppy-dog eyes for maximum sarcastic effect) has more generous labor laws and stricter regulation than we do does not support your underlying hypothesis to begin with.

[The Progressive]

Listen board-liberals,

Stop trying to discourage the libertarians from voting third-parties. You're not helping!

p.s. Kudos to all those libertarians (and Scot) who will choose dignity and principle and will not vote for the Republican ticket!

[Fez]

Speaking of Democratic support of gay rights, Governor Christine Gregoire in Washington State announced today that she's introducing legislation to make Washington the 7th state to legalize gay marriage.

Democrats have majorities in both legislative chambers but are apparently still a few votes short in the state senate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Lets say that OPEC had at the same time invaded Canada and Mexico, installed OPEC-friendly governments there, and had tens of thousands of troops in Calgary, Toronto, Winnipeg, Nogales, and Juarez,

No, still not at war.

But what about the embargo? The point raised was that an embargo=war. Do you agree with that, or no?

and that OPEC was stating to anyone who would listen that they would readily use nuclear weapons on the US if we didn't say...repudiate our support for Israel.

We're still not at war.

But if you're adding to the mix a threat to use nuclear weapons against us if we don't immediately stop something completely lawful that we're already doing, then we'd be justified in a pre-emptive attack.

Let's go to a much more real world scenario. Let's say Israel was virtually surrounded by regimes that embargoed it, that there are anti-Israel regimes in most of the neighboring states, that one of those states in that region has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, kill all the jews, and burn them in a sea of fire. Let's say that this nation is announcing it is developing a nuclear weapon capable of actually accomplishing that. Would Israel be considered in a state of war justifying a pre-emptive strike?

You seem to be ignoring, or at least dismissing, the overt, very direct threats Iran has made to Israel simply because it exists. Conversely, nobody here or in Israel could give two shits about Iran having a nuke if it wasn't a batshit crazy group of militants making threats to wipe out another nation.

Now truthfully, I don't think they're actually going to nuke Israel. The problem is that because of their own perverse, chest beating culture or whatever, they've essentially made threats to do just that. And when you make those kind of threats, its reasonable for nations that don't want to burn to try to prevent you from getting those weapons.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I just declared war on the Chinese place down the street that takes an hour to deliver. Think I might declare war on the local Starbucks too, the people who work there are obnoxious.

Don't know why, but that just cracked me up.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Speaking of Democratic support of gay rights, Governor Christine Gregoire in Washington State announced today that she's introducing legislation to make Washington the 7th state to legalize gay marriage.

Democrats have majorities in both legislative chambers but are apparently still a few votes short in the state senate.

Interesting. Based on the reaction to Andrew Cuomo's efforts on behalf of gay marriage in NY, I suspect that the 2016 Democratic nominee will need to demonstrate concrete support of marriage equality. Senators and governors are going to start feeling the pressure to prove their bona fides; "my views are evolving" isn't going to cut it out next time.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But what about the embargo? The point raised was that an embargo=war. Do you agree with that, or no?

I addressed that point earlier. An embargo might not equal war all by itself. I don't, for example, believe we are at war with Cuba. But, in the presence of several aggravating factors taken together (listed prior), yes I believe we are at war.

Let's go to a much more real world scenario. Let's say Israel was virtually surrounded by regimes that embargoed it, that there are anti-Israel regimes in most of the neighboring states, that one of those states in that region has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, kill all the jews, and burn them in a sea of fire. Let's say that this nation is announcing it is developing a nuclear weapon capable of actually accomplishing that. Would Israel be considered in a state of war justifying a pre-emptive strike?

Was the US justified in a pre-emptive strike against Russia during the '70's?

I'm not ignoring any threat against Israel. I'm unsure what they have to do with it, seeing as Israel != The United States.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Your claim was that US money was meant to be spent on American jobs but that went to Finland instead.

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.

The money was spent on American R&D work, which is where (by far) the lion's share of the work will go when it comes to a project such as this.

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?

And the fact that the country we are (*sniff*) losing to (imagine a pouty lip and puppy-dog eyes for maximum sarcastic effect) has more generous labor laws and stricter regulation than we do does not support your underlying hypothesis to begin with.

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

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

p.s. Kudos to all those libertarians (and Scot) who will choose dignity and principle and will not vote for the Republican ticket!

Like that would be our default? IIRC Scot voted for Obama last cycle. So that's actually a democratic vote you've lost, not Republican

[The Progressive]

Like that would be our default? IIRC Scot voted for Obama last cycle. So that's actually a democratic vote you've lost, not Republican

Lol, and I hope that he doesn't vote at all this time, like you said you would.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Lol, and I hope that he doesn't vote at all this time, like you said you would.

Didn't vote last time, or the time before that, won't vote this time. It does amuse me that you feel smug about being part of a system of corruption, violence, and fraud.

[The Progressive]

Didn't vote last time, or the time before that, won't vote this time. It does amuse me that you feel smug about being part of a system of corruption, violence, and fraud.

BOYCOTT THE CORRUPT SYSTEM!!!

lol, i just hope the rest of your libertarian ilks would stand by their claim of voting third-parties.

[The Progressive]

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.

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?

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

Manufacturing in the US has been increasing steadily the last several quarters, so I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

And besides, to use Finland as a counterargument against American unionization and governmental regulatory framework is about as dumb as anyone can get because Finland's industrial profile sure looks like a libertarian laizze-faire paradise ............ NOT!

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/finland.pdf&sa=U&ei=P9MET_XDCYPv0gHd7ez9DA&ved=0CBAQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGVCzNe3FNjilUmjs3FP3GNuTaOzg

[lupis42]

Ah...so because a party sometimes produces results one does not like, the best choice is to simply not vote? Seems to me that refusing to make a choice is itself a choice (at least in this context). So while you opt out on Election Day, all you're doing is allowing those who didn't to push the levers of power. So if TP and I decided that DOMA drove us from the Democratic Party, all we would have done is deprive the more gay-friendly party of our support and further empower the GOP. That's a choice, too.

I notice that, in another post, you seemed to indicate that because Barack Obama has made some decisions you (and I) disagree with, that he's "evil." I think very few politicians can reasonably be called evil, even if the policies they support have negative consequences. Refusing to engage in the political process because it's messy, or regarding elected officials are diabolical...well, that in my opinion is a child's view. I prefer to view, and participate in, politics with a healthy skepticism...like an adult.

I don't think he's 'Evil' because he makes decisions I disagree with in general, but I do consider a couple of his decisions to be inherently destructive to the entire concept of the rule of law - most importantly the assassination of American citizens without due process, and the indefinite detention of people suspected of terrorism.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

Until then, I considered Obama to be a huge disappointment, but I would not have called him 'evil'.

Speaking as a liberal I find the Paulite/capital-L-libertarian support for military isolationism to be directly in support of total world chaos and utterly fucking insane. As much as I detested and feared Bush's policy of random invasion, I fear the prospect of an isolationist president in the white house far, far more; while Paul's cry rallying cry of "I'd bring the troops home!" acts as a great applause line among those that are ignorant of foreign politics and that can ramble all day as to the malicious military-industrial complex (was ever a meme more dishonest?), it draws shudders in those of us that actually believe the US should have friends overseas and that want us to have viable contingency plans in place in case, for example, Pyongyang gets uppity and nukes Seoul.

I don't think it's a terrible idea to have friends overseas, but I don't consider stationing troops in foreign countries, toppling governments, and conducting diplomacy as though we had some sort of inherent moral superiority to be conducive to making friends.

I think that our expansionist and interventionist foreign policy throughout the cold war helped to create much of the instability that is now out there, and is in no small part to blame for the rise of many of the current terrorist groups and rogue states. It's also worth considering the possibility that, despite our entirely deserved sense of guilt over the holocaust, Israel as a nation is not actually a very good ally, and Iran would not be nearly as dangerous, nor as obsessed with getting nuclear weapons, had it not been for our invasion of Iraq.

I don't disagree that the expansion of the surveillance state, the increasingly paramilitary nature of police departments, and the continuation and escalation of the racist and ineffectual war on drugs are a problem. They are not, however, for all your shrill screaming, even remotely worrisome enough (yet) for me to consider wasting my vote on an otherwise radically-insane candidate that wouldn't actually be able to do anything about any of that to begin with (I think a lot of Libertarians in particular forget that we are not electing a king here). Single-issue voters are pathetic; it's an excuse to motivate people who frankly aren't intelligent enough to grasp a larger picture.

If over 8 hundred thousand people arrested every year, 90% of whom are charged with nothing but possesion of a plant, is not remotely worrisome, what would be? If 20% of our population in prison isn't enough, what would be? I don't consider myself a single issue voter, but I find Obama to be singularly lacking on all but a few issues. (Incidentally, I'd say Mitt Romney is similar, but without the upsides).

Also, Obama neither legalized extrajudicial murder nor ended the 4th amendment.

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/2011/09/30/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.

Hmm... are we talking about different things? These will happen, indeed, but within the 2 parties. I thought the claim is that by voting third-party you are going to make third-parties more viable? Or did I misunderstand?

I may have been unclear - what I am suggesting is that, after the primary process, voting third party is way to signal extreme disatisfaction with your current party without directly supporting the opposition. It does make the opposition more likely to win in the short term, though, so it's generally something to consider when you consider your own parties candidate to be pathetic and the opposition not much worse.

I guess if we are already firmly in the category of myth with a Ron Paul presidency, we can further posit the even more unlikely end to the drug war.

In the mean time, I'll take non-hypocrites, non-racists and people who don't shit on the rights of minorities.

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.

No, the part where Ron Paul supporst isolationism does though.

Cite?

And Obama has invaded nowhere new and did pretty much exactly what he said he would on the wars. Call me when he starts another Iraq invasion.

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.

The rest of your post was paranoia and strawman bullshit I'm ignoring.

[Fez]

If over 8 hundred thousand people arrested every year, 90% of whom are charged with nothing but possesion of a plant, is not remotely worrisome, what would be? If 20% of our population in prison isn't enough, what would be?

I'll leave the rest of your post to others, but for this I just have to say: What?!? Where exactly are you getting these numbers from?

The incarceration rate in the US is closer to 1%, which is horrifying high, but no 20%. And, according to the FBI. in 2010 (the most recent data year) there were 13,120,947 total arrests, of which 1,638,846 were drug related (that's all drugs, not just pot); or about 12%.

Both are bad yes, but making up numbers is no way to win an argument.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I'll vote but I'll never vote for Santorum. I'm highly unlikely to vote for either of the two major parties this year.

[The Progressive]

Scot,

Would you consider voting for Romney or Gingrich?

[lupis42]

I'll leave the rest of your post to others, but for this I just have to say: What?!? Where exactly are you getting these numbers from?

The incarceration rate in the US is closer to 1%, which is horrifying high, but no 20%. And, according to the FBI. in 2010 (the most recent data year) there were 13,120,947 total arrests, of which 1,638,846 were drug related (that's all drugs, not just pot); or about 12%.

Both are bad yes, but making up numbers is no way to win an argument.

My apologies, it looks like the site I had used was giving aggregate, not annual numbers.

[Ser Greguh]

I don't think it's a terrible idea to have friends overseas, but I don't consider stationing troops in foreign countries, toppling governments, and conducting diplomacy as though we had some sort of inherent moral superiority to be conducive to making friends.

I think that our expansionist and interventionist foreign policy throughout the cold war helped to create much of the instability that is now out there, and is in no small part to blame for the rise of many of the current terrorist groups and rogue states. It's also worth considering the possibility that, despite our entirely deserved sense of guilt over the holocaust, Israel as a nation is not actually a very good ally, and Iran would not be nearly as dangerous, nor as obsessed with getting nuclear weapons, had it not been for our invasion of Iraq.

Ah, this is a capital example of where the Libertarian argument non-sequiturs from a reasonable gripe to a statement of abhorrent insanity. I agree that our policy in the middle east in particular has not shown a particularly positive track record. I don't actually believe that Israel has been a great ally. So what? I also happen to think that that's an astonishingly poor excuse to establish a foreign policy position that would likely lead to their utter annihilation.

If over 8 hundred thousand people arrested every year, 90% of whom are charged with nothing but possesion of a plant, is not remotely worrisome, what would be? If 20% of our population in prison isn't enough, what would be? I don't consider myself a single issue voter, but I find Obama to be singularly lacking on all but a few issues. (Incidentally, I'd say Mitt Romney is similar, but without the upsides).

First of all, I fully and unequivocally support ending the drug war. Second of all, I wish you didn't, because bullshit numbers and shrill, stupid arguments do more harm than good to the cause. Please educate yourself before attempting to make an argument. Third, the notion that anyone, even the most vocal, articulate anti-drug-war candidate on the face of the earth, would actually be able to enact meaningful policy change on that issue by his/herself is ridiculous. We're not electing a king, we're electing a president, and any meaningful change will at some point need to involve a legislature that is in lockstep against reform (which in turn reflects overwhelming popular support, although we are making some strides in young people in particular on the issue of marijuana).

[TerraPrime]

Shryke,

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

As long as the consequences of a limited government (federal? state? both?) is worth the trade off, I suppose. I personally don't see how it's a fair bargain, considering the horrific turn of events like, I don't know, Sheriff Joe. Local dictatorships are going to be magnified in a system with weakened or eliminated Federal powers.

And, really, it sounds much like a pipe dream. Large enough number of people living in close proximity with commercial and social interactions will require some form of governance. Order and civility are not going to materialize on its own without enforcement, i.e. use of force to leverage compliance, ergo, government. Limited government is fine for villages and farming colonies, but for a country as complex as the U.S. in a world as interconnected as we are today, that pining comes across as something born out of a disconnect to reality.

Are there some parts of the jobs of the Federal government that can be subsumed by local authority? Sure. Is that the better option? I must believe that it ought to be a case-by-case scenario. For instance, regulating food safety for edible products? Yes, we can do it state-by-state, and have 50 regulatory policies (or, I guess, none, in the wettest of libertarian dreams), but is that really the better option?