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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

Sorry, Mookie, but I was arguing against YOUR WORDS - 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.