Wisconsin Recall. Dems wait 4 hours before crying foul

#155
#155
it must be humiliating to base your whole campaign on the fact that youre doing something for a certain group of people, then to have almost half of them vote against you.
 
#156
#156
Negateer said:
it must be humiliating to base your whole campaign on the fact that youre doing something for a certain group of people, then to have almost half of them vote against you.
Click to expand...

that 37% number is to be swiftly overlooked by Lawgator. It is not important.

:eek:k:
 
#158
#158
Union membership has dropped 70 percent since the walker law was enacted. This recall was about one issue, the unions knew they couldn't win an argument over lavish benefits that exceed private sector averages, or collective bargaining. The public hated it. It was the cancellation of the compulsory union dues though, that is the root of their rage. Think about it. Govt passes a law forcing you to be taxed by a union. When cumpulsory dues were made to be voluntary, union dues collected dropped 70 percent. Now they don't have the money to buy as many democrat politicians. See human events columns on this subject. Krauthammers column in the wash post today may enlighten some here.

Charles Krauthammer: What Wisconsin means

Michael Barone: Walker changes attitudes on public employee unions

Ann Coulter - June 6, 2012 - THE RECALL HEARD AROUND THE WORLD

Also, dems were not outspent 7 to 1 . Unions don't have to report the same way and use their members as " volunteers" estimates were 30 mil rep 25 mil dem
 
Last edited:
#159
#159
StoVol said:
Union membership has dropped 70 percent since the walker law was enacted. This recall was about one issue, the unions knew they couldn't win an argument over lavish benefits that exceed private sector averages, or collective bargaining. The public hated it. It was the cancellation of the compulsory union dues though, that is the root of their rage. Think about it. Govt passes a law forcing you to be taxed by a union. When cumpulsory dues were made to be voluntary, union dues collected dropped 70 percent. Now they don't have the money to buy as many democrat politicians. See human events columns on this subject. Krauthammers column in the wash post today may enlighten some here.

Charles Krauthammer: What Wisconsin means

Michael Barone: Walker changes attitudes on public employee unions

Ann Coulter - June 6, 2012 - THE RECALL HEARD AROUND THE WORLD

Also, dems were not outspent 7 to 1 . Unions don't have to report the same way and use their members as " volunteers" estimates were 30 mil rep 25 mil dem
Click to expand...

I think it's important to remember that WI was about public employee unions and didn't touch private unions. In my opinion it would be a mistake for the GOP to take WI as a mandate to attack unions as a whole.
 
#160
#160
Unions were never attacked, they still enjoy greater benefits and wages than the private sector. They were asked to concede lavish benefits that were bankrupting the state. See the insurance rate drop by wea as soon as they knew they'd have competition. Yes it would be a mistake to take it too far. I've seen no evidence of that.
 
#161
#161
StoVol said:
Unions were never attacked, they still enjoy greater benefits and wages than the private sector. They were asked to concede lavish benefits that were bankrupting the state. See the insurance rate drop by wea as soon as they knew they'd have competition. Yes it would be a mistake to take it too far. I've seen no evidence of that.
Click to expand...

public sector unions (e.g. afscme) =/= private unions (e.g. afl-cio)
 
#162
#162
dreVol said:
public sector unions (e.g. afscme) =/= private unions (e.g. afl-cio)
Click to expand...

Not following you here? I am aware of differences in the classes of union organizers. Has anyone claimed anything about private unions in this thread? If so I missed it. Who could have a problem with that? They live and die on their own merits. In public unions if organized labor elects a politician with taxpayer money, how is the public interest served or protected? How could a citizen address a problem? To the union where dues are compulsory so there is no incentive to please the free money, or to the politician who is beholden to your money but it was given to him by the union?
 
Last edited:
#163
#163
StoVol said:
Not following you here? I am aware of differences in the classes of union organizers. Has anyone claimed anything about private unions in this thread? If so I missed it. Who could have a problem with that? They live and die on their own merits. In public unions if organized labor elects a politician with taxpayer money, how is the public interest served or protected? How could a citizen address a problem? To the union where dues are compulsory so there is no incentive to please the free money, or to the politician who is beholden to your money but it was given to him by the union?
Click to expand...

I can't find it at the moment, but there was an article shortly after the recall results cautioning Romney re: his proposed union plan. IIRC, part of romney's plan includes curbing the power exerted by private decor unions. the author pointed out that private sector unions remain fairly popular and that lumping public and private sector unions together would likely galvanize the unions at large against Romney
 
#164
#164
dreVol said:
I can't find it at the moment, but there was an article shortly after the recall results cautioning Romney re: his proposed union plan. IIRC, part of romney's plan includes curbing the power exerted by private decor unions. the author pointed out that private sector unions remain fairly popular and that lumping public and private sector unions together would likely galvanize the unions at large against Romney
Click to expand...

Yeah that would take it too far . Private sector unions I am not too educated about. I would not think they collect money in the strong arm way public unions have thru cumpulsory dues. However I truly don't know much about it not being from one of those states where it is prevalent
 
#165
#165
Won't matter anyhow. Unions can no longer hang with corporate special interest spending in campaign finance. I'd be willing to bet something to the tune of 7,8,9 to one. It's going to be utterly one sided until the legal status of super PACs gets changed, or at the least, a modicum of transparency is required (Huge potential for massive foreign influence on US elections? Thanks SCOTUS!)

Union membership of any sort is down. Unless things in the economy somehow get better rapidly (i.e. if Romney is on track to win the presidency), then we may well see Republicans sweep the elections with, super PACs included, vastly larger amounts of spending than the opposition.

Romney and the rest of the GOP can tell all unions, public and private alike, to piss off because odds are they probably won't have to suffer any consequence for doing so.
 
#166
#166
milohimself said:
Won't matter anyhow. Unions can no longer hang with corporate special interest spending in campaign finance. I'd be willing to bet something to the tune of 7,8,9 to one. It's going to be utterly one sided until the legal status of super PACs gets changed, or at the least, a modicum of transparency is required (Huge potential for massive foreign influence on US elections? Thanks SCOTUS!)

Union membership of any sort is down. Unless things in the economy somehow get better rapidly (i.e. if Romney is on track to win the presidency), then we may well see Republicans sweep the elections with, super PACs included, vastly larger amounts of spending than the opposition.

Romney and the rest of the GOP can tell all unions, public and private alike, to piss off because odds are they probably won't have to suffer any consequence for doing so.
Click to expand...

And that will be a wonderful thing. Soros and gates disagree about the outspending assertion. You may not have heard but some corporations contribute to democrats. And everyone in (hollywood)California save Angelina's daddy
 
#168
#168
T-TownVol said:
BPV needs full mod status to clear out the gator shat around here.
Click to expand...

A damnedmen!!!! :good!:

Fire milo and PJ, hire Vbh and Big Pappa!

payn_c9998220120607120100.jpg




theFallGuy said:
"Yet he still won a significant minority of the union vote: 37% of all union households supported the Republican Walker, while 63% supported Democrat Tom Barrett, according to exit polls."

Union vote key for Barrett but not a sure thing - JSOnline
Click to expand...

112886_600.jpg








Negateer said:
it must be humiliating to base your whole campaign on the fact that youre doing something for a certain group of people, then to have almost half of them vote against you.
Click to expand...

NovemberfromWisconsin-vi.jpg









vol_in_il said:
Hopefully Obamas campaign will recognize its significance
Click to expand...

zn8t4z.jpg







milohimself said:
... So it will be a wonderful thing, even though it won't happen? Clarify please
Click to expand...

walkers611.jpg


Does that clarify it?
 
#173
#173
BigPapaVol said:
Surely not serious? MSNBC couldn't be more blatant or ridiculous.
Click to expand...

MSNBC is blatant and ridiculous, CNN is worthless and vacuous, and Fox is a willing mouthpiece for the GOP.

All three networks are worthless dogcrap but saying Fox news is significantly better than the former two as a news organization is just stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#174
#174
milohimself said:
MSNBC is blatant and ridiculous, CNN is worthless and vacuous, and Fox is a willing mouthpiece for the GOP.

All three networks are worthless dogcrap but saying Fox news is significantly better than the former two as a news organization is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. After all, "some say" ......

(fox news' favorite source: "some")
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top