US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[solomon]

What do you mean about the differences between Americas and Europe's attitude?

[SaintessHeart]

Spoiler for Why some people don't want Obama to be re-elected in 2012:

[Ithekro]

Trouble with statistics. If you aren't on unemployment, but don't have a job...you aren't counted at all as far as I can tell.

As for limited resources..,.I still contend there are more resources...we just have to go out to get them. They might not be oil (unless there was plant-life on Mars a very long time ago) but there are things we can use out there and it would potentially provide jobs, depending on how it is done.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Trouble with statistics. If you aren't on unemployment, but don't have a job...you aren't counted at all as far as I can tell.

As for limited resources..,.I still contend there are more resources...we just have to go out to get them. They might not be oil (unless there was plant-life on Mars a very long time ago) but there are things we can use out there and it would potentially provide jobs, depending on how it is done.

Yes, its been pointed out repeatedly but the government (left or right) won't acknowledge the under-reporting. If you aren't on unemployment and don't have a job - you don't exist. I should know, I've never been on unemployment. I work contracts. In between contracts - I'm not counted as "unemployed". I've been trying to find a regular full-time employment for four years now. Companies are not hiring for long term. They are expecting the contract workers to fund all their own training while paying them less and less. Then they whine they need more H-1B because they "can't find qualified people".

People who give up and stop looking (out of frustration, depression, etc) are also uncounted. The "job growth numbers" and "unemployment" numbers are basically bullshit of the first order. Unemployment is probably double what is reported (near 20% of employable people who want to work). Underemployment (e.g. Programmer working at Taco Bell flipping fries to make ends meet) is huge. The "new jobs" pay much less than the "old jobs".

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Trouble with statistics. If you aren't on unemployment, but don't have a job...you aren't counted at all as far as I can tell.

As for limited resources..,.I still contend there are more resources...we just have to go out to get them. They might not be oil (unless there was plant-life on Mars a very long time ago) but there are things we can use out there and it would potentially provide jobs, depending on how it is done.

The problem with resources is not so much they will run out. None of the critical resources will run out in the foreseeable future and that even goes for oil. Rather the problem is as an economy grows it requires more and more resources every year.

To make a simple example, if I own a car company and manufacture cars I need 100,000kg of metal to make my 100 cars. However if my company grows 2% year on year then next year I need 102,000kg of metal the second year. If this growth continues then every year my resource demands increase and so people have to supply me with more metal. The problem comes when the suppliers can no longer meet this increasing demand so the cost of the resource becomes higher and higher. Substitution and efficient use of a resource can offset this growth for a time but if this exponential growth of the company (which can extend to countries) is not stopped then we reach the same problems. Technology can only delay the problem for a number of years...

Also with most resources a point is reached when we hit maximum production and from then on production or extraction of the resource goes into terminal decline because the remaining sources of the resource require a lot of technology/energy and cost to extract. As the most profitable sources are depleted first then people must depend on more marginal sources and the extraction process becomes quite slow due to the increasingly complexity of getting that resource. More capital, technology, energy, financing is required and sometimes even military expenditures are required to gain access to the resource.

The maximum production level is often known as peak. So perhaps you may have heard people talk about peak oil. Peak oil is not running out of oil but rather when oil hits maximum production. What will happen to an economy when production declines yet businesses operate with the expectation that production levels or flow rates will continue to increase? It is likely to lead to big shocks particularly if we consider the fact these declines will occur even if great investments are made to increase flow rates.

Also what is common when extracting marginal sources of a resource is the potential environmental damages become greater. The spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a great case-study of a company chasing a marginal source using complex technological processes and when an accident did occur due to using new and unproven technology the environmental consequences were that much higher.

[Vexx]

The trends in the US do not bode well for its future... the decline of science, for example.

http://io9.com/5878503/watch-neil-de...in-180-seconds

The time period of trend analysis is not an accident - there was a fundamental shift instituted during the Bush Administration in both suppression of science for ideology and mortal cuts to science expenditures. Prior to that - both sides of the aisle kind of understood the need.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/your...cks_at_science

Chronic underfunding of science in K-12 (and education in general) leads to accelerating generational spirals of stupidity.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The trends in the US do not bode well for its future... the decline of science, for example.

Another worrying trend in science is patents. I don't know exactly when biological patents were started, but when I started graduate school we were already being told about how patents generate a lot of money for the institution. Whereas academic science used to be about publishing papers, a new focus was added in: acquiring patents. My lab boss filed for a patent off of my project, although I have no idea what could even be patented from it, and many other researchers at my institution were taking patents on various genes. They're not making tons of money off of the basic science patents - one researcher claimed he made around $200 in a year off of a gene that he patented - but I'm still worried about the trend. Look at the software industry, and it seems like nobody can do a single thing without triggering a patent dispute. How many resources are being sunk into patent research, to make sure that you're not doing something that someone else patented? The academic research community is already financially strapped - that would be a huge drain to have to do that, and would slow progress even farther. (Industrial research can afford it, they have no money woes...)

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

I am a bit confused with what is your message here. Your two examples are individual level decisions (that already happen on a wide scale). They are not objectives of government policies. You are not telling us what kind of support government should or should not give to its citizens.

How much help they get from the government and under what conditions are government decisions.

For family subsidies, I'd condition them to not having more children until they stop needing those aids any more. (Though even that would be simplifying my views - I don't mind helping young couples with their first kid or two, and I especially don't mind helping kids realise their potential. It's turning kids into sources of income I don't like. While parenting your kids is a duty, reproducing should be a hobby, not a job.)

And for the housing - I'm talking about government-assisted or -provided housing. I think those who don't need it should be made to give it back, and that those unwilling to be flexible about location for no good reason should be bumped to the bottom of the list.

Originally Posted by Zakoo

"Children they can't afford" is a harsh sentance, european countries mostly give money to the family with a lot of children, and not a bit, how they use this money though is another thing.

I don't understand what you mean.

I'm sorry to be blunt but to not see social mixity as a priority is a bit ... foolish, how should I put in? It's fine to say we must do everything for people to have job, and things like that, after all we humans live in the present, but a state, a country, is eternal, it can goes on for centuries,

Which in no way tells me why social mixity is important.

politics shouldn't be done on the present simply to please a bunch a voter,

I don't run for office. I don't care about any voters. (And if I did, I'd profess more popular views.)

this is the future of a country you are messing in when you do politics, to not see social mixity and natality as a priority is utterly a non sense.

It's a matter of priorities. Rather than house one poor family in a posh Parisian street, I'd prefer to house ten in the far suburbs. As far as I'm concerned, social mixity can be achieved by empowering the kids to seize a better life through a good education and a good job after that.

As for natality - I really don't see that we have a problem there. And should we really get one, it'll always be time to pursue an aggressive family policy then.

Originally Posted by Zakoo

I believe that poor people aren't poor because they want it, thinking that they are poor because they don't work enough wouldn't even go through my mind, life is made of luck, it's typical of lucky people and people who succeded thanks to a bunch of others factors to think they worked hard and everybody can do it.

No, the system is made so that people can succeed, others need to fail, what's behind is whether we let those "failure" alone or we help them.

I don't know what your actual thought is, but that's a highly simplistic way to present things. Certainly, luck plays a big role. But so do choices and effort. Every year, for god knows what reason, college students pick glutted majors that companies actually don't find attractive. It's no surprise if unemployment is all that awaits them at the end of it. Of course, if you're passionate about the subject, I can understand. But it's a gamble either way. Or, heck, more simply, kids just don't put in the work necessary to succeed in school, and leave it with no degree of any kind. Making it big may take extraordinary luck (and to those who made it big through being geniuses and hardworking - I'm not trying to deny your qualities), but making it kinda average takes kinda average luck. Especially in France, where there aren't big entry barriers to higher education.

Also, taking it as obvious the poor should be helped - how? Do you try to maximise the result by focusing on those most likely to succeed, or do you spread resources evenly knowing the lack of concentration will mean nobody really gets anything? Do you just give them enough to scrap by and complete freedom to do so, or do you kick their asses toward something more ambitious?

Besides, unless you're superstitious, there's not much anyone can do about the luck element. I prefer to focus on what can be helped.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Trouble with statistics. If you aren't on unemployment, but don't have a job...you aren't counted at all as far as I can tell.

That's not how it works.

They calculate unemployment by doing a scientific poll, and asking a series of questions.

3 of those questions are:

1. Have you been paid to do any work in the last 2 weeks?
2. Have you applied to any jobs in the last 2 weeks?
3. Are you looking to perform paid work in the near future?

If you answer no to the first, and yes to the latter 2, you are counted as "unemployed".If you answer no to the first 2, and yes to the last, you are counted as "discouraged" unemployed, and if you answer no to all 3 you aren't unemployed at all (EG housewives would fall into this category).

They don't use unemployment welfare figures, as they don't cover all the unemployed, for instance university graduates can not collect unemployment, likewise those who left a job voluntarily.

If the pollster comes by your house, and you answer that you looked for work in the last 2 weeks, and haven't done any paid work in that time, you are considered "unemployed". That is the sole criteria.

They use a pretty big sample (I think it's something like 60,000 households) from a wide variety of locations, which, barring systemic biases, gives <1% margin for error.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

They calculate unemployment by doing a scientific poll
...
They use a pretty big sample (I think it's something like 60,000 households)

I don't know, maybe it's a different system in Ireland.

[Mr. DJ]

every sane fiber of my being has been brutally offended

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/pr...ource=activity

Here it is. The Georgia judge has ruled that Obama is not eligible to appear on the GA ballot.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

every sane fiber of my being has been brutally offended

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/pr...ource=activity

The birther issue again?! I don't know what's worse - the fact that a judge, someone who is supposed to be an educated person who bases decision on evidence and reason, actually did this on his own... or the fact that this blog and the comments on it seem to be supporting the decision.

[Dhomochevsky]

Last comment:
"This looks like the "requested action" that the atty's drew up for the SOS and judge. Which would explain the blank date and no signature. "

ie. this is what the attorney wants the judge to sign, not an actual verdict.

[Ithekro]

Which brings up a, "Is this legitimate" in the case that Obama will be removed from the voting in Georgia?

Also bring up the point that Georgia is not entirely Republican held...it went roughly 52% for McCain in 2008 and about 47% Obama. Though in all likelihood, without a major push it would probably vote majority Republican anyway (meaning even if Obama was on the ballot, the electoral votes would still go Republican...he's just be down a few million on the total popular vote...which would only look weird.)

Though the claim brings up the question again from a different angle. Instead of challenging where Obama was born, they are challenging based on his father's citizenship. Which actually would be a smarter move than challenging Obama's claim to be born in Hawaii, since you cannot deny his father was a British citizen from Kenya, since that is fact. What can be challenged is what the Constitution means by "natural born Citizen"...and it has been challenged before.....many times before....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

[Mr. DJ]

Unless it's a Native American doing it, I don't think anyone holds any rights to challenging someone else as a natural born citizen the world does run on hypocrisy

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't know, maybe it's a different system in Ireland.

That's for the US, I actually don't know how they calculate unemployment statistics in Ireland.

Also, the accuracy of a sample is based purely on it's size and composition. A 2000 person poll of a single university is just as accurate as a 2000 person poll of the entire USA, so long as those 2000 people are sampled representatively.

[Ithekro]

Natural Born Citizen is suppose to be a messure to make sure the President is loyal to the United States and the United States alone. As oppose to (back in the 18th century) European aristocracy or the like. Or that a foreigner would use his power to re-setup a monarchy...something like that. They wanted to avoid the President having a conflict of interest between the United States and some foreign power.

The Supreme Court, as far as I can tell, has never issued anything on the subject matter and won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

The thing is...about all the first Presidents has been British citizens prior to the Revolution. Though I believe all had been born in the Colonies. However the Act that Obama's father would be under wasn't written until the 20th century.

Under the 1948 Act, CUKC (Citizenship of the UK & Colonies) status was acquired by:

• birth in the UK or a colony (which does not include birth in the Dominions or children of 'enemy aliens' and diplomats). The immigration status of the parents was irrelevant.
• naturalisation or registration in the UK or a colony or protectorate
• legitimate descent from a CUKC father for children born elsewhere. Only the first generation acquired British nationality automatically. Second and subsequent generations could do so only if born outside the Commonwealth (or Ireland) and registered within 12 months of birth or if the father was in Crown Service.
• incorporation of territory (no persons ever acquired CUKC this way from 1949)
• declaration
• marriage

What does it matter to US law? Probably nothing. Though by British law, if I understand that correctly, at birth, Obama would have been a Commonwealth Citizen. If everything from his father was in order of course.

The idea being that, to those going after him on this level, that the President would have two loyalites...one to the United States, and one the Great Britian. Of course he's shown no loyality to the Queen that I am aware of (I probably have more loyality to the Queen because I respect her more than the President). Though maybe it is the threat of precedence that worries them more than anything else. (Or that they think he's muslim, is half-black and all sorts of other things that really don't play into the actually issue at all on a legal point of view).

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What does it matter to US law? Probably nothing. Though by British law, if I understand that correctly, at birth, Obama would have been a Commonwealth Citizen. If everything from his father was in order of course.

The idea being that, to those going after him on this level, that the President would have two loyalites...one to the United States, and one the Great Britian. Of course he's shown no loyality to the Queen that I am aware of (I probably have more loyality to the Queen because I respect her more than the President). Though maybe it is the threat of precedence that worries them more than anything else. (Or that they think he's muslim, is half-black and all sorts of other things that really don't play into the actually issue at all on a legal point of view).

You can't reasonably bar Dual citizens entirely from being president. You can, of course, force them to renounce their other citizenships, which would be quite proper.

Anyway, even if technically he was eligible for UK citizenship, he never applied for it, so the point is moot.

[Mr. DJ]

in the end...this would have to be a movie level conspiracy theory for his citizenship to be false

[Ithekro]

You can't reasonably bar Dual citizens entirely from being president. You can, of course, force them to renounce their other citizenships, which would be quite proper.

Anyway, even if technically he was eligible for UK citizenship, he never applied for it, so the point is moot.

Most would agree. Others would not simply because of precedent. Others because they don't like him and found a slim chance way to get rid of him.