US Politics: Clown Show Edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

In a sense, victims of the machine they created. And are all gung-ho for as long as it targets people of the inferior castes.

 

 Pretty much.

 

 http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/worlds%20smallest%20violin_zpsfzaz6kii.gif.html

[The Fallen]

There was stuff going on in the early 19th century during the Napoleonic Wars, that was probably a lot worse in some ways. The whole thing that happened under Wilson with the Treaty of Versailles comes to mind as well off the top of my head as well. Its not like the members of Congress who signed on to it really said anything absurd, they could scuttle the deal, to an extent, if they can get the votes and the Iranians do need to keep that in mind. I sort of see it as the good cop/bad cop routine, Congress usually criticizes a Presidents foreign policy but they usually don't interfere that much. The Presidents authority in conducting foreign affairs is quite broad. 

 

Now if the Republicans could get enough votes to override Obama's veto that would be very unusual. Congress normally wouldn't embarass the President by doing something like that. Personally I think its more probable that Obama gets enough support from Republicans that Congress ends up endorsing the deal by a slim majority. 

 

   Thanks for the response.

 

   So the Republicans want to end a possible Iran deal if they gain the presidency. And then what? Do they expect the Iranians to take it lying down? And if the Iranians continue with their program will the Republican president declare war on Iran? Do they think they'd be able to get that authorization?

 

   Never mind what the rest of the world's reaction will be this idiocy.

[Ormond]

 

 

First, everything I said to Scot above applies. Second, political advocacy is unquestionably one of the main purposes of unions, and is perhaps even more important than negotiation with management. The results of advocacy, of course, will have a major impact on their bargaining over wages and working conditions.

 

The fact is that unions exist in order to organize workers toward specific goals. It's implied in the need for this organization that cajoling and compulsion are required because workers would otherwise not act in unison. If you oppose this, you should oppose unions, period.

 

 

I'm sorry, I do not agree that "political advocacy is unquestionably one of the main purposes of unions", and much more definitely disagree with the statement that it is "perhaps even more important than negotiation with management." And I also profoundly disagree that this means that "I should oppose unions, period." That simply does not logically follow.

[Hayyoth]

 

   Thanks for the response.

 

   So the Republicans want to end a possible Iran deal if they gain the presidency. And then what? Do they expect the Iranians to take it lying down? And if the Iranians continue with their program will the Republican president declare war on Iran? Do they think they'd be able to get that authorization?

 

   Never mind what the rest of the world's reaction will be this idiocy.

In the present deal the Iranians will be continuing with their nuclear development anyway.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 How long until Trump goes on the Daily Show? THIS...MUST...HAPPEN    

[Hayyoth]

I'm sorry, I do not agree that "political advocacy is unquestionably one of the main purposes of unions", and much more definitely disagree with the statement that it is "perhaps even more important than negotiation with management." And I also profoundly disagree that this means that "I should oppose unions, period." That simply does not logically follow.

For public employee unions that is absolutely the main function. They are the only kind of union that can have direct influence on the make up of the management they'll be negotiating with.

[ThinkerX]

Unions. I work alongside folks in the USPS unions (three of them) and get to see bulletins and hear the gossip all the time. A bit takes place behind closed doors, but mostly its rule lawyering about contracts and priorities for the various routes and days off and whatnot. The greater political scene almost never enters into it. And while most are conservative, there is a fair range of political views.

[The Fallen]

In the present deal the Iranians will be continuing with their nuclear development anyway.

 

   With oversight and they won't be allowed to use it for nefarious reasons.

 

   Eight years ago I was also warning about the danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Partly because of the warnings from Israel. But come on man, that's some Chicken Little bullshit that Netanyahu is playing now.

 

   And the Iraqi War fiasco, where we lied about WMDs in Iraq, has restored my faith in the investigators for the IAEA. They were telling it true about Iraq not having a nuclear program nor having any WMDs that posed a serious threat. I'll take their word over the propaganda coming from Netanyahu and the Republicans.

[The Fallen]

DP 

[Shryke]

I'm sorry, I do not agree that "political advocacy is unquestionably one of the main purposes of unions", and much more definitely disagree with the statement that it is "perhaps even more important than negotiation with management." And I also profoundly disagree that this means that "I should oppose unions, period." That simply does not logically follow.

 

Advocating for their members rights is certainly one of the main functions of a union. This means hat political advocacy is 100% one of their main purposes because that's where the management vs labour battle has in part moved to.

 

Why negotiate when you can legislate? How many states are Right-To-Work now?

 

Your position does not consider the realities of labour in the US.

[DanteGabriel]

Color me surprised that one of Scott Walker's first acts as governor in Wisconsin was to privatize the state's department of commerce and then start using it to shovel public money to his business cronies and campaign backers:

 

After filing open records requests in 2012 to scrutinize the agency’s first year of operations, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel learned that WEDC had lost track of much of their initial $56 million loan portfolio. The agency was discovered to have understated, by about a third, the amount of money it had loaned out to companies who had fallen behind on repayments. And a pattern began to emerge: two loans totaling some $5 million had gone to two timber companies, Flambeau River Papers and Flambeau River Biofuels, both run by William “Butch” Johnson, a donor to Walker’s campaign. (At the time in 2012, Johnson said he planned on repaying taxpayers for the $2 million owed by the paper company and would personally vouch for $1 million of the outstanding loan to the biofuels company - neither happened.)

 

Moreover, the agency’s expense account turned out to be full of nuggets: WEDC had bought six season tickets to University of Wisconsin football games for the governor’s office. They expensed booze for meetings with WEDC contractors, train tickets in China and meals in India for the agency director’s family, and iTunes gift cards for agency staff.

 

Why iTunes cards?

 

Well, what good is a new iPhone without one? WEDC footed the bill for 46 of its employees to break existing cell phone contracts so it could buy them $210 phones. The agency even kicked for a $35 activation fee.

 

When these revelations became public in the fall of 2012, board members were surprised. They hadn’t been told about the state of the agency’s loan portfolio. “Obviously, they [the managers] had no handle whatsoever on what was going on for a year and a half,” said Peter Barca, a Democratic assembly leader and member of WEDC’s board.

 

After naming a new CEO and CFO (the third the agency had in 2012), Walker promised “good stewardship of the taxpayers’ dollars.”

 

But months later in 2013, a legislative audit gave little reason to think much had changed and put the agency’s expenses into perspective. WEDC was found to have violated the laws it was required to follow in administering almost $350 million in bond assistance, $110 million in tax credits, $40 million in grants, and $20 million in loans.

 

“[WEDC] had no policies for determining how to handle delinquent loan amounts,” said the report’s authors. “We reviewed files for 64 awards that WEDC made in FY 2011-12 and found that WEDC made some awards to ineligible recipients, for ineligible projects, and for amounts that exceeded limits specified in its policies.”

 

It turned out that WEDC hadn’t developed personnel policies until late 2012, more than a year after it had began operating. The chief operating and financial officers and the agency’s five vice presidents didn’t have to comply with state ethics laws. Delinquent loans were neglected. $1 million was given to companies to pay for on-the-job training programs that had already happened. The agency was found to have conflated the numbers of jobs it claimed had been “created” and “retained” through its programs. In one instance, WEDC had awarded a no-bid IT contract to a firm that represented companies competing for WEDC grants. The firm had access to WEDC’s databases while one of its clients pressed the agency to give it a $1 million forgivable loan. There audit also revealed minor, questionable decisions made by the agency’s managers that should have sent up more red flags: WEDC had given away $1200 in patio furniture, for example, as a prize at a biotech conference.

 

“The governor either needs to put his presidential aspirations aside and deal with the problems at WEDC or he should step down as WEDC’s chair,” read a statement from one Democratic state senator after the report was published.

 

But Walker didn’t step aside from WEDC’s board, to which he appoints six of its thirteen voting members (making his seventh vote a majority).

 

Ever adaptive, WEDC gradually abandoned the claim that it was directly “creating” jobs and in favor of a more flexible term: that it was “impacting” jobs. The import of that linguistic choice became more clear following revelations that some companies given awards by WEDC had outsourced jobs abroad. While WEDC claimed in 2012 and 2013 that it had “impacted” about 60,000 jobs in Wisconsin, labor statistics showed it had created around 8,000 jobs over that period and that there had been 13,000 job losses due to layoffs and closures. WEDC’s price tag for those 8,000 jobs? $200 million.

 

From the iPhones, to a subsequent $11,000 expense for iPads, to millions in unmonitored loans, WEDC’s expenses were never congruent with its mission and the promised jobs never seemed to appear.

 

But more importantly, WEDC didn’t seem to care whether the jobs materialized or not. One underwriter said that “it was almost like they couldn't say ‘no’ to anybody.”

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-scott-walker-turned-job-creation-into-a-goodie-bag-for-campaign-donors

 

They're barely even trying to conceal their corruption.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Advocating for their members rights is certainly one of the main functions of a union. This means hat political advocacy is 100% one of their main purposes because that's where the management vs labour battle has in part moved to.
 
Why negotiate when you can legislate? How many states are Right-To-Work now?
 
Your position does not consider the realities of labour in the US.

And, respectfully, your position ignores that there are some rights people shouldn't be able to contract away. Among those rights include the right to independantly advocate for a political position or candidate you prefer regardless of your membership in a Union or other voluntary association.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Shryke,


And, respectfully, your position ignores that there are some rights people shouldn't be able to contract away. Among those rights include the right to independantly advocate for a political position or candidate you prefer regardless of your membership in a Union or other voluntary association.

 

So, your position is if you are a member of your local town's "Citizen's Organization to Re-Elect President Obama" and you plaster your lawn with Mitt Romney posters and tell everyone at the local diner how much Obama sucks, they should not be able to revoke your membership?

 

And since you've already said that you don't think employers should be able to fire you for political speech, your position is also that if you are a local, paid employee working to re-elect President Obama as part of his "campaign staff," and you decide to go on your personal Facebook and bash Obama and praise his political opponent, or wear pro-Romney t-shirts while off duty, that your employer should not be able to fire you?  

 

Because I'm just checking. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

If you are paying for membership in that organization and recive benefits directly related to those payments, no, I don't believe you should be subject to expulsion for expressing your political opinion. If on the other hand there are no membership dues, yes, in such a circumstance I believe the memeber could, without consequense, be expelled.

Union membership is bought with dues. As such expulsion and loss of benefits should not be a consequense of exercising your right to express disagreement with the Unions political goals.

I also qualified my statement about employers to make clear that if the speech directly conflicts with the purpose for which you were hired then termination might be proper. So, in your hypo, yes they should be fired.

[Frog Eater]

 

So, your position is if you are a member of your local town's "Citizen's Organization to Re-Elect President Obama" and you plaster your lawn with Mitt Romney posters and tell everyone at the local diner how much Obama sucks, they should not be able to revoke your membership?

 

And since you've already said that you don't think employers should be able to fire you for political speech, your position is also that if you are a local, paid employee working to re-elect President Obama as part of his "campaign staff," and you decide to go on your personal Facebook and bash Obama and praise his political opponent, or wear pro-Romney t-shirts while off duty, that your employer should not be able to fire you?  

 

Because I'm just checking. 

Are you pulling a Ser Scot on Ser Scot?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Are you pulling a Ser Scot on Ser Scot?

 

The Fauxcratic Method cuts both ways! 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Misread something. Revising.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

Please see my edited response above that addresses your hypo.

[Hayyoth]

Color me surprised that one of Scott Walker's first acts as governor in Wisconsin was to privatize the state's department of commerce and then start using it to shovel public money to his business cronies and campaign backers:

 

 

 

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-scott-walker-turned-job-creation-into-a-goodie-bag-for-campaign-donors

 

They're barely even trying to conceal their corruption.

Totally non biased and impartial source there, good job. The left really, really hates Walker...like really hates him, and it's got nothing to do with corruption (real or imagined).

[Fez]

f you are paying for membership in that organization and recive benefits directly related to those payments, no, I don't believe you should be subject to expulsion for expressing your political opinion.

 

What if the organization requires monthly donations to a super-PAC supporting Clinton and this person is trying to spread support for Bush?