Thank heavens, SCOTUS just got rid of the forced payments to unions. Or as VOX describes the action. The Supreme Court decision gutting public sector unions, explained. How to understand Janus v. AFSCME.
I am sorry but I see Public Employee Unions as terrible for America. Just what American citizens do not need... Organizations who work to:
I am sorry but I see Public Employee Unions as terrible for America. Just what American citizens do not need... Organizations who work to:
- Protect employees based on age rather than capability or results.
- Raise wages based on age rather than capability or results.
- Protect employees against any accountability or performance measures.
- Increase the cost of government through higher wages, more employees, more work rules, more bureaucracy, etc
32 comments:
It's an attack on working people promoted by an illegitimate court.
--Hiram
I agree with John. We don't need people who want to work in public sector, despite the lower pay than the private sector. Force them out. Let them go to the private sector, so that less able and qualified workers can serve the People.
Moose
Hiram,
I am pretty sure Scalia would have voted the same way as Gorsuch did...
Moose,
Please remember that there were Public Employees long before there were Public Employee Unions.
Now I support Unions to protect worker safety and reasonable hours / compensation. Unfortunately they went way past that.
I am pretty sure Scalia would have voted the same way as Gorsuch did...
My understanding is that Scalia isn't with us. And let's keep in my that he was there legitimately.
--Hiram
In a few months, four of the nine Supreme Court justices will have been put on the Court by Presidents who lost the popular vote.
Since I believe in the population / region / state weighting methodology of the electoral system, I am fine with Presidents winning without the popular vote. It seems to me the Democratic party should working for more people than just those in the urban centers. Then they would likely win more elections.
The Democratic party lost its way and therefore they lost the Presidencies and the SCOTUS Justices. Now the big question is did they learn anything in the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections or are they going to double down with the Far Left, Welfare, Big Government, LGBT Rights, etc policies?
So far it seems they are going further Left than ever... Time will tell.
Now with Kennedy's Retirement... What a disaster.
And with McConnell being hypocritical slime... It is even worse and have more far reaching consequences.
So I truly hope someday the Democratic Party returns closer to the Center...
Remember that both Tribes just keep getting more entrenched.
maybe you should hope the GOP returns closer to the center
the dems have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections. we don't really live in a democracy. Dems often receive more votes for house candidates but win fewer seats. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.
The GOP is the the party that needs to move back to center rather than be the party of trump.
Laurie,
This is exactly how the US democracy is meant to work. We are a republic of States. Not a national democracy as we have discussed many times before. Meaning that regions / states are important, just as are populations.
The rules of the system have been set for centuries. It is the Democrats who have decided to ignore the people in vast swaths of the country. It probably was not a good idea in hind sight.
As for who moved the most, you know my opinion. Remember that when a boat floats out from a dock too fast, the rope will stretch some and then pull the boat back towards the dock for awhile before a new balance point is reached.
And let's not forget How to Boil a Frog
This is an interesting piece describing the revolution and counter revolution.
Since I believe in the population / region / state weighting methodology of the electoral system, I am fine with Presidents winning without the popular vote. It seems to me the Democratic party should working for more people than just those in the urban centers. Then they would likely win more elections.
Bear in mind this is an argument for working for fewer people.
==Hiram
Now the Democrats say that they value diversity, inclusion, etc.
So though they may be "working" for fewer people, however they would be supporting and honoring the wants and needs of more groups of people?
Now the Democrats say that they value diversity, inclusion, etc.
Sure. And Republicans want to allocate power to small groups of people, particularly those who live in underpopulated states.
There was a reason for that. The drafter of the constitution were frightened that a giving people power would mean the abolition of slavery. So they constructed a constitution to prevent that. That's why we had a civil war. And it's why race in America remains an open wound over two hundred years. It's Trump's recognition of that fact that through open racism, he was able to win the presidency even though he lost the popular vote. It has a lot to do with the ongoing collapse of Republic.
==Hiram
Hiram,
Why is so difficult for the DEMs to focus on both city and rural populations?
I mean their LGBT rights crusade certainly did not help them win any friends in the Bible Belt, however they have even lost many rural middle of the road Lutherans.
VOX DEMs can not give up on White working class voters
From the link... The DEMs need to do some deep soul searching... Are they the party of everyone, or just the party of the "under dog / unsuccessful"...
"There are many divisions among today’s Democrats: left vs. center, activist vs. establishment, protectionist vs. free trader. But the most interesting divide is over how Democrats should relate to white working-class voters who supported President Trump in 2016.
Some Democrats, believing that the party lacked a compelling economic plan in the last election, say that they should build a bridge to these voters with a new, populist economic appeal. Others, believing that white working-class voters who backed Trump did so largely because of racial resentment, see such outreach as futile at best — and at worst a betrayal of minority, LGBT and immigrant voters (and their allies) who are the party’s core."
"their LGBT rights crusade"
LGBT rights are broadly popular these days.
Polling Report: LGBT issues
The jury seems to still be out when they run into religious rights.
"Americans are pretty evenly split over whether wedding vendors should be required to serve same-sex couples (49%) or should be able to decline on religious grounds (48%), according to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey. The groups most likely to say businesses should be able to turn down clients who conflict with their views were white evangelical Protestants (77%) and Republicans (71%)."
And yet DEMs keep trying to force the issue in States where the citizens definitely value religious rights over LGBT rights... And therefore they lose those voters.
It is a choice they make.
This may make a post... But it seems to fit here.
In a statewide election, do candidates really need to bother with Greater Minnesota?
"Americans are pretty evenly split over whether wedding vendors should be required to serve same-sex couples (49%) or should be able to decline on religious grounds (48%), according to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey."
Your response to my posting recent polling data is to cite a 2016 poll? Of course it is, because you were hunting for something that confirmed your own view of the issue.
"And yet DEMs keep trying to force the issue in States where the citizens definitely value religious rights over LGBT rights... And therefore they lose those voters."
If everyone took the John Appelen approach to civil rights, there would still be slaves in Georgia right now.
Sean,
I did not comment on your source or point because I agreed with it. Ever since Will and Grace was on TV, Americans have become more tolerant and accepting of gay and lesbian relationships.
The question we are addressing right now is how can DEMs support their own views without alienating people from rural America. If they can not do this they will struggle to win Presidencies.
Please feel free to attack me personally if it makes you feel better, but it does little to support your view / policy.
"The question we are addressing right now is how can DEMs support their own views without alienating people from rural America. If they can not do this they will struggle to win Presidencies."
The point is that you keep claiming that it's LGBT rights that are causing Dems problems in rural America. Where's the evidence that this issue is in fact the cause? It certainly doesn't seem that way, yet you keep claiming it is.
And again, it's fascinating how the party that keeps winning a majority of the votes is the one that's "out of touch". Does anyone ask why Republicans keep supporting their anti-abortion position, a position which polls a lot worse than LGBT rights do? Why is it OK for Republicans to run on an agenda that alienates urban voters?
Both parties are free to alienate or attract who ever they wish. And their choices, actions and statements have consequences. There is no right or wrong.
There is only success and failure. And the rules of this game are known by all...
To win the game a party needs to win over the hearts and minds of people from all across the country. Not just those in very homogeneous high population density communities.
And recently the GOP seems to be better at doing this.
I think many DEM issues are contributing to their challenges in rural America. Forcing religious owners to closely associate with LGBT people is just one of them.
Please remember that rural MN voted to make LGBT marriage illegal in MN before the SCOTUS ruling.
This is still a hot issue in a LOT of America.
"Not just those in very homogeneous high population density communities."
You're suggesting that urban areas are, on the whole, less diverse? Source, please.
Is this thing on? Can anyone hear me?
Sorry. I lost track of your comment.
Google stopped sending me an email with every comment... I am thankful for an emptier inbox... But the emails were nice also.
I'll have to do some looking... In this case I am thinking "diversity of political philosophy, not race"...
Now I know you are obsessed with race and sexual orientation, however that really does not matter to me. I am more interested in where people fit on the personal / financial freedom spectrum???
"Now I know you are obsessed with race and sexual orientation, however that really does not matter to me."
You're the one who keep bringing up LGBT issues, not me.
Race may not matter to you, but it does for the people who vote with you. There's a reason this administration treats white nationalists the way it does.
"I'll have to do some looking... In this case I am thinking "diversity of political philosophy, not race"..."
Democrats do well in areas with high levels of socioeconomic and demographic diversity. Republicans tend to do well in places that are predominantly white.
Post a Comment