• 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!

A Very Modest Victory in Wisconsin

:shrug: which would make the anti-war movement silly prior to the election of 2006.

but if elections are how we measure, then the Tea party should be measured by 2010.

I agree, it would make the antiwar movement silly as well. The whole what is elected is right idea doesn't wash for those sorts of reasons. Also, I put less stock in the middle elections (2010, 2006) since voter turnout is generally very low compared to the years we have a president on the ballot. Either way, that is also beside the point.

The best way to find out voter sentiment is with opinion polling, not pointing to the last election, the reason is that people's opinions do change over time.
 
Last edited:
Only the modern filibuster. The original filibuster meant a single person had to take up all of the senate's time by talking nonstop. For that day Strom Thurmond was reading his mom's cookbooks, no other business could be done. It was only after fairly recent rules reforms that it didn't bring things to a halt.

that's a good point.

part of me wonders if the older way wasn't better; in that it at least forced the people involved to really mean it. easy to check the "fillibuster" box. much harder to get up there and read from the phone book for 11 hours. perhaps that would remove it as a weapon of mere obstructionism and into a true last-ditch no-this-is-important defense of a minority fighting off an abusive majority.
 
I agree, it would make the antiwar movement silly as well. The whole what is elected is right idea doesn't wash for those sorts of reasons. Also, I put less stock in the middle elections (2010, 2006) since voter turnout is generally very low compared to the years we have a president on the ballot

that is true, but 2010 stands out among mid-term elections. i think we had something like a 42% turnout? that's the highest since 1970 for a mid-term.

Either way, that is also beside the point.

True. Bush was not any more President because he won reelection with a 55% turnout to Clintons' 49%.

The best way to find out voter sentiment is with opinion polling, not pointing to the last election, the reason is that people's opinions do change over time.

that is also true. but if you want to match it to how that opinion is likely to shape events, then you need to poll likely voters.
 
that is true, but 2010 stands out among mid-term elections. i think we had something like a 42% turnout? that's the highest since 1970 for a mid-term.



True. Bush was not any more President because he won reelection with a 55% turnout to Clintons' 49%.



that is also true. but if you want to match it to how that opinion is likely to shape events, then you need to poll likely voters.

The ultimate point being that we cannot look at the current crop of politicians (whether we agree or disagree with what they are pushing for legislatively) and assume that since they were elected, it is the will of the people. Elections are snapshots, but also elections do not give us complete information about what the politician will be doing once elected (we all lament about politicians not doing what they promised during a campaign for example). In the end, it means walter's argument is silly and intellectually void.
 
The ultimate point being that we cannot look at the current crop of politicians (whether we agree or disagree with what they are pushing for legislatively) and assume that since they were elected, it is the will of the people

:) actually that's all we have to go on, when we are discussing such matters as actual governing policy or legislation. you cannot govern by poll; it is too fickle, too easy to twist, too easy to fool.... there is a reason there are multiple, competing pollster agencies. an election, hwoever, is fixed. it can only be changed at the next election, and it is undoubtably the will of the people who bothered to vote.

it's either elections, or we trust to kings in all but name.

Elections are snapshots, but also elections do not give us complete information about what the politician will be doing once elected (we all lament about politicians not doing what they promised during a campaign for example)

which is why we have the next election as a corrective mechanism.

In the end, it means walter's argument is silly and intellectually void.

to the contrary, he is standing on the only truly firm ground outside of the Divine.
 
:) actually that's all we have to go on, when we are discussing such matters as actual governing policy or legislation. you cannot govern by poll; it is too fickle, too easy to twist, too easy to fool.... there is a reason there are multiple, competing pollster agencies. an election, hwoever, is fixed. it can only be changed at the next election, and it is undoubtably the will of the people who bothered to vote.

it's either elections, or we trust to kings in all but name.



which is why we have the next election as a corrective mechanism.



to the contrary, he is standing on the only truly firm ground outside of the Divine.

Legally yes, but we have elections to elect people to do stuff. That wasn't the point of my argument. He was attempting to make a moral argument, which is where it fails (given all that was discussed). Your counterpoint has nothing to do with my original point. Morally, there is no problem attempting to find ways to get government to do what you want outside elections, even if the population voted another way :shrug: The tea party did that, as well as any other movement.
 
Last edited:
Legally yes, but we have elections to elect people to do stuff. That wasn't the point of my argument. He was attempting to make a moral argument, which is where it fails (given all that was discussed). Your counterpoint has nothing to do with my original point. Morally, there is no problem attempting to find ways to get government to do what you want outside elections, even if the population voted another way :shrug: The tea party did that, as well as any other movement.

A further point, you call it solid ground, but all the voters did was elect people, not a certain policy. Looking at polling, those people did not do what the voters expect, which is why their popularity took a dive. Which further invalidates the whole THE PEOPLE argument.
 
up to 40% of cta dues go to political action, members can opt out of that portion of their payments by writing a letter and resigning from the union

not a wise career choice, however, for a public school teacher to dump on the union

it would make for some pretty tense relations, for example

Special Legal Notice to California Teachers: How to Get About a $300 refund of CTA Nonbargaining Expenses | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Class-Action Lawsuit Pending Against California Teacher Union - by Karla Dial - School Reform News

Teachers Boost Dues to Battle Gov. - Los Angeles Times
hmmm...seems the lawsuit brought forth by the national right to work(for less, and no work place rights) was withdrawn and dismissed.....

CTA | News


snip
The lawsuit, filed by the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, had no basis in fact or in law. It was simply a politically motivated attempt to promote Proposition 75 which was supported by many of the same big corporations and wealthy individuals that bankroll the National Right to Work Foundation.

In October, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware denied a request for a temporary restraining order by NRWC, stating he was not willing to extend the law as the group had requested.

"Like Proposition 75, this suit was never about protecting workers; it was about silencing them," said Kerr. "CTA has a long record of compliance with all legal requirements in regard to the collection of dues and their use for political purposes. We are scrupulous in our record keeping and take every precaution to protect the rights of all members and fee payers."


The NEA Fund for Children & Public Education: The Political Action Committee of the National Education Association
also, as with the UAW, the NEA has its own voluntary contribution program for political donations...

the california teachers association is affiliated with the NEA.
 
up to 40% of cta dues go towards political action
 
the way we measure minority and majority as far as governing is concerned is via the ballot; which put those Republicans in power.

Now you could definitely say that "collective bargaining rights" are popular. so are "right to work" rights and "self government rights", both of which, arguably, were on the Governors side.

it seems that Americans are in favor of "rights" generally when polled; we'll see in the upcoming elections how they feel about public employee unions v republicans.

either way it's immaterial. the fact remains that the minority party tried to shut down government in order to get their way.

Government in Wisconsin continued. Services continued to the public. Even the Senate could still meet and pass many types of bills.
 
Government in Wisconsin continued. Services continued to the public. Even the Senate could still meet and pass many types of bills.

except for financial ones. which - as everyone here knows - is what ultimately causes the rest of government to function. but that is a good point that their effect was muted.
 
if - as you claim - the unions are beneficial organizations for their members, and if - as you claim - those dues don't in any way end up purchasing said unions' political power.... then the measure just passed can't be about reducing union political power because it would have no effect whatsoever upon it.

... honestly, i would really like to see an explanation of this. it seems several of the claims being put forth by the public unions and their supporters are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that Walker never actually campaigned on restricting collective bargaining. Can anyone back me up on this?
 
I read somewhere that Walker never actually campaigned on restricting collective bargaining. Can anyone back me up on this?
i read the same thing, don't remember where though.
 
except for financial ones. which - as everyone here knows - is what ultimately causes the rest of government to function. but that is a good point that their effect was muted.

glad to see that you agree that the government did not shut down.
 
I read somewhere that Walker never actually campaigned on restricting collective bargaining. Can anyone back me up on this?

In any number of the 529 threads here on Wisconsin, this has been asked again and again and again by folks supporting the unions and against Walker and not one of the pro Walker people have ever been able to come up with any specific language he used in person or in an ad or piece of literature which said he was going to do this. Not one.
 
glad to see that you agree that the government did not shut down.

largely thanks to the fact that Republicans split that collective bargaining portion off and passed it anyway - allowing Democrats to come back in time to debate and pass a budget. Democratic Senators had made it pretty obvious that they were willing to sit outside the state as long as their union masters told them to (and hey, with unions footing the bill it wasn't like it was costing them anything).
 
largely thanks to the fact that Republicans split that collective bargaining portion off and passed it anyway - allowing Democrats to come back in time to debate and pass a budget. Democratic Senators had made it pretty obvious that they were willing to sit outside the state as long as their union masters told them to (and hey, with unions footing the bill it wasn't like it was costing them anything).

Any evidence unions were financing their traveling?
 
In any number of the 529 threads here on Wisconsin, this has been asked again and again and again by folks supporting the unions and against Walker and not one of the pro Walker people have ever been able to come up with any specific language he used in person or in an ad or piece of literature which said he was going to do this. Not one.

And I once asked you to show one politician that states the exact steps that they are going to take to keep X promise. You've yet to show one.
 
Back
Top Bottom