• 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!

Are You Voting Next Tuesday?

Are You Voting November 8th?

  • Yes, I vote in every election.

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • No, I never vote.

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • No, I don't vote unless I have a candidate I'm supporting.

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • No, I can't vote.

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Undecided.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
If you have questions or concerns before or after voting, there is a 2002 federal law called the Help America Vote Act, which sets minimum standards and practices that states must follow. If you have questions whilst attempting to vote, I suggest you contact your local county board of elections, and if you are refused the right to vote, I suggest that you call the police and make a NON-EMERGENCY request that they come take a report, so that evidence will exist as to the facts of what transpired, in case you wish to pursue the matter.

Here is the full text of the Help America Vote Act:

http://www.boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/HAVA_for_web.pdf
 
Nobody should ever rely on anybody's representations that they are a lawyer (or doctor, or truck driver, or plumber, or any other sort of licensed professional) on a message board like this, nor should anybody rely on legal advice recieved via such a message board except as it might point you in the right direction as to which government agency, advocacy group, etc. would best be able to respond to your complaints if you are denied the right to vote.

That said, if after Tuesday November 8th, you have complaints about your voting experience, feel free to start a thread and doubtless, it will attract the attention of at least some legal beagals on DP, such as myself or Turtledude.
 
from HarryG

Other people do it, so it's ok for you to?
What's the next excuse?

I'm more than sure, as an educator, that you've told plenty of children that, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...


TWO WRONGS!?!?!?!?!? What in the world are you talking about. It is the American way and there is nothing at all WRONG about being a member of different groups or associations which have people who represent them before government. I dare say that some Americans have dozens of people who push their interests and there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with that. It is part and parcel of the way our democrtic republic is suppose to function.

I claimed that the HG statement about not paying taxes was irrevelant when he stated this

Can taxpayers not pay taxes, when public employees go on strike?
We already know the answer to this.
Click to expand...

his comment in rebuttal

It's entirely relevant.
It's the important distinction between private business unions and public sector unions.
Private unions are legitimate, public sector unions are merely rent seeking entities.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, your unique view on this matter is not the law nor is it reality.
 
haymarket said:
TWO WRONGS!?!?!?!?!? What in the world are you talking about. It is the American way and there is nothing at all WRONG about being a member of different groups or associations which have people who represent them before government. I dare say that some Americans have dozens of people who push their interests and there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with that. It is part and parcel of the way our democrtic republic is suppose to function.
Click to expand...

Having multiple representation, in one section of government is wrong.
Especially if others do not have at least an equal share of representation.

Does this now mean you support the Citizens United decision?

haymarket said:
I claimed that the HG statement about not paying taxes was irrevelant when he stated this
Click to expand...

Saying something is irrelevant, without providing a reason, does not make it so.

haymarket said:
Fortunately, your unique view on this matter is not the law nor is it reality.
Click to expand...

It is reality, unless the sphere of private and public business is totally different in the state of Ohio.
Something I'm sure is not.

Fact is, you haven't been able to craft a competent rebuttal but are relying on meaningless conjecture.
What's new though, right. :2wave:
 
randel said:
interesting...stating a fact is now considered an 'irrelevant logical fallacy' by you....lord help us
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what a logical fallacy is?

Wiki said:
Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. This statement is seen as true to some people because 2 negatives indeed make a positive in math (3-(-3)= 3+3). However, a person with common sense would know that two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...


Two wrongs make a right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Semi-serious question: There are so many logical fallacies that seem to cover pretty much anything and everything a person can possibly say, especially when what was said is left to individual interpretation. Is there anything that is NOT a logical fallacy?
 
radcen said:
Semi-serious question: There are so many logical fallacies that seem to cover pretty much anything and everything a person can possibly say, especially when what was said is left to individual interpretation. Is there anything that is NOT a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...

In this instance, a grown up arguing, "well they do it too" is a logical fallacy I'm happy to point out.
It's a childish argument.
 
Our elections for mayor and council were earlier this year, so I have nothing to vote for - otherwise I would be voting. Only missed one election since 1988.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You don't seem to understand this.
I'm totally not caring who is ramming what down your throat.
If it were, socialists, democrats, anarchists, space aliens, nazi's, etc, I'd still be in favor.

Public employees are tasked with providing essential services to the public.
If they decide to strike, the welfare of the public is at stake and it essentially holds the public "hostage" to their demands.
It's wrong, completely and entirely unethical.

There is no getting around this.
Click to expand...

I must agree with Harry here. Frankly I don't understand why so many so-called "progressives" support unions, which are relics from the distant past. I want a REAL progressive candidate, who actually looks to the future...and unions (especially public-sector unions) are definitely not part of it. Ultimately we need to realize that regardless of the overall level of spending and taxation, there are tradeoffs. Spending $1 more on one thing means that we'll have $1 less to spend on something else (or we'll have to raise taxes $1, or add $1 to the deficit, or inflate our currency by $1.)

More progressives need to figure out what I figured out a long time ago: public sector unions are a parasite on the public. We need to figure out if we want to spend our limited resources on better education, better health care, fixing our infrastructure, helping the poor, reducing our deficits...or if we want to just give free money to powerful lobbies to artificially inflate their wages beyond what the market would bear.
 
Last edited:
Nothing to vote on in my county or state.
 
No laws to be voted on in my state AFAIK. As far as voting for politicians. Forget it. I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils". When there is a candidate that is actually good then I will vote. Otherwise it's a waste of my time. In this case evil is evil...there is no black or white. Just black and white.
 
the mayoral race in my own town is less than stellar. i have never been less excited to cast a local vote. still voting, though.
 
Kandahar said:
I must agree with Harry here. Frankly I don't understand why so many so-called "progressives" support unions, which are relics from the distant past. I want a REAL progressive candidate, who actually looks to the future...and unions (especially public-sector unions) are definitely not part of it. Ultimately we need to realize that regardless of the overall level of spending and taxation, there are tradeoffs. Spending $1 more on one thing means that we'll have $1 less to spend on something else (or we'll have to raise taxes $1, or add $1 to the deficit, or inflate our currency by $1.)

More progressives need to figure out what I figured out a long time ago: public sector unions are a parasite on the public. We need to figure out if we want to spend our limited resources on better education, better health care, fixing our infrastructure, helping the poor, reducing our deficits...or if we want to just give free money to powerful lobbies to artificially inflate their wages beyond what the market would bear.
Click to expand...

Generally because I support any institution that gives members of the middle class political and economic power. Public sector unions don't really deserve the interest of the country -- that is, making it a good place to live for the entire body of the people who live here -- but neither does Wall-Street. Depriving Unions of political power creates a power vacuum that enables Wall Street lobbyists to obtain even more influence. Unions may be the enemy of my wallet, but they are rivals to Wall-Street, and the lesser enemy of my greater enemy is my grudging ally. As far as the economic side of it goes, Unions aren't the fairest or most effective means of wealth redistribution, but they're better than nothing.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Generally because I support any institution that gives members of the middle class political and economic power. Public sector unions don't really deserve the interest of the country -- that is, making it a good place to live for the entire body of the people who live here -- but neither does Wall-Street. Depriving Unions of political power creates a power vacuum that enables Wall Street lobbyists to obtain even more influence. Unions may be the enemy of my wallet, but they are rivals to Wall-Street, and the lesser enemy of my greater enemy is my grudging ally. As far as the economic side of it goes, Unions aren't the fairest or most effective means of wealth redistribution, but they're better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Public sector unions are not the same as private sector unions.
Public union employees really don't have to compete with any other enterprise's employees, that makes them a monopsony.
A form of monopoly.

They don't check Wall Street because they aren't involved with Wall Street.
 
Morality Games said:
Generally because I support any institution that gives members of the middle class political and economic power.
Click to expand...

The problem is that public sector unions give the middle class economic power at the expense of the poor. Look at teachers' unions. They may be great for mostly middle-class, well-educated teachers...but they're horrible for underprivileged, mostly minority children living in underfunded urban school districts.

Public sector unions don't really deserve the interest of the country -- that is, making it a good place to live for the entire body of the people who live here -- but neither does Wall-Street. Depriving Unions of political power creates a power vacuum that enables Wall Street lobbyists to obtain even more influence. Unions may be the enemy of my wallet, but they are rivals to Wall-Street, and the lesser enemy of my greater enemy is my grudging ally.
Click to expand...

Maybe that makes sense for private-sector unions (although I question the logic even there), but why for public sector unions? What interests of Wall Street lobbyists are public sector unions protecting us against? I think that liberals and conservatives can agree (albeit for different reasons) that we should get the best-quality government services for the cheapest price possible. A public sector union, practically by definition, is interested in lobbying to make it more expensive for the taxpayer to get a given quality of government service.

As far as the economic side of it goes, Unions aren't the fairest or most effective means of wealth redistribution, but they're better than nothing.
Click to expand...

They're redistributing wealth up the economic ladder, from the poor to the middle-class. Unfortunately public sector unions are not standing up to The Man. They ARE The Man.
 
Kandahar said:
The problem is that public sector unions give the middle class economic power at the expense of the poor. Look at teachers' unions. They may be great for mostly middle-class, well-educated teachers...but they're horrible for underprivileged, mostly minority children living in underfunded urban school districts.



Maybe that makes sense for private-sector unions (although I question the logic even there), but why for public sector unions? What interests of Wall Street lobbyists are public sector unions protecting us against? I think that liberals and conservatives can agree (albeit for different reasons) that we should get the best-quality government services for the cheapest price possible. A public sector union, practically by definition, is interested in lobbying to make it more expensive for the taxpayer to get a given quality of government service.



They're redistributing wealth up the economic ladder, from the poor to the middle-class. Unfortunately public sector unions are not standing up to The Man. They ARE The Man.
Click to expand...

This to me, seems so intuitive that almost everyone should agree, regardless of political stripe.

To put it in the most simplest terms, the unions are a business that have the exclusive ability to sell labor to the government.
In any other scenario, people would be outraged at such a government/business partnership.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
This to me, seems so intuitive that almost everyone should agree, regardless of political stripe.

To put it in the most simplest terms, the unions are a business that have the exclusive ability to sell labor to the government.
In any other scenario, people would be outraged at such a government/business partnership.
Click to expand...

The fact that they are not should tell you how false your comparison is.
 
Kandahar said:
The problem is that public sector unions give the middle class economic power at the expense of the poor. Look at teachers' unions. They may be great for mostly middle-class, well-educated teachers...but they're horrible for underprivileged, mostly minority children living in underfunded urban school districts.



Maybe that makes sense for private-sector unions (although I question the logic even there), but why for public sector unions? What interests of Wall Street lobbyists are public sector unions protecting us against? I think that liberals and conservatives can agree (albeit for different reasons) that we should get the best-quality government services for the cheapest price possible. A public sector union, practically by definition, is interested in lobbying to make it more expensive for the taxpayer to get a given quality of government service.



They're redistributing wealth up the economic ladder, from the poor to the middle-class. Unfortunately public sector unions are not standing up to The Man. They ARE The Man.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly indifferent about the issue of public sector unions. Most people who get a little bit of power will abuse it to press their own self-interest over that of others. In answer to Harry's earlier question, no, I don't trust the public, once empowered to do so, to give public employees a fair shake if it means less taxes for them.

The truth of the matter is, I'm against representation of groups in general. There are ways to evaluate what different groups of people deserve according to their deeds, and what they need to survive and enable civilization to function and prosper. Factions rarely embrace those ways, so I don't want to hear what they have to say for themselves and their interests.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The problem is that public sector unions give the middle class economic power at the expense of the poor. Look at teachers' unions. They may be great for mostly middle-class, well-educated teachers...but they're horrible for underprivileged, mostly minority children living in underfunded urban school districts.
Click to expand...
How so? Teacher unions fight for smaller class sizes, school safety and more resources and have little to no say in education policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom