Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Raw Deal in Michigan

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#191

Post by coryfklein »

protonfish wrote: post #75
dopamean wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which continuing financial crisis are you referring to?

What I mean is after the financial crisis of 2008, the US has made no significant law changes, has not increased enforcement and all the key players are still in their cushy positions (and not in jail.) We have fixed nothing so it is only a matter of time before it happens again.

> We have fixed nothing so it is only a matter of time before it happens again.

So, you meant to say "imminent financial crisis" then?

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#192

Post by Loughla »

nitrogen wrote: post #171
Loughla wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying also includes when you call your representative to complain about a certain issue. So, to ban lobbying outright is to ban input from every citizen to their representative.

Nobody but a lobbyist would use "lobbying" to describe direct contact by unpaid citizens. Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of lumping unlike things together so one can say "if you hate me you must also hate yourself"?

I am not a lobbyist, but I am aware of the fact that contacting your representative to do something you want him/her to do is, in fact lobbying them. It's literally the dictionary definition:

"seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue."

My personal opinion is that an individual calling their representative is not the same as tons of money being poured into campaigns, but the fact remains that it is, by definition, lobbying.

Therefore, doing away with ....all.... lobbying, as the original post suggested we do, removes our voices from the system as well.

Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of speaking for a fictitious group of people so one can say, "I believe the thing you're saying is wrong, therefore everyone believes the thing you're saying is wrong"?

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#193

Post by imroot »

zenocon wrote: post #99
phurley wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a Detroit suburb, a large number of the residents here are engineers, many for GM, Ford and Chrysler, but quite a few for Toyota, Hyundai and other foreign suppliers (like Bosch and Yazaki). I see many domestic, but almost as many imports here. I think a lot of the stigma is gone, certainly there is considerable pressure for people to drive their employers vehicle to work, but at least in my (relatively ups…

Agree. I worked for one of these three companies for a span. While I was there, they did have a rule that if you're not driving their car, you can't park it in the covered parking lot. That was the extent of the backlash, and I've lived in this area most of my life. I think a lot of these stories and anecdotes about tires getting slashed, and people being harassed for driving foreign are not accurate today.

I've been a contractor for one of the Big 3 at one point in the early 2000's. I was given a Kia at Enterprise to drive, and when I came out on my first day, it was encased with no less than 300 pallets and shrinkwrap.

Apparently, they forgot to tell me that you shouldn't drive a non-UAW vehicle onto the parking lot.

Enterprise's Roadside Assistance guy was not happy with me when he had to help me pull the pallets away so I could get my vehicle out.

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#194

Post by seanflyon »

lhc- wrote: post #131
twoodfin wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?

News coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.

Is it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#195

Post by seanflyon »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #181
greedo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile freedom of speech with restrictions on campaign contributions. The courts have been pretty consistent in finding the various campaign finance laws to be overly broad and restrictive when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

Reconcile? Money isn't speech. Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems. It's when people give money to a political group that things get nasty and voting power starts to shift to those with cash.

> Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems.

That is what PACs do. The problem is that people are spending too much money on advertising for candidates. Any solution in which people can spend unlimited money on tools for speech has not drawn a line between money and speech.

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#196

Post by nitrogen »

Loughla wrote: post #192
nitrogen wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody but a lobbyist would use "lobbying" to describe direct contact by unpaid citizens. Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of lumping unlike things together so one can say "if you hate me you must also hate yourself"?

I am not a lobbyist, but I am aware of the fact that contacting your representative to do something you want him/her to do is, in fact lobbying them. It's literally the dictionary definition: "seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue." My personal opinion is that an individual calling their representative is not the same as tons of money being poured into campaigns, but the fact remains that it…

What is your point, then, exactly? First of all, it's clear the original post wasn't talking about "lobbying" as you've quoted its definition but not its actual usage. So why bring it up at all, if not to discourage those who support campaign reform simply by browbeating them into submission?

Seriously, why discuss trivial definitional disagreement when it only serves to muddy the waters and decrease the SNR of the conversation?

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#197

Post by RandallBrown »

dragontamer wrote: post #155
RandallBrown wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Detroit also got 95 inches of snow last year. The average temperature in Norway is NOT way colder than Michigan. In fact, they look quite similar. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/detroit/michigan/united... Detroit is also one of the Southern cities in Michigan. Average temperatures in tromso ( https://weatherspark.com/averages/28894/Troms-Norway ) are actually warmer than in Marquette. ( http://www.weather.com/w…

You misunderstand (as do others...). Tromsø got 95 inches of snow from a single month in 1997. All 95 inches were during the month of December IIRC. On the average, Tromsø gets a ton more snow than that across its year. Tromsø is one of the snowiest locations in the world.

I didn't misunderstand, you mis-stated. I'm not sure if it's from a single month either, as this source says it was 95 inches for the season. http://www.stephenhudson.net/TromsoClimateReports/Tromso_Sno...

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#198

Post by IndianAstronaut »

m_mueller wrote: post #134
oatmeal_coffee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. We just focus on the bad ones because they tend to have greater influence. Absolutist positions such as this are rarely true and sensible.

You know what's also a good way to bring issues into 'the arena'? People's initiatives. Democracy is only really a stable system that can protect civil rights if you go all the way with it. There shouldn't be a law that the people as a whole cannot throw out. Otherwise a political system is not worth being called 'democracy' (= reign of the people). The government is supposed to be serving the people as a whole, not…

With all the communications and monitoring technology, I am surprised we still have the antiquated representative system. This system came about in an era where the travel time of a message was in days not milliseconds.

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#199

Post by jusben1369 »

mikeash wrote: post #159
jusben1369 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you expect, now that Tesla's made people aware of this, that the politician will be prosecuted for corruption? Or do you think what's happening here is legal but it just makes you feel uncomfortable? And if it's the latter how do you think you'd feel about Tesla if you were privy to all the discussions and offers and horse trading that would have occurred over the location of their battery plant?

I can't speak for him, but I'm sure he won't be prosecuted, I don't refer to prosecutions to decide what qualifies as "corruption", and I'm sure I'd be fairly aghast at the crap Tesla did for their battery plant. Your last question puzzles me. Are you under the impression that one can't complain about this guy unless one thinks everything Tesla does is wonderful?

No.As long as you're consistent that's all. Freedom fighters vs terrorists kind of thing.

Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan

#200

Post by greedo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #181
greedo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile freedom of speech with restrictions on campaign contributions. The courts have been pretty consistent in finding the various campaign finance laws to be overly broad and restrictive when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

Reconcile? Money isn't speech. Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems. It's when people give money to a political group that things get nasty and voting power starts to shift to those with cash.

Money is speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean standing on a soapbox in a public square denouncing King George. It covers most forms of communication; oral, print, radio, tv, internet, billboards, you name it. Just because the 1st Amendment doesn't explicitly protect PACs doesn't mean that they're not an extension of what the Founding Fathers meant to protect.
Post reply on HN