• 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 Governor to Missing Democrats: Do Your Job

They could do their jobs - and make that happen - by voting.

Here here, it doesn't matter they don't have enough votes they need. It's there job to vote on the bill.
 
Trying to circumvent the democratic process by refusing to perform the job one is paid for and was voted in to perform is immoral in many people's way of thinking.
Here here, it doesn't matter they don't have enough votes they need. It's there job to vote on the bill.

They could do their jobs - and make that happen - by voting.


A politician's job is to oppose the other party and to do the will of the people that elected them. Last I checked democrats support unions. To say they are not doing their job is ludicrous, unless they ran on a anti-union platform. This is nothing more than a tool of a minority party much like filibusters are.
 
Last edited:
A politician's job is to oppose the other party and to do the will of the people that elected them. Last I checked democrats support unions. To say they are not doing their job is ludicrous, unless they ran on a anti-union platform. This is nothing more than a tool of a minority party much like filibusters are.

There job is to REPRESENT their constituents views in legislation. By not voting, they are not representing those views in legislation.
 
There job is to REPRESENT their constituents views in legislation. By not voting, they are not representing those views in legislation.

They are doing their job by using a tactic available to them to prevent a piece of legislation that they and their voters oppose. I seriously doubt either party would create a law that makes a politician forfeit their vote if they refuse to show up to vote.
 
Last edited:
Union thugs, in bed with democrat politicians, once again, think they shouldn't have to make the sacrifices that everyone else has to.
 
They are doing their job by using a tactic available to them to prevent a piece of legislation that they and their voters oppose. I seriously doubt either party would create a law that makes a politician forfeit their vote if they refuse to show up to vote.

Their job isn't to prevent legislation they don't agree with. It is to provide a voice for their constituents using define dparameters. By refusing to give that voice in the defined parameters, they are shirking their duty.

Party politics has forgotten this and they instead seek to represent party more than people.
 
Hmm …. sounds to me much like is going on at the federal level ..

I agree, and I think its sickening on that level as well, it just bothers me more here for multiple reasons. (I'm from Wisconsin and I have family in education)
 
Union thugs, in bed with democrat politicians, once again, think they shouldn't have to make the sacrifices that everyone else has to.

Before you get too far with your rhetoric there Rev, what do you feel about the "Union thugs" leading the public safety unions who are retaining ALL collective bargaining rights. Everyone on this post thus far who has supported Walker seems to just skip over this little fact. I know you are good about responding so I will ask you specifically (even though I hardly ever agree! hah)

I know this is common in both state and federal government, but it makes it no less crooked and I can honestly it makes me just as unhappy when the democrats do the same thing (and they do)
 
Before you get too far with your rhetoric there Rev, what do you feel about the "Union thugs" leading the public safety unions who are retaining ALL collective bargaining rights. Everyone on this post thus far who has supported Walker seems to just skip over this little fact. I know you are good about responding so I will ask you specifically (even though I hardly ever agree! hah)

I know this is common in both state and federal government, but it makes it no less crooked and I can honestly it makes me just as unhappy when the democrats do the same thing (and they do)




public safety such as cops?

I think they are a bain of existence as well. For example every little town here in jersey has it's own police force with it's own 100k chief, Guess who leads the charge agains regionalization that would save this state MILLIONS?


What the teachers union in that state is deplorable as well as what the democrats are doing... Imagine if you or I simply did not just not show up to work. :roll:
 
public safety such as cops?

I think they are a bain of existence as well. For example every little town here in jersey has it's own police force with it's own 100k chief, Guess who leads the charge agains regionalization that would save this state MILLIONS?


What the teachers union in that state is deplorable as well as what the democrats are doing... Imagine if you or I simply did not just not show up to work. :roll:

Thank you rev, for your answer. I don't know if you've read the article, or my past posts, but my main concern with this bill is that it simply doesn't seem to address the budget issues so much as a personal vendetta for the unions. In this situation, the public safety unions (in this case, referring to police, state troopers, and fire fighters) were strong supporters of Walker in the governmental elections, and now that they are allowed to retain collective bargaining, the true intention of this bill rings pretty clear.

I can honestly say that I would still not support the action even if ALL unions were involved, but at least then I would feel much less outraged about the blatant favoritism and the lack of true concern to balance the budget (if this were actually a way to do it)
 
They are doing their job by using a tactic available to them to prevent a piece of legislation that they and their voters oppose. I seriously doubt either party would create a law that makes a politician forfeit their vote if they refuse to show up to vote.

I give you kudos for consistency.
 
Thank you rev, for your answer. I don't know if you've read the article, or my past posts, but my main concern with this bill is that it simply doesn't seem to address the budget issues so much as a personal vendetta for the unions. In this situation, the public safety unions (in this case, referring to police, state troopers, and fire fighters) were strong supporters of Walker in the governmental elections, and now that they are allowed to retain collective bargaining, the true intention of this bill rings pretty clear.

I can honestly say that I would still not support the action even if ALL unions were involved, but at least then I would feel much less outraged about the blatant favoritism and the lack of true concern to balance the budget (if this were actually a way to do it)



I see where you are coming from, understand I am about as anti-union as one can get. I run a non-union shop and am often subject to intimidation tactics by some of these thugs because I choose to hire (and pay better and give better benefits) non-union low voltage guys.

I think they served thier purposes back in the day, but in today's society, they more often than not, are not needed and simply a wing of the democrat party.


I'll have to review this thread some more, and see those posts of yours in question.
 
Their job isn't to prevent legislation they don't agree with..

Yes it is their to prevent legislation that they or more specifically their voters do not like. That is why their constituents elected them. Just like when I vote for my elected officials its to oppose and prevent legislation I disagree with and to support and try enact legislation I support. That's why people vote for politicians based on their positions on certian issues instead of just randomly checking a name on the ballot.

It is to provide a voice for their constituents using define dparameters.By refusing to give that voice in the defined parameters, they are shirking their duty.

Not showing up to vote is just another tool a minority party uses just like filibusters and other methods.


Party politics has forgotten this and they instead seek to represent party more than people

Democrats generally run as pro-union and their voters know this. These democrats are doing what their voters wanted.




Do you honestly think either party would create a law that makes a politician forfeit their vote if they refuse to show up to vote? Neither party would do this because they know that they will not always have the majority. Yeah its sucks that its that much harder to get in legislation you like, buts its also equally that much harder to pass legislation you don't like. I used to be one of those people who bitched about filibusters and other similar things that democrats did early in Bush's presidency.
 
Last edited:
md_horiz.jpg


Memphis, Tenn.,of March 29, 1968 meet Madison Wi. of Feb 17,2011.:(
 
Yes it is their to prevent legislation that they or more specifically their voters do not like. That is why their constituents elected them. Just like when I vote for my elected officials its to oppose and prevent legislation I disagree with and to support and try enact legislation I support. That's why people vote for politicians based on their positions on certian issues instead of just randomly checking a name on the ballot.

Once they attempt to prevent legislation they agree with, they cease to be acting as representatigves for their constituents and start hindering th erepresenation of other politicia's constituents. That is not their job. the fact that peopel don't get this is a sign of how far in the crapper our nation has fallen. It's pure selfishness.



Not showing up to vote is just another tool a minority party uses just like filibusters and other methods.

And there are many people who feel that is an immoral action because their job is to represent their constituents, not inhibit the representation of those they disagree with.

You are using the appeal to tradition fallacy to try and argue that it is morally correct. That's just poor logic.




Democrats generally run as pro-union and their voters know this. These democrats are doing what their voters wanted.

Their job is to vote in line with their constiuents beliefs. It is not to inhibit the ability of other representatives to do this.

By taking the actions they have, they are taking actions that inhbit our representative democracy.




Do you honestly think either party would create a law that makes a politician forfeit their vote if they refuse to show up to vote?

This doens't present an argument. It's just an appeal to tradition. Just because two self-interested groups would choose to continue to engage in immoral and unethical behavior which serves their self-interest doesn't mean the actions are not immoral and unethical.

Neither party would do this because they know that they will not always have the majority.

Which is why party politics are a detriment to democracy. They care more about serving their own selfish agenda than they do about performing their duties.
 
md_horiz.jpg


Memphis, Tenn.,of March 29, 1968 meet Madison Wi. of Feb 17,2011.:(

A bit of a slippery slope. I don't like what the governor is doing, and there certainly is (in my eyes) right to protest. But saying these events are similar outside anything but a protest is like saying any politician you don't agree with is like Hitler. I think I see the comparison you are trying to make, but protesting over civil rights just isn't on the same level as keeping a status quo.
 
A bit of a slippery slope. I don't like what the governor is doing, and there certainly is (in my eyes) right to protest. But saying these events are similar outside anything but a protest is like saying any politician you don't agree with is like Hitler. I think I see the comparison you are trying to make, but protesting over civil rights just isn't on the same level as keeping a status quo.

It was week ago today when he had alerted the National Guard to "be ready for state workers to strike or protest".Hardly a stretch imo. :2wave:
 
Once they attempt to prevent legislation they agree with, they cease to be acting as representatigves for their constituents and start hindering th erepresenation of other politicia's constituents. That is not their job. the fact that peopel don't get this is a sign of how far in the crapper our nation has fallen. It's pure selfishness.

These politicians are doing what their constituents elected them to do. Regardless if they do a straight up and down vote, filibuster or just don't show.



And there are many people who feel that is an immoral action because their job is to represent their constituents, not inhibit the representation of those they disagree with.


You are using the appeal to tradition fallacy to try and argue that it is morally correct. That's just poor logic.

These people are pissed because the democrats are preventing the republicans from enacting anti-union legislation. This is the only reason they are getting pissy about it. They would still be bitch even if the democrats had a majority and voted to oppose it.






Their job is to vote in line with their constiuents beliefs. It is not to inhibit the ability of other representatives to do this.

Their job to is support and enact legislation they and their constituents oppose and to support and enact legislation they and their constituents want. It doesn't matter if this achieved with straight voting, by filibustering or by not showing up to vote.

By taking the actions they have, they are taking actions that inhbit our representative democracy.

It should be hard as hell for politicians to enact legislation.The government is a necessary evil and thus should be treated as so.



This doens't present an argument. It's just an appeal to tradition. Just because two self-interested groups would choose to continue to engage in immoral and unethical behavior which serves their self-interest doesn't mean the actions are not immoral and unethical.
Its to point out that all this bitching about the democrats not showing up to vote is nothing more than hypocrisy. Any group that was in the minority would do.It doesn't matter if they have a D,R, or some other letter next to their name.

Which is why party politics are a detriment to democracy. They care more about serving their own selfish agenda than they do about performing their duties.

These politicians are doing what they are elected to do.
 
These politicians are doing what their constituents elected them to do. Regardless if they do a straight up and down vote, filibuster or just don't show.

Teh position they hold is to represent their constituents, not inhibit the represention of those who are not their constituents.

These people are pissed because the democrats are preventing the republicans from enacting anti-union legislation. This is the only reason they are getting pissy about it. They would still be bitch even if the democrats had a majority and voted to oppose it.

I'm pissed because partisan politics has **** all over our government system. When one group of politicians uses their partisan agenda to the detriment of other peopl ewho deserve to be represented as well, everyone suffers.

I don't care what party is doing it or for what reasons they are doing it.




Their job to is support and enact legislation they and their constituents oppose and to support and enact legislation they and their constituents want. It doesn't matter if this achieved with straight voting, by filibustering or by not showing up to vote.

This is false. Their job is to represent their constituents in teh legislative process. Nothing more, nothing less. One cannot represent their constituents inteh legislativ eprocess if they are not present for the legislative process.

They do not represent their peopl ein teh legislative process by inhibiting that process.


It should be hard as hell for politicians to enact legislation. The government is a necessary evil and thus should be treated as so.

Legislation should be enacted through the process that was designed for this purpose. Part of the way that the "evil" of government is mitigated is by having groups of people represented proportionally, yet while everyone supposedly has a voice.

When one group of people attempts to achieve unequally by silencing the voices o ftheir opponents, they **** on the process.




Its to point out that all this bitching about the democrats not showing up to vote is nothing more than hypocrisy. Any group that was in the minority would do.It doesn't matter if they have a D,R, or some other letter next to their name.

I would bitch about this no matter what letter was next to the name, so your theory that this is nothing more than hypocricy is clearly false.


These politicians are doing what they are elected to do.

No, they are doing the opposite of what they were elected to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom