• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

And if that is what the voters voted for, twice in this instance, then that was the right thing to do, no?
No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:
1. That the mob (voters) know what they are doing (or are knowledgeable/intelligent in their actions).
2. That, according to exit polls, some Walker supporters were voting against the circumstances of the recall rather than voting to support Walker's actions.
3. The founding fathers were opposed to mob rule (direct democracy, which you are arguing supports Walker's actions).

As far as opinions of why voters voted the way they did, I suspect time heals all wounds; in other words, had the election been much sooner while the events that prompted the recall still be fresh in voters minds, then Walker may well have lost. That the attention span of the public is rather short I'd think is not something with which most would disagree.
 
Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.

But that's not coming directly out of his paycheck, now is it?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.

Can you possibly understand how rediculous you sound right now?

Coporations can't make financial contributions to political campaigns.
 
[...] Union dues are nothing more than a tax. If unions were so awesome, they would do all their wonderful work for free.
So what if union does are a tax?

And if unions did their work for free, who would pay their expenses? Building rental/lease, communications, office equipment/supplies, insurance, travel, . . . . .
 
No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:
1. That the mob (voters) know what they are doing (or are knowledgeable/intelligent in their actions).
2. That, according to exit polls, some Walker supporters were voting against the circumstances of the recall rather than voting to support Walker's actions.
3. The founding fathers were opposed to mob rule (direct democracy, which you are arguing supports Walker's actions).

As far as opinions of why voters voted the way they did, I suspect time heals all wounds; in other words, had the election been much sooner while the events that prompted the recall still be fresh in voters minds, then Walker may well have lost. That the attention span of the public is rather short I'd think is not something with which most would disagree.

But, Walker did nothing to warrant a recall in the first place. And if you want to talk about mobs, how about all of the teachers and other government union workers who neglected the duties of their jobs to camp out and protest, and all of the whiny death threats from sore losers? Looks like mob does not rule. ;)
 
Can you possibly understand how rediculous you sound right now? Coporations can't make financial contributions to political campaigns.
Of course they can. Exxon can spend $5 billion on campaign ads supporting Romney any time they want, directly out of corporate funds, even if it bankrupts the company (well, assuming the board doesn't prevent it). Do you think that is not an effective contribution to Romney?
 
But, Walker did nothing to warrant a recall in the first place. [...]
Since there is no legal requirement that he do so, what is your point?

Do a little research on the term "mob rule" and perhaps literalism will not trip you up next time.
 
So what if union does are a tax?

And if unions did their work for free, who would pay their expenses? Building rental/lease, communications, office equipment/supplies, insurance, travel, . . . . .

Are you trying to say their political donations are just an expense the membership should pay for like travel or rent?
 
No. Or at least not necessarily. You overlook three obvious problems with your support of mob rule:
1. That the mob (voters) know what they are doing (or are knowledgeable/intelligent in their actions).
2. That, according to exit polls, some Walker supporters were voting against the circumstances of the recall rather than voting to support Walker's actions.
3. The founding fathers were opposed to mob rule (direct democracy, which you are arguing supports Walker's actions).

As far as opinions of why voters voted the way they did, I suspect time heals all wounds; in other words, had the election been much sooner while the events that prompted the recall still be fresh in voters minds, then Walker may well have lost. That the attention span of the public is rather short I'd think is not something with which most would disagree.

When the voters don't vote your way, it's "mob rule"? :lamo
 
I asked for proof of that in a previous post.

Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?
 
Of course they can. Exxon can spend $5 billion on campaign ads supporting Romney any time they want, directly out of corporate funds, even if it bankrupts the company (well, assuming the board doesn't prevent it). Do you think that is not an effective contribution to Romney?

More silliness from you?

BTW, paying for an ad and giving money to a campaign are two different animals.
 
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?

Payroll is overhead, so no, employees aren't connected to profits.
 
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?

You can explain anything you want, proving it is another story.

Sorry, Bubba, but the fact is that campaign contributions come off the company's bottom line, and the bottom line is what determines how much the company can pay its employees.

Please prove that the money spent on political donations would come to me if it hadn't gone to the political donations. It's your assertion, prove it or don't. If you can't we'll just file your argument under more BS!
 
Last edited:
[...] BTW, paying for an ad and giving money to a campaign are two different animals.
A rational person knows that it is not.
 
When the voters don't vote your way, it's "mob rule"? :lamo
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.

Or not :shrug:
 
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.

Or not :shrug:

An election for a State's governor is representative democracy. Mob rule (direct democracy) would be if they put a single policy or issue up to public majority vote to decide. The voters of Wisconsin voted for their governor (twice) to represent them, and he is now enacting his policies, as he was elected to do. His policies aren't up for citizen majority (mob rules/direct democracy) vote.

The people of Wisconsin are getting what they want (voted for), that's a good thing. What would be bad is if they didn't get what they wanted (voted for), as is the case with too many politicians.
 
Last edited:
Might want to do a little historical reading on the founders reasoning in choosing a representative form of government for the country, versus 'direct democracy'.

Or not :shrug:

I'm sure you understand the concept of 'state sovereignty' and the founder's desire to avoid influence on said.
 
Yes, and I explained it to you. Or are you going to argue that employee pay is NOT connected to profits?

what an interesting question. Are you suggesting that if my business does not make a profit one month, I am not obligated to pay my employees for their labor during that time period?
 
what an interesting question. Are you suggesting that if my business does not make a profit one month, I am not obligated to pay my employees for their labor during that time period?

No, I am telling you that if you don't make any profit for a period of time your employees won't be getting any raises, and may in fact get a pay cut, or a pink slip.
 
Payroll is overhead, so no, employees aren't connected to profits.

Jersus, no wonder this recovery is taking so long! :lol:
 
What if I decide to quit the military, can I walk in say I quit and go home?

Not without incurring penalties. However, that's a good point. We in the military need to unionize more than civilian government employees!

:roll:

However, you didn't argue that there were differences between military and civilian service; you argued that we were not public employees.

This is but one difference.

Actually it's not. It is true of anyone who signs a contract to provide labor over a specified period of time to the Defense Department.

Same with the satate actually. They are free to ask the people if we need police officers, firefighters or teachers. They can reduce force and be responsive to the needs of the people. And they can ask if they want to pay for these services, and the people can elect people who will or won't. NO ONE is held at gun point.

That doesn't really answer the point at all. Unions attached to private industry have definite limits placed on their capriciousness by the need for their host to maintain profitability, putting out a quality product at a decent price. Unions attached to public services have no such limits except at the very extremes of State and Local bankruptcy. And even then their power to continue to drive the state into the ditch is impressive (see: California).

As in slaves?

No. As in public servants. Public employees are supposed to work for the populace, not the other way around.

No it is the issue. Two sit down to the table

One of which owes everything to the other, can be pulled from their position by the other, and knows it. Which one has the advantage?

They can do what any business does and negotiate.

Except that business management is negotiating in the interest of the business, whereas public negotiators are often negotiating in the interest of the public union that they are beholden to, and who is sitting across the table from them.

And yet, other states have union, and their influence, and are not in trouble.

201004_blog_edwards51.jpg
 
Not without incurring penalties. However, that's a good point. We in the military need to unionize more than civilian government employees!

:roll:

However, you didn't argue that there were differences between military and civilian service; you argued that we were not public employees.

Still playing silly. It's been a good tactic for you. You can't address things properly, so you play silly. I can quit as a teacher, firefighter, or police officer. And with no real difficulty are all. This is a difference. A real one. The military called me property. None of the other proffessions do this.


Actually it's not. It is true of anyone who signs a contract to provide labor over a specified period of time to the Defense Department.

Not the same thing. A contract has an obligation to provide a service, not the individual workers to become US property. You are once again confusing things. It happens when you skip the issue to try to and skew your response.


That doesn't really answer the point at all. Unions attached to private industry have definite limits placed on their capriciousness by the need for their host to maintain profitability, putting out a quality product at a decent price. Unions attached to public services have no such limits except at the very extremes of State and Local bankruptcy. And even then their power to continue to drive the state into the ditch is impressive (see: California).

Frst, unions don't attach anything in either. Keep that in mind. State has as much interest to work within a budget as does the private sector. And unions don't drive. It takes two sides to agree to a contract. The auto industry made poor decisions on union contracts they signed. It was the union made them, it was that they exercised poor judgment. The same can be said about state negotiations. And yes, elected officals answer to voters as private does board members.

No. As in public servants. Public employees are supposed to work for the populace, not the other way around.

WHo suggeste dotherwise? Other than you, who suggested they are workers working for a wage. When the firefighter runs into a burning building and saves alife and puts out the fire, he's working for the populace. When a police officer enters into a dangerous situtation, he's working for the populace. And when a teacher walks into an overcrowded classroom, facing all kinds of disrespect from children, parents, and conservatives. they are woking for the populace.

You just want them to do it on the cheap and with second class status. Call it like it is.

One of which owes everything to the other, can be pulled from their position by the other, and knows it. Which one has the advantage?

No, like so many you overstate in order to forgive responsibility to one. Everyone has lobbying groups. Business, wealthy, the I hater teachers movement often called republicans, all of the have groups that lobby. Union has no more, and perhaps less, influence than all of them. They are just the latest scapegoat.


Except that business management is negotiating in the interest of the business, whereas public negotiators are often negotiating in the interest of the public union that they are beholden to, and who is sitting across the table from them.

What worthless conservative hit peice are you getting this crap from? In other words, I don't buy it.



I'd like to see where this comes from. Make sure it isn't just another misrepresentation. ;)
 
No, I am telling you that if you don't make any profit for a period of time your employees won't be getting any raises, and may in fact get a pay cut, or a pink slip.

And, none of that has a damn thing to do with a company spending money on campaign ads.
 
Back
Top Bottom