T
TheBrew
They are probably going to need all of the support that they can get to ride the backlash.
WTF Wisconsin? (Formerly Walker convo thread)
- Thread starter Krisken
- Start date
- Status
*grumble grumble* Can I get a link? Thanks.
Yeah, they don't load for me, often.
Got this of the Daily Shows Moment of Zen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0
Pay attention at 0:25!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0
Pay attention at 0:25!
C
Chibibar
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
"That is what the voters wanted it" ummm... did they not notice the protest outside the capital?
"That is what the voters wanted it" ummm... did they not notice the protest outside the capital?
C
Chibibar
oh yea! I forgot
even at the state polls it didn't look good. So much for listening to their constituents!
C
Chibibar
Well there is a silver lining on this (I hope)
1. People will more likely to vote. At least the next set of elections until they (the people) get complacent again.
2. People (in the U.S.) will pay more attention on what their government is doing and hopefully plan accordingly.
This is my understanding for the U.S. government. The people vote these elected officials to represent the city, county, state, or country. The power of voting is important here, sadly as time pass people are less likely to vote due to various reasons (a different thread really) but in this wake up call, we can hope the people will learn from their mistakes
A quick search at Gallup has this that mentions bargaining rights in general: http://www.gallup.com/poll/146525/Americans-Message-States-Cut-Dont-Tax-Borrow.aspx
It sounds like the pendulum has swung a little bit towards an even split from people being against changes in February. It isn't about the specific bill, so it may be that Wisconsin's numbers alone look different.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ot_for_weakening_collective_bargaining_rights
Also according to Rasmussun (a conservative polling place that trends a 4% uptake in favor of Republicans), 57% of Wisconsinites disapprove of Scott Walker's performance so far, while 43% approve.Rasmussen said:
While I can't comment on it being in there for Koch industries (though I'm not overly skeptical on that being possible), I believe this means the bill isn't law yet. If the language between the Senate version and the House version are different, then it hasn't been passed by both of them. Once a change has been made, it has to be revoted on in the Senate.
We'll see what ends up happening with it, though I'm not holding my breath. These people have shown time and time again they care not for the law.
We'll see what ends up happening with it, though I'm not holding my breath. These people have shown time and time again they care not for the law.
Speaker Fitzgerald has thrown out all pretense of democracy and told the Democrats they can't vote and are still in contempt, despite being at the capitol.
So... why hasn't the federal government stepped in and taken control of the situation yet? I understand that states are sovereign and that their affairs are their own mostly, but isn't that based on the assumption that they are actually operating as a functional government? Is there any precedent for it?
Seriously... at this point I'd dissolve the government of WI, hold elections, and go from there.
C
Chibibar
I wonder about that too, but I think it is about state sovereignty.
Necronic
Staff member
Hm. Been reading a bunch on this and its all interesting.
Here's one point I liked. Assuming what the Republican's are doing is legal (and its a big if), then it is also legitimate. The Dem's were the first to whip out procedural douchebaggery to get an unfair advantage by fleeing the state to dodge quorum. So whose to say that the Reps can't also pull any move from the procedural playbook, no matter how clearly wrong it is, to get their way?
As for whether or not its legal, that's another issue.
Here's one point I liked. Assuming what the Republican's are doing is legal (and its a big if), then it is also legitimate. The Dem's were the first to whip out procedural douchebaggery to get an unfair advantage by fleeing the state to dodge quorum. So whose to say that the Reps can't also pull any move from the procedural playbook, no matter how clearly wrong it is, to get their way?
As for whether or not its legal, that's another issue.
Democrats respond to Fitzgerald's letter.
Necronic, there is no way that taxing a populous of 2.2 million people without giving them a voice is legal. Those 14 Senators represent that many Wisconsinites.
Necronic, there is no way that taxing a populous of 2.2 million people without giving them a voice is legal. Those 14 Senators represent that many Wisconsinites.
Interesting points. They discussed this on NPR this morning and had a really reasonable debate about it, generally agreeing with this statement, that this is merely the other side of the coin that the democrats already played, but that its still in doubt as to how legal it is.
I'm really not sure here, between the idiots fleeing the state, the idiots locking down the state and the idiots screaming on both sides how you WI folks are going to move on. Perhaps an Aliens 2 solution is needed?
I assume you are talking about the vote they fled to avoid?
I guess I don't know. I'm not aware how easy or hard it is for a politician to call a press conference. It seems easy but maybe it's not? If you are asking was there any other way for them to have dealt with it? I again don't know. I don't know all the laws and work around the had available to them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have fled either, I really don't know what their best option was. They did what they did and it's had consequences. In the end the voters are going to have to decide if they think it was a good thing. That goes for both sides.
I know GasBandit prefers the headbutting but I always preferred when politicians could come to a compromise on issues. Compromise HAS to be better than the entrails of the political system spilling out like this.
Agreed. I really hope this is a lesson for the voters in the next election. Be careful who you vote for.
The bill was available for 4 days, Espy. This is why I'm asking the question. Do you think the public would be aware of the issue if the news organizations hadn't been made aware of it by the 14 Democrats leaving the state? They knew they wouldn't change Walker's mind. The protesters have been saying that they knew Walker wouldn't change his mind and compromise. Attention needed to be brought to the issue. The Democrats used a legal maneuver (while I admit it isn't a move I am a huge fan of) to hold up a vote they strongly believed was against the wishes of the people of the state. Polling suggests they were right.
However, holding Senators in contempt of congress for an undisclosed amount of time, despite not being in contempt of congress, to deny the voice of 2.2 million people is not legal.
However, holding Senators in contempt of congress for an undisclosed amount of time, despite not being in contempt of congress, to deny the voice of 2.2 million people is not legal.
C
Chibibar
I think the Dems probably look at all the options on stopping the bill (the original one) and figure they do not have the majority (which they don't) to alter the bill. So I think the Dems took the only option they had (all 14 agree to it) and fled so no quorum could happen) BUT the Republican found a loop hole and work around it anyways.
BUT they are still in session. Can a single power stop all the dems from voting on a bill? that is up to the lawyers since from my personal opinion I don't think they can unless all 14 are being charge for a crime and being remove from office (which mean the reps are still short handed and need to replace those seats right?)
BUT they are still in session. Can a single power stop all the dems from voting on a bill? that is up to the lawyers since from my personal opinion I don't think they can unless all 14 are being charge for a crime and being remove from office (which mean the reps are still short handed and need to replace those seats right?)
I think the states Republicans didn't understand what this particular set of tea party candidates stood for. They saw the (R) and voted how they usually do. Since Governor Doyle (D) was such an epic failure, it's no surprise the people of the state weren't willing to give Mayor Barrett a chance.
And as I have already said, I'm sure they did what felt they had to do and I'm not aware if they had any other options available to them. So I really don't know what else you want me to say.
- Status