Hey, Mags - looks like Wisconsin isn't completely happy with Walker and Repubs...

[Chadman]

Mags, I would agree that from a motivation standpoint, one would favor those supporting the recall - which of course were a lot of citizens that became motivated because of what they were watching happen statewide and in their districts. I think the citizenry there and elsewhere is probably going to rebel against incumbents across the board in the coming elections, which will make the next ones interesting to be sure.

By the way, I'm not calling anything about last night a victory - not sure why you (and others) seem so focused on that word and attaching me to it. I was merely making an outside observation on the elections, which seemed interesting that two republicans already lost their seats to democrats less than a year after taking office. I would not be surprised if a democrat lost in the next recalls - seems the public is fed up with legislators in general across the country, right or wrong.

 

[Chadman]

A lot of us don't see it that way. To us, it is finally leveling the playing field against organized labor, who have been buying elections for years in the US.

Finally, conservatives can combat the large money contributed by unions which are sucked out of their members accounts (with political spending being done with each members dues without each members express consent).

So, we finally have a level playing field. What is so wrong with that?

Conservatives may not be loudmouths that spew a lot of profanity like some liberals are (which help them get recognized), but there are a lot of us and our opinions are important also......

Read some interesting comments from people lately on message boards - who support Walker and Darling for example, but are afraid to put signs in their yard or on their car as they are pretty confident that they will get vandalized because of it.

Yet, I (and many other conservatives) would never consider vandalizing a car with a "Recall Walker" bumper sticker.

Now, that is a true class war - conservatives have it, and some, at least, liberals don't.

If you think that comparing all of the corporations across the country (and outside the country, for that matter) and their buying power compared to union money as being an equal playing field moving forward, then I'd say you are at least not thinking it through or are at most delusional. Funny how when you, Wayne and others talk about how dramatically unions are losing clout and membership when talking about them on one hand, then say how strong their control of elections are on another, it just doesn't add up.

For the record, I have no problem trying to get ALL of the money out of the system. I've said that many times before. It's relegated all of us to bit players and now will get far worse.

 

[Mags]

Mags, I would agree that from a motivation standpoint, one would favor those supporting the recall - which of course were a lot of citizens that became motivated because of what they were watching happen statewide and in their districts. I think the citizenry there and elsewhere is probably going to rebel against incumbents across the board in the coming elections, which will make the next ones interesting to be sure.

By the way, I'm not calling anything about last night a victory - not sure why you (and others) seem so focused on that word and attaching me to it. I was merely making an outside observation on the elections, which seemed interesting that two republicans already lost their seats to democrats less than a year after taking office. I would not be surprised if a democrat lost in the next recalls - seems the public is fed up with legislators in general across the country, right or wrong.

Well, I certainly agree with your last statement. We can only hope that the same phenomenon applies in 2012 to Obama.

 

[Mags]

If you think that comparing all of the corporations across the country (and outside the country, for that matter) and their buying power compared to union money as being an equal playing field moving forward, then I'd say you are at least not thinking it through or are at most delusional. Funny how when you, Wayne and others talk about how dramatically unions are losing clout and membership when talking about them on one hand, then say how strong their control of elections are on another, it just doesn't add up.

For the record, I have no problem trying to get ALL of the money out of the system. I've said that many times before. It's relegated all of us to bit players and now will get far worse.

I'd agree with that - to some extent. I'd like to take it a step further - that if you haven't paid Federal income tax in the year prior to an election, you can't vote.

We have too many people dependant on the system (and primarily democrats), trying to vote themselves "rich". That has to change somehow.

 

[Trench]

Funny how when you, Wayne and others talk about how dramatically unions are losing clout and membership when talking about them on one hand, then say how strong their control of elections are on another, it just doesn't add up.

Good point, Chad. Mags has made the point several times how marginalized and irrelevant unions have become and now he wants us to believe they have the same amount of influence on our political process as the thousands of corporate lobbyists that inhabit the halls of Congress every day and as much money to buy elections as corporations?

Mags, one question... Are you out of your f'king mind? :shrug:

 

[azbob]

An outsider's perspective...

Ten or fifteen years ago, most would have put Wisconsin on the list of most liberal, democratic leaning states.

Now we are talking about close elections so the Demos can get BACK in power.

Read the writing on the wall comrades.

 

[Mags]

Good point, Chad. Mags has made the point several times how marginalized and irrelevant unions have become and now he wants us to believe they have the same amount of influence on our political process as the thousands of corporate lobbyists that inhabit the halls of Congress every day and as much money to buy elections as corporations?

Mags, one question... Are you out of your f'king mind? :shrug:

Trench - I'm saying that unions have had undue influence on our elections, unfairly, until the recent supreme court decision finally leveled the playing field.

 

[Trench]

Trench - I'm saying that unions have had undue influence on our elections, unfairly, until the recent supreme court decision finally leveled the playing field.

Mags, union membership is the lowest it's been in 70 years... 11.9% of the workforce.

Do you really expect us to believe that 14.7 million union members have as much political and financial clout as corporations and their armies of lobbyists?

Same question, Mags... Are you out of your f'king mind? :shrug:

 

[ssd]

It never ceases to amaze me - bring up union contributions and people will counter with corporate donors?

Do all corporations only support Republican candidates?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503933125159928.html#project%3DPOLLYMONEY1009%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

The article shows that corporate PACS give 52% to R over D in 2010 but that was a reversal of a 3 yr trend where the % to D was higher.

even funnier - take a look at the charts when you click on the defense, labor and lobbyist tab

 

[Mags]

It never ceases to amaze me - bring up union contributions and people will counter with corporate donors?

Do all corporations only support Republican candidates?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503933125159928.html#project%3DPOLLYMONEY1009%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

The article shows that corporate PACS give 52% to R over D in 2010 but that was a reversal of a 3 yr trend where the % to D was higher.

even funnier - take a look at the charts when you click on the defense, labor and lobbyist tab

Yea, Trench, what SSD said (thanks SSD)!

 

[Trench]

It never ceases to amaze me - bring up union contributions and people will counter with corporate donors?

Do all corporations only support Republican candidates?

SSD... Do you support the Citizens United ruling or are you in favor of removing money from our election process so that it truly is a level playing field? :shrug:

 

[ImFeklhr]

I'd agree with that - to some extent. I'd like to take it a step further - that if you haven't paid Federal income tax in the year prior to an election, you can't vote.

We have too many people dependant on the system (and primarily democrats), trying to vote themselves "rich". That has to change somehow.

Surely you aren't suggesting a wealth litmus test to determine someone's eligibility to vote.:nono:

 

[Trench]

Yea, Trench, what SSD said (thanks SSD)!

You guys don't get it.

It's NOT about Democrats vs. Republicans.

It's about corporations buying and controlling our election process vs. the average citizen actually continuing to have a voice in our election process.

That's where Citizens United has shifted the balance of power heavily in favor of corporations. Yes, corporations hedge their bets and contribute to members of both parties, most of which are all too willing to be bought and beholding to their corporate donors.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you guys. :shrug:

 

[ssd]

i do not support the ruling and, as I have mentioned many times - I think removing money from politics is the only way we get an honest government

 

[Trench]

i do not support the ruling and, as I have mentioned many times - I think removing money from politics is the only way we get an honest government

OK, I'm glad we agree on what IMO is the most serious threat to democracy since this nation was founded.

I knew you were a smart guy, SSD. The jury's still out on Mags though.

 

[PRO190]

DEMOCRAT RECALL CIRCUS : $40,000,000


UTOPIAN HOPES CRUSHED : PRICELESS

 

[Trench]

DEMOCRAT RECALL CIRCUS : $40,000,000


UTOPIAN HOPES CRUSHED : PRICELESS

This is what's wrong with our penal system.

Inmates should not be given Internet access while incarcerated...:142smilie

 

[Mags]

Surely you aren't suggesting a wealth litmus test to determine someone's eligibility to vote.:nono:

Not a wealth litmus test... but if you are taking more out of the system, and not paying in (federal tax), and there are 50% of those out there, then we get into a situation that those who pay no tax can vote themselves more money via electing democrats. And that ain't right.

Why should you have a voice, when you aren't even paying taxes into the system? It would like me going to the Microsoft shareholder meeting and saying that I should have the right to speak and choose the leaders, even though I own 0 Microsoft stock. Same situation.

 

[Mags]

You guys don't get it.

It's NOT about Democrats vs. Republicans.

It's about corporations buying and controlling our election process vs. the average citizen actually continuing to have a voice in our election process.

That's where Citizens United has shifted the balance of power heavily in favor of corporations. Yes, corporations hedge their bets and contribute to members of both parties, most of which are all too willing to be bought and beholding to their corporate donors.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you guys. :shrug:

How is that different from unions still? I don't see members of a union, having there dollars directed by their leaders soley to help increase their power and leader salaries without express consent from each of their members, any different than what corporations do.

As you said, union members are only 11.9% of the population. So you certainly can't call them "average citizens".

And this isn't about unions in general (at least my rants) - it is ONLY about public unions - which serve no purpose other than to bilk the taxpayer.

 

[Mags]

OK, I'm glad we agree on what IMO is the most serious threat to democracy since this nation was founded.

I knew you were a smart guy, SSD. The jury's still out on Mags though.

Trench - take it out on both sides - and make it illegal for unions to do any type of politicing - including amongst their members, and I'm fine with it. Of course, we'd also have to ensure that any public union would have to negotiate with non-elected boards - ones that we'd pay based on a % that they saved taxpayers in a given contract negotiation (so there is true conflict in the negotiation).