Big labor loses, Americans (and esp. Wisconsonites) win [Archive]

CaptainHaplo

06-06-12, 06:23 AM

Not even the 119% voter turn out in Madison could save them.:haha:

Union dues well spent!:har:

Just think of all of the cool stuff they could have purchased....
New car, new boat, cool vacations.
Oh well.

Congrats Aramike:salute:.

@ Haplo, by big labo(u)r, you mean public sector, not private sector unions.:D

Yes it was public sector unions that "took the hit" when it came to the original reforms - but private sector unions were indeed a significant part of the recall process. The Teamsters Union was actively working on behalf of the recall effort, for example.

When it comes to the lessening of power of unions - both public and private lost a lot of political clout since both sides were so invested.

gimpy117

06-06-12, 01:03 PM

well bummer there, but not like I didn't see it coming.

I dunno, I wouldn't say "I'm a union man", but the right to organize I feel is as important now as it ever was.

mookiemookie

06-06-12, 01:13 PM

Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/walker-barrett.png

AVGWarhawk

06-06-12, 01:45 PM

Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/walker-barrett.png

I don't know if we can state without a doubt that elections can be bought.

But maybe we can:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cid=N00009638

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/

Catfish

06-06-12, 01:49 PM

Isn't it nice how the man with the most money or (generating enough of it) will become 'democratically elected :doh:

Torvald Von Mansee

06-06-12, 02:14 PM

Looking at the subject line:

Wow, I didn't really the two (2) Koch brothers represent all Americans!! I wonder where my unearned $22,000,000,000.00 is?

August

06-06-12, 02:39 PM

Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.

Sounds like sour grapes to me Mookie. Taking the out of state money out of the picture, Walker still raised over 10 million dollars from Wisconsinites whereas Barrett only raised a little under 2.9 mil.

Takeda Shingen

06-06-12, 03:23 PM

Bubblehead1980

06-06-12, 03:37 PM

I love how some among us and the MSNBC goons are whining the election was bought.They fail to see how a left leaning state's citizens looked at the situation and voted for Walker because his reforms have worked.They know this, but refuse to acknowledge it.Walker has not been governor that long but his reforms haved worked and are working, only people really mad are the union fools because they want their gravy train to continue.

BTW...While the real world ramifications of the Citizens United decision are unfortunate, the constitutional reasoning by the court was sound and thus it was a correct ruling.I have never heard anyone challenge the decision on the merits, simply by what the decision means for our elections.Frankly, in the world of con law, they are irrelevant.Tired of people who just do not get it being critical of the court, they did their job, they went with the constitution.

CaptainHaplo

06-06-12, 06:34 PM

Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.

Indeed an election can be "bought" - Big Labor Unions - both public and private - paid lots and lots of money to buy the organization that got the recall going. After all - getting all those people to go door to door and get signatures - or sign them with made up names themselves - isn't cheap. Bussing in union members from out of state so they can have near riots in the state capital building doesn't come cheap.

Big labor paid for the game - then got its clock cleaned.

You can "buy" an election - but you can't buy the results.
However, some will try to stuff the ballot box. No comment on the Madison turnout, huh?

For the record though - I agree with you on the Citizens United decision. Anything that isn't an individual should not be giving money. Period.

yubba

06-07-12, 07:46 AM

We got a fight going on, here in Florida, over voter registration with the DOJ {aka the department of injustice} it says you don't have to be a citizen of the United States or show a photo ID to vote, it would be to much trouble to the citizens, I guess it's to much trouble to have your drivers liscense on you when you drive to the polls to vote, or show it when you buy beer, get on a airplane.

Bilge_Rat

06-07-12, 10:30 AM

Its too simple to say the election was bought, there is never a direct correlation between money spent and votes, it it was, rich people would get their candidate in all the time.

Walker won fair and square, increased his vote percentage even though the turnout increased from 50 to 58%, so more people voted for him in 2012 than in 2010.

The Unions overreached, not just with the recall, but spending millions to try to nominate a blatant pro-union candidate instead of just rallying around the best candidate to beat Walker.

Exit polls also so a large percentage of voters, I think around 60%, disagree with a recall, except in a case of official malfeasance. That had an impact as well.

mookiemookie

06-07-12, 10:44 AM

Its too simple to say the election was bought, there is never a direct correlation between money spent and votes, it it was, rich people would get their candidate in all the time. That's pretty much how it works.

In nearly every election the person with the most money will win. Dollars don't vote, but dollars do allow one to shape the message the public gets in whatever way they want, no matter how divorced from the truth it may be. Give someone enough money and ad-time, and they can get the public to believe anything. If you don't see how having more money than your opponent in an election is an advantage, then you're not living in reality.

Walker won fair and square, increased his vote percentage even though the turnout increased from 50 to 58%, so more people voted for him in 2012 than in 2010. And most of the money he raised came from out-of-state - people who could never vote for him anyways. Hence the point - the election was bought.

The Unions overreached, not just with the recall, but spending millions to try to nominate a blatant pro-union candidate instead of just rallying around the best candidate to beat Walker.

Exit polls also so a large percentage of voters, I think around 60%, disagree with a recall, except in a case of official malfeasance. That had an impact as well.

On this, I agree. They picked a crappy candidate to go against him.

August

06-07-12, 10:48 AM

And most of the money he raised came from out-of-state - people who could never vote for him anyways. Hence the point - the election was bought.

He raised more than three times as much from Wisconsin voters than his opponent did. If anyone bought the election it was Wisconsinites.

Rockin Robbins

06-07-12, 11:16 AM

CaptainHaplo

06-07-12, 11:56 AM

And most of the money he raised came from out-of-state - people who could never vote for him anyways. Hence the point - the election was bought.

Pro-recall forces spent just about the same amount to recall walker.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/06/05/how-much-money-has-been-spent-in-wisconsin/

Scott Walker raised $30.5 Million to defend his job. Thats the MAX he could have spent.

Yet at a MINIMUM - $63.5 Million was spent on the recall.

Thus - Pro recall forces outspent Walker by at least $3 Million.

And look - they even use your graphic Mookie....

The fact is - pro union forces spent nearly $30 Million (and how much of that was outside money, hmmmm?) just to force the recall. They are the ones that BOUGHT the election. They wanted it - and they paid to get it. Then they didn't have the money to fight it.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/wisconsin-recall-elections-30-million-/1

So one sides spends $30.5 Million - the other spends at least $33.5 Million - and the person who spent less wins. So the loser cry that the election was "bought".

Anyone see the irony here?

the_tyrant

06-07-12, 08:24 PM

Pro-recall forces spent just about the same amount to recall walker.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/06/05/how-much-money-has-been-spent-in-wisconsin/

Scott Walker raised $30.5 Million to defend his job. Thats the MAX he could have spent.

Yet at a MINIMUM - $63.5 Million was spent on the recall.

Thus - Pro recall forces outspent Walker by at least $3 Million.

And look - they even use your graphic Mookie....

The fact is - pro union forces spent nearly $30 Million (and how much of that was outside money, hmmmm?) just to force the recall. They are the ones that BOUGHT the election. They wanted it - and they paid to get it. Then they didn't have the money to fight it.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/wisconsin-recall-elections-30-million-/1

So one sides spends $30.5 Million - the other spends at least $33.5 Million - and the person who spent less wins. So the loser cry that the election was "bought".

Anyone see the irony here?

Effectively showing how you should spend your money effectively.
Don't spend it all on starting a conflict, leaving yourself nothing to actually fight with

Aramike

06-08-12, 01:39 AM

Not even the 119% voter turn out in Madison could save them.:haha:

Union dues well spent!:har:

Just think of all of the cool stuff they could have purchased....
New car, new boat, cool vacations.
Oh well.

Congrats Aramike:salute:.

@ Haplo, by big labo(u)r, you mean public sector, not private sector unions.:DThanks!

I've been pretty much walking on a cloud since the results came in. I've followed and campaigned for Scott Walker since his early County Executive days - if there's a straighter shooter out there, I've never met him. :rock::rock:

Aramike

06-08-12, 02:01 AM

Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/walker-barrett.pngI'm sorry, Mookie, but that's total horse manure coming from someone who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about beyond the talking points he's been willingly consuming from a spoon feeding.

Besides what others have aptly pointed out here, I love how the lefties have ignored the fact that the unions and out-of-state interests have been pouring money into this process for months, INCLUDING a failed FOUR MILLION dollar investment in the failed union-preferred candidate for governor, Kathleen Falk.

The democrats have been pouring literally MILLIONS into this effort for over 16 MONTHS and have failed at virtually every turn (Prosser/Kloppenburg, the recall of Alberta Darling, etc). Sure, they got Randy Hopper but that guy had about three hundred other problems that made him vulnerable.

The facts don't support this BS claim, and if you've paid any attention at all to what's be going on around here, there were no shortage of the left and unions getting their messages out. Sure, if you ignore the PACs, the mobilization efforts, the union spending on voter-drives and bringing in PAID out-of-state workers to supplement these efforts, the amount of money spent on the preferred candidates, etc, yes, Walker did better fund-raising than Tom Barrett.

I'll even stipulate that, and I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Now I'd like you to tell me how that money was spent that specifically led voters to vote for Walker in droves. I know, I know ... in the mind of the average person on the side who loses just assumes that the opposition are idiots.

Tell me, Mookie, what part of Barrett's plan did you like? Us in Wisconsin can't even identify ANY plan from Barrett. Even better, what part of Walker's actions did people still hate? I mean, a projected surplus after a $3.6B deficit? Positive job growth and depletion in unemployment rate?

How about this: where were the democrat millionaire/billionaire donors? Is Soros on vacation? Is Hollywood tapped out after Obama's mansion fundraisers? Do you object to Obama's fundraising successes?

This was nothing more than an epic fail for the Democrats in Wisconsin, and they know it. The state convention is next week, and I suspect that their leadership faces being thrown out. Have you ever heard of Graeme Zielinski? He's their spokesman, and he makes Reverend Wright sound reasonable.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has been infiltrated and taken over by activist antagonizers, and the results of Tuesday were a clear repudiation of this. You can delude yourself into thinking that the Democrats haven't been spending millions in support of this recall for over a year, and additional millions by proxy, but that's nothing more than the delusions that made the left think this was a good idea in the first place.

The irony is even thicker, though - while the left's extreme, crybaby behavior here was designed to defeat Walker and his reforms, it has done nothing but to give Walker and the conservatives an even stronger mandate. Yet, if they merely would have behaved reasonably, they may have had a decent chance of winning the state back in '14.

Now, they and their interests, and a principle source of their funding, have been utterly destroyed as an effective driver of public policy. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Aramike

06-08-12, 02:07 AM

Good links about the funding myth (in fact, when all's said and done, the Dems may have outspent the Republicans):

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/06/07/no-dems-were-not-outspent-7-to-1-in-wisconsin/

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/06/democracy-alive-and-well-myth-of.html

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/cockroach-left-that-outspent-republicans-1-now-whining-that-republicans-are-outspending-them-the-end-of-the-usa-as-we-know-it-just-happened/

http://www.mortgagegrapevine.com/thread/?thread=604067

I could go on. I will tell you for a fact that there were no shortage of anti-Walker ads. No, this election wasn't bought. This election was won because it was a fool's errand to begin with, and the best candidate the Democrats could put up was a perennial loser who literally had NO PLAN WHATSOEVER.

On Wisconsin!!!

Aramike

06-08-12, 02:30 AM

Even though I think that Walker is a short-sighted idiot for gutting education, I am glad that he won. Recall elections should be reserved for official misconduct, not becausey you disagree with policy. Public officials are elected to set policy; if you do not like said policy, vote him out at the next election. Don't try to run an end-around on the election process.*Sigh*

This is yet another statement fostered by union talking points. He didn't "gut" education. He did TWO very important things: cut state aid to school districts, and ... wait for it ... implemented Act 10 as a tool to allow those districts to compensate for the cuts!

In other words, he made the communities themselves responsible for their school funding. They still have the property tax levy, but now they can implement reforms to cut labor costs in order to compensate for the money the schools aren't getting from the state - money that the STATE DIDN'T HAVE.

Now, we could've taken the Illinois route, but, well, that's worked, right? :doh:

Part of why this recall failed was because the unions promised the sky would fall, and more than a year later, it didn't. That's why Barrett did NOT run on a platform of restoring collective bargaining - he barely even paid lip-service to it. The Democrats figured out they lost that issue months ago even though the unions didn't - they blew four million dollars on Kathleen Falk.

Ironically, some of the hardest hit school districts are the ones that attempting to avoid Walker's Act 10 reforms by hurrying into union contracts (Janesville comes to mind). The districts that embraced said reforms are quite healthy.

It's amazing the kind of fiscal health that can be achieved when you don't have to buy health insurance FROM A UNION COMPANY and an INFLATED RATE (WEA Trust).

What shouldn't be missed here is that all of this could have been avoided if the unions would have acted in good faith. FDR was right - public employee unions simply cannot work. Afterall, they simply funnel their dues into electing people that will give them whatever they want.

Aramike

06-08-12, 02:35 AM

Pro-recall forces spent just about the same amount to recall walker.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/06/05/how-much-money-has-been-spent-in-wisconsin/

Scott Walker raised $30.5 Million to defend his job. Thats the MAX he could have spent.

Yet at a MINIMUM - $63.5 Million was spent on the recall.

Thus - Pro recall forces outspent Walker by at least $3 Million.

And look - they even use your graphic Mookie....

The fact is - pro union forces spent nearly $30 Million (and how much of that was outside money, hmmmm?) just to force the recall. They are the ones that BOUGHT the election. They wanted it - and they paid to get it. Then they didn't have the money to fight it.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/wisconsin-recall-elections-30-million-/1

So one sides spends $30.5 Million - the other spends at least $33.5 Million - and the person who spent less wins. So the loser cry that the election was "bought".

Anyone see the irony here?Precisely. :salute:

I mean really, the hypocrisy here is great. Mookie, can you link me to your complaint about Obama outspending McCain by insane margins? More importanly, TRUE margins of outspending that include all of the other forces involved?

mookiemookie

06-08-12, 06:50 AM

Was it a failure from the point of view of the Democrat side? Yes. One would be a fool to argue otherwise. The pro-recall side raised money from out of state sources and tried to buy the election, just as much as the other side did. Walker happened to raise more money from out of state sources and bought the election before the other guys could buy the election. It doesn't mean that the other side didn't try to buy it any less, but he still bought it.

You can go on all the Skybird-length rants you want about how I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, blah blah blah. But the candidate who outspent the other 10-1 won. And that candidate raised the majority of his money from out of state donors who couldn't vote for him.

If you'd care to read what I posted instead of strawmanning away and putting words in my mouth, you'd see the only argument I was making is that anyone can buy an election if they raise more money than the other guy.

Tell me, Mookie, what part of Barrett's plan did you like?You're rebutting an argument I made that exists only in your head.

The candidate who raises more money will most likely win. Candidates who raise money from people that can't vote for them are buying the election. I don't care to debate with someone who's so arrogant enough to dismiss anyone else's point of view with "oh you don't live here so you don't have a clue." I'm really tired of being assigned every liberal argument and opinion as if I were the designated representative for every crackpot left-wing idea ever. If you want to debate someone that said the things that you're rebutting, I'd suggest you actually you know....find that person and rebut them.

Mookie, can you link me to your complaint about Obama outspending McCain by insane margins?

I can tell you that this chart is a bad thing, regardless of who's outspending who:

http://seven1free.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fireshot-screen-capture-060-presidential-fundraising-and-spending-1976-2008-i-opensecrets-www_opensecrets_org_pres08_totals_php_cycle.jpg

Bilge_Rat

06-08-12, 09:52 AM

Its a bit silly to argue that the candidate who spends the most money will always win, that has never been the case.

As others have pointed out, the Walker side did not outspend the Barrett side by 8 to 1. Once you factor all the cash in, it was probably roughly equal.

The talk about Walker buying the election is all spin. Dems thought beating Walker would be a cake walk, but instead he did better than in 2010.

So the Dems need a scapegoat. They are trying to spin this that the GOP brainwashed the voters of Wisconsin.The answer surely can't be that voters preferred Walker over Barrett! :roll:

The fact that Dems are trying to spin this to their advantage is no surprise. I am surprised though at how many people are simply parroting the spin with no critical analysis whatsoever.

mookiemookie

06-08-12, 09:56 AM

Its a bit silly to argue that the candidate who spends the most money will always win, that has never been the case. BZZT. Wrong. It is, in fact, usually the case. What's silly is to build an "he who spends the most will always win" strawman. No one ever said that.

In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

The most recent figures, from the 2008 election cycle, show that 80 percent of state legislative candidates with the monetary advantage won their contests. In 2006, it was 83 percent; in 2004, it was 84 percent; and in 2002, it was 82 percent. (The group's figures for 2010 are due to be released in the next month or so.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/

To ignore the chilling effect that money has in politics is to ignore reality.

Bilge_Rat

06-08-12, 11:41 AM

Most of those are incumbents who are well known, therefore well financed and therefore spend more.

What you have to do is look at runs for open seats where there are no incumbents and candidates are relatively unknown.

For example, Deb Fischer won the GOP Senate nomination in Nebraska even though she raised and spent far less than her opponents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-deb-fischer-pulled-an-upset-in-nebraska/2012/05/16/gIQAtDQwTU_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/deb-fischer-and-what-political-money-cant-buy/2012/05/15/gIQA99GfSU_blog.html

Money allows you to get your message out, to introduce and define yourself and other candidates to voters which is of course, a competitive advantage. It does not buy results.

AVGWarhawk

06-08-12, 12:13 PM

BZZT. Wrong. It is, in fact, usually the case. What's silly is to build an "he who spends the most will always win" strawman. No one ever said that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/

To ignore the chilling effect that money has in politics is to ignore reality.

Mookie is correct. Wealthy donors make the difference between win or lose. As a result it lessens the peoples voice.

August

06-08-12, 01:03 PM

You can go on all the Skybird-length rants you want about how I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, blah blah blah. But the candidate who outspent the other 10-1 won. And that candidate raised the majority of his money from out of state donors who couldn't vote for him.

You can keep ignoring it but the fact remains that even among funds raised from Wisconsinites Walker still brought in 4 times as much as Barrett.

Oh and your 10-1 margin is false as it doesn't count any of the many millions spent by the union and their leftist supporters getting the recall started.

Armistead

06-08-12, 01:09 PM

I have no problem with unions, as long as they're private, they don't belong in the public sector, our tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for benefits most Americans can't get or afford.

mookiemookie

06-08-12, 01:21 PM

You can keep ignoring it but the fact remains that even among funds raised from Wisconsinites Walker still brought in 4 times as much as Barrett.

Oh and your 10-1 margin is false as it doesn't count any of the many millions spent by the union and their leftist supporters getting the recall started.

Oh well in that case, money and politics is a great combination. Thanks for helping me see the light on that.

August

06-08-12, 01:35 PM

Oh well in that case, money and politics is a great combination. Thanks for helping me see the light on that.

We'll you're the one who keeps making a big deal about where the candidates got their funds. All i'm saying is that according to your graphic when it comes to putting their own money where their mouths are Wisconsinites showed a clear preference for Walker. That hardly is affected by out of state donors.

As for your assertion that money and politics are a great combination, well maybe it is, but it wasn't good enough for the Unions seeing as how they outspend Walker and still lost.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe in our system of government or you think voters aren't competent enough to make their own decision.

mookiemookie

06-08-12, 01:40 PM

I guess it comes down to whether you believe in our system of government or you think voters aren't competent enough to make their own decision.

As I said before, give me enough money and airtime, I'll have people believing that the sun revolves around the Earth and that Ubisoft cares about sim gamers. :rotfl2:

August

06-08-12, 02:45 PM

As I said before, give me enough money and airtime, I'll have people believing that the sun revolves around the Earth and that Ubisoft cares about sim gamers. :rotfl2:

:DL No amount of money could ever make me think any better about UBI than I do now.

Seriously though I think you don't give the American voter enough credit.

I'd think that people lazy enough to let someone else do their thinking for them like that would also be too lazy to get off the couch, go down to town hall and vote.

If you really don't believe that then you really don't believe in our system of government.

mookiemookie

06-08-12, 03:41 PM

I'd think that people lazy enough to let someone else do their thinking for them like that would also be too lazy to get off the couch, go down to town hall and vote.

Well there's certainly that. When a voter turnout of 30 or 40% is seen as successful, there is something wrong with the system. And then there's plenty of people who do vote who believe they're informed on an issue because they've seen enough campaign ads and listened to enough echo chamber "news" shows and blogs (Fox/MSNBC, Kos, Breitbart, et al.)...I think it does a real disservice to us as a nation. People are more interested in TV shows and iphones than they are in cutting through the garbage and doing their own thinking. They said the internet was supposed to revolutionize everything by making information free and easy. And it has. But to the point where it's overwhelming and people can't possibly process it all. All it's really done is create filter bubbles...people get their news and analysis from people that think like them and confirmation bias runs wild.

I'm meandering, but my point is that yes, I do believe that people are easily misled by ad campaigns and disinformation spread by people who have been trained to play public media like a fiddle. Repeat something often enough and people come to believe it.

August

06-08-12, 04:52 PM

I'm meandering, but my point is that yes, I do believe that people are easily misled by ad campaigns and disinformation spread by people who have been trained to play public media like a fiddle. Repeat something often enough and people come to believe it.

Well the easily misled voter did make the right decision in this case. Even FDR knew public sector unions are an inherent conflict of interest.

CaptainHaplo

06-09-12, 09:06 AM

What some of us take issue with is that the concern over money in politics only seems to matter when the outcome is not what some wanted.

As I said before, the Citizens United case was a mistake. If you can't go in and pull a lever, you shouldn't be able to donate money, time or anything else. If you can vote in the election in question, then you should be able to donate, volunteer, etc.

Yes - using that would have meant Walker would not have had $30.5 Million to run with. But - it also means that the Unions would not have been able to accept all the out of state money, the out of state workers paid with out of state money, etc. Conceivably - it could have kept the out of state, bussed in protesters home too - which means the rioting "crowds" at the state capital a year ago would have been much smaller in size, if they existed at all.

Do I lament the fact that more than $63 Million was spent in this idiocy? Yes. Yet it was done legally. When someone from "team D" wins - do you hear me complaining about the money advantage? No. Selective outrage over money because the guy on the "right" won, when the facts show that the "left" spent more is what bothers me. No one on the left said a word when Obama outspent McCain heavily (even though I don't know that he needed to - McCain was a joke!). Where was the outrage there?

The lack of consistency in concern, along with the intentional mis-information that is used - like the claim that Walker "outspent" the opposition, is why complaints like this from those on the other side of the political spectrum are something I just can't seem to take seriously.

Complaining about Walker specifically - I have yet to hear anyone offer a reasonably arguement concerning the following issues:

1) Making public sector employees pay a minimal portion of their pay into their own pension fund. Private sector employees do so - why is it "unfair" to make public sector employees do the same?

2) Making public sector employees pay something toward their own health care costs. Private sector employees do so - why is it "unfair" to make public sector employees do the same?

3) Allowing public sector workers to "opt out" of union membership IF they choose. How is FORCING a person to join an organization and taking dues money from them without a choice, consistent with the values of the American Society? Especially when said organization supports a political view with which the member disagrees.

4) When answering the above 1 and 2 questions, remember that public sector employees (where comparable) tend to make more money than their counterparts in the private sector.

Rockin Robbins

06-09-12, 10:22 AM

Well there's certainly that. When a voter turnout of 30 or 40% is seen as successful, there is something wrong with the system.

I'm going to come down on the other side. It's a good thing that the 30 or 40% voted and the 70% who know and care nothing about the issues at hand did not vote. I believe that there are large blocks of people who should not vote.

Dead people--contrary to US Justice Department follies, people should be checked to ensure that they are not impersonating a dead person. Vote early, vote often is very possible when voters are not authenticated and we have fraudulent votes polluting the vote pool.
Non-citizens--If Wal-Mart were having a stockholder's meeting and deciding on crucial issues important to their survival, but the courts determined that Target shareholders were allowed to vote, would we not laugh? Yet, straight-faced people seek to require votes of non-citizens be counted. Hell, let's just subcontract the entire government out to the Iranians... If the first idiocy is "justice" the second one is absolutely brilliant.
People unable to name the Vice President of the United States, the governor or their state, the mayor of the nearest town, one of their two Senators, choose one, just answer one and you can vote. Otherwise get lost--you aren't interested enough to vote responsibly. The guy who told you what to vote and might have given you a ride here for has already voted.

That's not an exhaustive list, but there are large groups of people who just should not vote. They do nothing to contribute to wise decision making on who will lead a republican form of government.

Not everyone should be allowed to vote! How you like THEM bananas?:D

Platapus

06-09-12, 11:11 AM

As a precinct chief for the board of elections, I get asked... interesting questions from the citizens concerning voting.

In Virginia, candidates for state and country offices below a specific level are identified only by their name. No party affiliation. As a side note, I believe this should be the rule for all offices..

Anyway.

I had this voter come up to me and state that they could not complete their ballot. The reason was they they did not know who the Republican or Democratic candidate was, so how could they be expected to cast a ballot??

As an election officer, I have to maintain strict political neutrality and a helpful non judgmental and professional attitude toward the stupid lazy citizens I have to deal with. :D

In my internal monologue, I was shouting at this voter. "You are really telling me that you can't cast a ballot unless you know what political party the person belongs to? How about voting for the person and not the party!!!!! If it was important to you, why did you not do the simplest amount of research before coming to the polls!!!!!"

In my external voice, I responded "I am sorry, Ma'am, but Virginia law mandates that offices below a specific level are only identified on the ballot by their names with no party affiliation."

She was pissed

Having experienced the cross section of voters in my state, I am convinced what the public really wants is simply a ballot with no names but political parties. No one seems to give a crap about the individual, only the party.

Does anyone remember the old mechanical voting machines (levers)? Remember the party lever. One lever per political party. Pull this one lever and all the candidates of that party would be voted for automatically.

I am sure that is what the citizens want these days. :damn::damn::damn::damn:

As an election officer, there are times when I feel that universal suffrage is a great concept, but a lousy practice. :D

You meet an interesting cross-section of citizens when you work the polls.

Rockin Robbins

06-09-12, 11:40 AM

there are times when I feel that universal suffrage is a great concept, but a lousy practice. :D
Yes, some things, like universal sufferage, flying automobiles and a good many beautiful women are best experienced as bright shiny ideals rather than their own version of hell itself.:har:

Aramike

06-12-12, 11:24 PM

Was it a failure from the point of view of the Democrat side? Yes. One would be a fool to argue otherwise. The pro-recall side raised money from out of state sources and tried to buy the election, just as much as the other side did. Walker happened to raise more money from out of state sources and bought the election before the other guys could buy the election. It doesn't mean that the other side didn't try to buy it any less, but he still bought it.

You can go on all the Skybird-length rants you want about how I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, blah blah blah. But the candidate who outspent the other 10-1 won. And that candidate raised the majority of his money from out of state donors who couldn't vote for him.

If you'd care to read what I posted instead of strawmanning away and putting words in my mouth, you'd see the only argument I was making is that anyone can buy an election if they raise more money than the other guy.

You're rebutting an argument I made that exists only in your head. Sorry, Mookie, but I was arguing against YOUR WORDS - Elections can be bought. What a wonderful world that the Citizens United decision has brought us.If you can't connect how I was refuting your argument, again, YOUR WORDS, by showing that the Dems spent nearly just as damned much money in trying to oust Walker, either you're under a rock or just don't want to acknowledge that you're wrong.

Like it or not, the unions have been campaigning against Walker for 16 months, even doing so by proxy in last year's recalls and Supreme Court election. And while Walker certainly did take in more money than his opponent, when you take into account the non-stop influx of left wing money into this state in support of the unions, that gap closes significantly.

So no, Mookie, this election was not "bought". It shouldn't have happened in the first place, but I'm sort of happy it did - it gave voters a chance to repudiate the left wing shenanigans perpetuated over the past year.

PS: Polls showed that there were virtually no undecideds months ago. What the hell do you think the money "bought"? Both sides turned out more voters than the 2010 election. So yes, again, you STILL don't know what you're talking about.