Those are myths alright. Not sure if they're held by American voters or held by you about voters. I'm leaning towards the latter.

And... to be perfectly clear...

I'm not just advocating for deliberate investment and cultivation of manufacturing jobs. It just so happens that those are the ones being spoken of at this time, because those are the ones lost by virtue of American elected officials not keeping their word to act on behalf of what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans while simultaneously making America look like it's not willing to follow it's own rules.

The broad based economic benefits of having a strong manufacturing sector have not even begun to be mentioned. They are many.


Look at the correlations between manufacturing losses and disparity of wealth. They are not accidental... it is no coincidence. It's not the only reason, but it is certainly one.

Listen, I suspected earlier on in this conversation that you were going to attempt to talk in meaningless rhetorical political gibber-jargon...

What I'm saying cannot be properly expressed in such shallow terms as "nationalism" or "populism"...

So do us both a favor and quit trying to stuff ten gallons into your five gallon bucket.

Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur.
— creativesoul
What makes you think that? — Relativist

If you would have read past that... you would not have had to ask.

Sigh...

:roll:

This sounds a bit like Trump promising to save jobs in the coal business, which was compared to saving jobs at Blockbuster Video renting VCR tapes. — Relativist

More red herrings and non-sequiturs...

So are you saying that it's still OK to take advantage of cheap labor in foreign countries? — Relativist

How about substituting what I am saying in your question... then you wouldn't have one.

:brow:

What makes you think that? Here's why I say this: Manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the decline for decades, but those lost jobs have not resulted in unemployment - they've resulted in people having different jobs. What's wrong with that? — Relativist

American law resulted in losing American manufacturing, over the decades. Those job losses resulted in unemployment, suicide, depression, and overall greatly diminished quality of life and liberty to Americans. The overwhelming majority of those people who lost those good jobs have taken new jobs that allow a far less comfortable life.

All at the hands of elected officials, and none of which was necessary.

That's what's wrong with that.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights, must be adhered to in every aspect of your business practice.
— creativesoul
Suppose a US manufacturer wants to source parts from a Vietnamese company. Will this only be allowed if that Vietnamese company pays their worker at a scale similar to the US, they work a 40 hour work week, bet at least 2 weeks vacation a year, a medical plan etc? — Relativist

They must follow and/or exceed American regulations(laws) concerning the lawful production of goods and services.

Personally, I don"t think it's possible to rescue manufacturing jobs (if that's what you're after). — Relativist

Rescue manufacturing jobs...?

:meh:

Do you mean that there is no possible course of action to be taken that would result in an American manufacturing and infrastructure boom?

Surely not.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights and environmental practices, must be adhered to and/or exceeded in every aspect of your business practice.

That's one much needed measure.

It's commonly believed that the United States government cannot deliberately invest into and cultivate another thriving, bustling, and economy boosting American manufacturing sector.

I say that's bullshit. It not only can... it should, and will if the people demand it. The manufacturing sector provided less fortunate, amongst other Americans, a nice worthy valuable piece of the American pie.

I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.

Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur.

Either market segments are people, or manufacturing is not a market segment, or I'm not talking about helping market segments. Take your pick.

The manufacturing sector is comprised of the people who've suffered demonstrable harm as a result of American legislation. There are other segments of people who've been harmed by different sorts of legislation.

Job training is good.

Fucking an entire population of people out of good paying jobs that provide generation after generation a comfortable life and peaceful retirement is not fixed by providing training for a much less valuable job with far less benefits, far less pay, no retirement, and far less comfortable a lifestyle.

Yet, that's what has happened.

Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do.
— creativesoul
What would you do if YOU were President? — Relativist

Exactly what I think any and all presidents ought be doing. Exactly what I've been saying needs to be done, and quite a bit more. Keeping the promise made to the American people to act on behalf of their best interest.

Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens.
— creativesoul
So why vote for either party? — ssu

That sentiment is one consequence of the problems I'm speaking about. When neither candidate from either party is willing to tackle the underlying corruption, and all that that entails - head on - and all effected/affected Americans see the quality of life erode right before their eyes as a result... You get apathetic voters.

...who cares about the "character issue" anymore? — ssu

:brow:

Who cares if he is trustworthy?

Hopefully everybody.

Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do.

Trump's claims about supporting American workers are bullshit, pure and unadulterated. He has a history of breaching contracts and using undocumented and/or foreign workers in lieu of American workers.

Show these facts side by side with his bullshit claims and there will be another kind of 'woke' American... woke to Trump's bullshit.

Yeah, workers have options for employment now that they are in high demand. — NOS4A2

The options for the average non college educated citizen are a joke. No decent health insurance coverage. Employee pays the brunt of that. No pension. No benefits. No legal recourse.

No American manufacturing to speak of compared to the time before all of the trade agreements.

The American public now has way more choices... of shoddy inferior quality products to choose from.

Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens. Trump's administration is stepping on the gas...

The right to organize is being attacked from all sides...

The discussion needs to be had. There's a 'woke' America regarding systemic racism and there needs to be a woke America regarding systemic corporationism(government corruption). Harming everyday citizens in the guise of the greater good. Trump is guilty of both... racist action and outsourcing what could be American jobs to another country...

He's a con artist.

You're either delusional or dishonest. Neither is acceptable.

You're an idiot.

Wait till McGahn testifies...

Good thing that's not the only possible popular stance in these situations.

Talking in terms of "the elites" is fraught with misdirection.

Talking in terms of what's in the best interest of American citizens and what's not is much better.

There is Nothing wrong with investigating corruption. — NOS4A2

Good. Let's look at Trump's financial records.

There are no grounds for compelling Biden's testimony in the impeachment matters. May as well subpoena Oprah.
— creativesoul
A subpoena would compell either Oprah or Joe. — Relativist

Yes. The point is that neither Biden nor Oprah have anything to do with what the impeachment proceedings are looking into.

The president has a duty to uphold the law. If either Biden is guilty of corruption then Trump was right, and it is the Democrat’s who are abusing their power to obstruct justice. — NOS4A2

That's some of the dumbest shit I've heard so far.

The impeachment is not attempting to stop Trump from upholding the law...

Creativesoul, you have just aptly defined the landscape where populist movements and basically populism, be it from the right (or the left, in some other cases), cherishes and where populist fervor can get a stranglehold on politics. — ssu

What counts as populism?

To fight corruption is an issue that both left-wing and right-wing activists would happily agree on. Naturally they hate each other so much, that they don't even notice this. — ssu

That hate of political party is not natural. It's learned... it's taught... it's fed...

There are a surprisingly large number of things that most Americans will agree upon that neither party currently stands for.

Regarding the Iceland bit...

The lending institutions in '08 could have been saved by simply paying off the mortgages. It would have been a helluva lot cheaper, and caused a helluva lot less harm to average Americans.

The impeachment process is about Trump's purported abuse of power and obstruction.

Joe Biden has nothing to do with any of that. There is nothing he can say that is relevant to what's under consideration.

It won't happen anyway. There are no grounds for compelling Biden's testimony in the impeachment matters. May as well subpoena Oprah.

Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people.
— creativesoul
Then the issue would be to have TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARTIES. Period. — ssu

No.

There's a long game to be played...

The issue would be to point out how both parties have erred against what's in the best interest of Americans, and demand change in that regard. The starting point is to show Americans what has happened, how it ha happened, and who voted for those measures. We define the problems, show their consequences, and then make concerted efforts to correct the aforementioned problems.

Force elected politicians to choose between what's best for the overwhelming majority of American people and what's not, by showing them the damage that has been incurred as a direct result of not doing so. Stake it out... clearly.... force the politician to show their hand, and deal with them accordingly in the next election cycle.

It may take several election cycles to get enough elected officials on board via voting out the ones who stand opposed.... no matter who they are... no matter what party affiliations they may have.

Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.

And here I though this was impeachable conduct. — NOS4A2

For an elected official like Trump. Biden is currently not.

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government.
— creativesoul

Well, I didn't think my list was exhaustive... — Relativist

I just pointed out the fact that that list did not include any concerns at all about the systemic problems in American government. None.

...but it does seem you have some lofty expectations.

Lofty?

:brow:

Are you suggesting any Democrat would make all these things happen, that some particular one will, or are you just saying we have a shot at moving toward those (very fine) objectives?

Those are not the only two options...

Putting these problems on center stage... in clear simple terms... will separate those who are and have been a part of the problem from those who are a part of the solution. Those problems must be openly discussed as a means to inform the American electorate and begin the path towards being able to trust elected officials once again. We need elected officials who make it their aim to correct the systemic problems, and actually do so. We need to get rid of the elected officials who stand in the way of this agenda. It is NOT a partisan issue.

He’s not even the primary candidate and he’s already committing impeachable offences. — NOS4A2

Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.

- judicial appointments, particularly the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Protection (or restoration) of the ACA
- rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal
- better chance of meaningful immigration reform
- restore standing with allies
- stop relaxing of environment regulations
- Terminate bully pulpit for a white nationalist/conspiracy theorist/overt narcissist — Relativist

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government.

Risks have been socialised but profit is still private. Under the guise of capitalism we have a really fucked up form of socialism. — Benkei

Indeed. Socialism for the government workers, elected officials, and the financial/banking sector and pure capitalism for the everyday citizens.

Can the Democrats learn from the UK elections or will they mimic the path of Labour and leave the World with four more years of Trump? — ssu

The UK elections have little to nothing at all directly to do with what Americans need to learn...

The problems in American government that led to Trump are solved by looking at America. Trump is a symptom. Americans need to learn that. The way was paved for Trump's rise. Reagan, Arnold, and Jesse were all similar candidates in that they appealed to voters who did not trust career politicians.

The problem now includes the governmental and political pundits' near complete disconnection from a very very large swathe of Americans.

This is reflected by the commonly held belief that all politicians are "in it" to line their own pockets. That none of them could be trusted to do what they promised. That all of them have some ulterior motive. That all of them are monetarily corrupt. That all of them sided with those whose interests were in direct opposition to the average American voters' best interest.

Those beliefs were and are still true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Hence, Trumps claims to drain the swamp, played off of these beliefs.

Trump tapped into that... as well as other common beliefs.

Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people.

Actually I had overlooked and/or neglected cases where something is exactly 15 billion years of age, but I think I've understood the logical notation you're advocating here. That example didn't quite fit, but could have had I not employed "younger" and instead said something like "everything in the universe is not older than 15 billion years", or "there is not something in the universe that is older than 15 billion years". Both of these are semantically equivalent to "nothing in the universe is older than 15 billion years".

When everything is X, then nothing is not X. When everything is not X, then nothing is X.

In both cases, the term "nothing" is semantically equivalent to "everything". This happens as a result of shared common referents(both terms pick out the same things), regardless of what's being said about them(aside from contradiction). So far, all of this seems fine by me.

My issue involves...

...(if there are zero things to be had and you have all zero of them), — Pfhorrest

Saying "you have all zero of them" neglects the fact that in order to have all of anything requires that there first be something to have. Having all of something requires at least one thing. Zero things is not at least one thing. Zero things is nothing, and not in the same sense as when the term "nothing" is used as a means to pick out everything.

If you want to say that nothing is older than 15 billion years, then that's what you say. If you want to say that everything is younger than 15 billion years, then that's what you say.

If you want to say that nothing in the room is red, then that's what you say. If you want to say that everything in the room is not red, then that's what you say.


If I have understood you, then the above two pairs of statements are both equally amenable to the logical notation you're advocating here. Is that right? Both pairs consist of two different statements that mean the same thing?

Looks like an equivocation of the term "nothing" to me. Sometimes used as a means to refer to all things in a set(as a means to talk about what's not the case regarding them), and sometimes used normally.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of case. I brought it up to make a logical point, but in practice (hence practically unused) when do we ever talk about how much of a set of zero things some predicate applies to? — Pfhorrest

The case is itself one of what we must do as a means of remaining coherent in order to be able to say other things.

...(if there are zero things to be had and you have all zero of them), — Pfhorrest

The above presupposes and/or requires us to draw an equivalence between everything and nothing.

If we draw the actual distinction between everything and nothing, we arrive at a much different different account...

If there are zero things to be had, then you have nothing.

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.
— creativesoul

Do you want to be able to claim to have a red nothing in storage? — Banno

:brow:

That's pure unadulterated nonsense when one realizes and works from the supposition that everything and nothing are not equivalent. Realizing it is easy enough.

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.

Right?

I don't know Banno. Once you've committed to a domain, you can no longer use common sense...

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red.

Right?

That's not a derivation, but it's true nonetheless.

Good to know I'm not alone. I'm not at all on board with what god must be atheist has been arguing, yet something was worth being said...

...(if there are zero things to be had and you have all zero of them), — Pfhorrest

Practically unused cases like the above?

Chris tells us that everything in their storage is red.
We still don't know whether they have anything at all in their storage (because "everything" might be nothing, if they don't have anything at all in their storage. — Pfhorrest

This equivalence between everything and nothing troubles me as well.

There must be something red in the storage in order for everything in the storage to be red. If nothing is in the storage then it cannot be the case that everything in the storage is red.