Say what you will about Bernie Sanders

[_Themis]

Do you have a crippling tomato addiction or something?

It wouldn't be just tomatoes. It'd be all produce. Perhaps more people would just go without. But maybe that's how it should be. When you exploit people through cheap labor it always comes back to bite you even harder down the road.

Keep in mind the US is not the only market. Producers in the US want to export to other areas of the world like Europe and Canada. Canada cannot grow oranges, but Canadians consume it at about the same rate as people in the US. US producers have to compete with everyone else to get this business.

[_ajax18]

Keep in mind the US is not the only market. Producers in the US want to export to other areas of the world like Europe and Canada. Canada cannot grow oranges, but Canadians consume it at about the same rate as people in the US. US producers have to compete with everyone else to get this business.

That's actually a pretty solid point. I think I learned something from you on that.

[_Themis]

Keep in mind the US is not the only market. Producers in the US want to export to other areas of the world like Europe and Canada. Canada cannot grow oranges, but Canadians consume it at about the same rate as people in the US. US producers have to compete with everyone else to get this business.

That's actually a pretty solid point. I think I learned something from you on that.

So if wages for orange pickers were to go up substantively people would make more money but have less jobs since the markets outside the US may buy their oranges from other countries that have lower labor costs. Would it be better to allow those willing to work for lower wages to come into the country since having to pay more to US citizens, who won't work for these low wages, means less jobs due to loss of sales to stores in other countries? It would also mean a lot less money into the US economy for the orange producers who are selling their product outside of the US.

[_ajax18]

Would it be better to allow those willing to work for lower wages to come into the country since having to pay more to US citizens, who won't work for these low wages, means less jobs due to loss of sales to stores in other countries?

You still have to factor in how much these people cost the taxpayer in social welfare benefits. $7/hr or whatever ridiculously low wage they pay them doesn't leave much money to buy proper health insurance for their families, college tuition, rent, transportation, etc.

[_Themis]

You still have to factor in how much these people cost the taxpayer in social welfare benefits. $7/hr or whatever ridiculously low wage they pay them doesn't leave much money to buy proper health insurance for their families, college tuition, rent, transportation, etc.

So you agree then that we should look at how much they contribute to the economy and how much they may cost. Keep in mind without them you have lost business for US companies who are trying to export product outside the US. This is the best source of money into a countries economy.

[_ajax18]

So you agree then that we should look at how much they contribute to the economy and how much they may cost. Keep in mind without them you have lost business for US companies who are trying to export product outside the US. This is the best source of money into a countries economy.

Yes, that's why I'm not racist or xenophobic. I'm merely proAmerican in that I put other Americans first. You could accuse me of nationalism but not racism.

[_EAllusion]

This seems to dovetail nicely with what he said before, that he evolved on the issue. It seems legit to me. I mean why drag his daughters into this years later when, according to you, Obama does nothing unless there is a political benefit of some kind. Makes no sense. Especially when his daughters are now old enough to know their father is lying about them.

So, to answer my question, you do think David Axelrod is a liar when he said he convinced Obama to ignore his personal belief in gay marriage and come out in favor of civil unions as a compromise to not alienate support of black social conservatives. Ok. You also don't find Obama's path from supporting to opposing to supporting gay marriage and all that entailed to be implausible. Ok. And you don't find his evolving language to be weird and inappropriately ambiguous in the context you think it was used. Ok, again.

But then what we are left with is the simple fact that Obama's words were widely interpreted by the LBGT community as him supporting gay marriage, but waiting until the time is right to come publicly in favor of it (again). Obama had to be aware of this common view, and did nothing to correct it by explaining that no, he really does oppose gay marriage and he's not signaling that.

Humorously, I think this is far worse than the mere political expediency he's widely viewed to have engaged in. In order to rescue him, you've made him worse by implicitly accusing him of a worse form of political expediency.

What I think about the daughter's quote is that if you read between the lines, he's probably saying that they played a role in convincing him not to dishonestly come out against gay marriage when he personally believed in it. I'm sure that Obama thought his pragmatic compromise wasn't that big of a deal since civil unions entailed the rights of marriage. It's perfectly possible he was later convinced that this veiled compromise was actually still quite harmful/wrong due to stigmatizing effects.

Or, to quote the exact post of mine you are responding to:

Let me suggest to you that Obama personally favored gay marriages, became willing to compromise on the issue for his personal ambition by advocating for civil unions that entail all the same rights as marriage if not the name, then later found that compromise unnecessary. He may have discovered that compromise was more harmful than he thought, but that's distinct from representing a public stance he did not believe in privately.

according to you, Obama does nothing unless there is a political benefit of some kind.

Feel free to quote me saying that Strawmany McStraman.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm not in a position to say who is telling the absolute truth since I wasn't there, and Obama denied Axelrod's take on the matter in a way that doesn't require him to be a flat out "liar," so I don't see why I we can't do the same:

“I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” Obama told Buzzfeed. “My thinking at the time was that civil unions — which I always supported — was a sufficient way of squaring the circle. That, OK, we won’t call it ‘marriage,’ we’ll call it ‘civil unions,’ same-sex couples will have the same rights as anybody else, but the word ‘marriage’ with its religious connotations historically would be preserved for marriages between men and women.”

Again, sounds reasonable to me.

And if you don't believe Obama is only doing things that politically benefit him, then how do we explain him dragging his daughters into a situation like this, if, as you seem to maintain, he is flat out lying about his philosophical evolution on the matter. You'd think that if he were not telling the truth, the risk of having one of his daughters out him would be far too great considering the benefit of lying about it in the first place. A benefit which was ... what, exactly?

[_honorentheos]

But maybe that's how it should be.

Option 1 it is.

[_EAllusion]

And if you don't believe Obama is only doing things that politically benefit him, then how do we explain him dragging his daughters into a situation like this, if, as you seem to maintain, he is flat out lying about his philosophical evolution on the matter. You'd think that if he were not telling the truth, the risk of having one of his daughters out him would be far too great considering the benefit of lying about it in the first place. A benefit which was ... what, exactly?

I already explained how what Obama said could be technically true, if misleading. I'm sure his daughters are used to that, what with him being president and all. Obama's quote is still consistent with what I explained as a plausible explanation for his public statements. His daughters could very well have played a role in changing his mind on what policy position to stake out, if not his actual feelings on the subject. I don't think David Axelrod was "mixed up" in his comments and it would be hard to be mixed up. I think you are adopting a highly dubious position, but you obviously will not be convinced otherwise.

The interesting thing about this is the position you have portrays Obama as worse than the standard interpretation. If Obama really did oppose gay marriage until recently, then we are left with a situation where he implied otherwise to LBGT special interests in order to keep up their engagement with supporting him. His comments were reasonably interpreted to be a winking signal that he's with them. And if you say, no - that's not the case, it doesn't matter. It still is the case that those groups widely interpreted them that way and Obama did nothing to correct it. Either he mislead by implication or by omission. That type of misleading is worse than the political expediency he's usually presumed guilty of. I don't think that happened, but apparently you do.