You should quote his positions instead of reducing him to a sounbite. See John Kasich on issues (from Ball State Daily)
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
True, but I'd still rather no give the highest office in the land to someone who looks to the Bible for guidance on Environmentalism. He could have said "There is scientific debate over the effects of climate change and thus I don't want to do anything hasty"... he'd still be WRONG but at least I wouldn't worry about him wanting World War 3 to kickstart the End of Days. That's not even a dig at religious candidates, it's fine to use your faith as part of your judgement. It's more an indication that Kasich himself isn't nearly as normal as he lets on.
Ash is trying to push poll us!
Defining what's normal are you? Cease your micro-aggressions at once.
I support what you're doing there, but I'm not sure which icon/action to click.
Well done.
Trump tries to thump his bible. But he doesn't know where he left it.
It was hilarious when he tried to quote the bible at a religious college, but he did not know how to name the chapter and verse.
Just out of curiosity, is there tracking on which of the candidates actually attend Sunday (or whenever, once a week-ish) Church? I mean even on the campaign trail. Or even don't campaign on Sundays? Or whatever?
I don't know about every time, but I see sometimes candidates making a big deal of "My family and I are going to church today!" Even Obama.
In Obama's case, I'm pretty sure this is his way of saying, "See? Still not Muslim!"
Not so fast...
GasBandit
Staff member
That's silly, of course he's not a muslim, he attended Reverend Wright's ostensibly christian church for 20 years, all the while miraculously never hearing any of the constant stream of anti-american invective being spewn, spittle-laden, from the pulpit.
I would say that's a fair assessment, but I'd also say that it's a lot less shadowy when the UAW supports a candidate then when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" do. You KNOW who is financing the UAW: auto-workers looking out for their jobs. Unions don't need to hide their political support because the reasons for it are obvious and substantial.
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe not all those auto workers would want their dues going to the candidates the UAW donates to, though... and there's no way for them to do anything about it. But it's also why some conservative talking heads called stimulus money a slush fund/money laundering for democrats. Democrats allocated stimulus money to the unions, unions donated to democrat campaigns.
Other than leave the Union that has protected them and supported them with the influence they pay for, but it IS a fair point. I would generally prefer if union membership was allowed to vote for which candidate it would support... it would let them have more voice in the political process and would make it easier for conservative candidates to truly court Union support (which is generally more useful than SuperPac support for a multitude of reasons) if that is something they wanted to do. Given the blue collar nature of many unions I would find it surprising if at least some of them wouldn't support conservative candidates in Red states if conservatives offered them something worth supporting.
There really is no other method of dealing with free riders however. Union members don't want to support or work with free riders and shouldn't be forced to do so ether and management has a vested interest in keeping the greatest number of workers working.
Until recently in Michigan that wasn't necessarily true. Now that there's right to work, union members can vote with their wallets - if the union doesn't represent them well enough to the company or their political desires, they can now quit the union without losing their job. The unions actually have to work to retain members, which means paying attention to what the workers actually want, whereas it used to be that they didn't actually care what the workers wanted, they only needed a majority to vote to strike or not in order to wield their power.
I suppose they can even start competing unions, or affiliate with competing unions if they think the existing unions don't adequately represent them.
While the unions are supposed to protect and advocate for the worker, there are too many instances of individual workers being thrown under the bus or ignored by the union for me to really believe the rhetoric. If you are active in the union, politically, and get to know the higher ups in your local, then you have better protection than the average worker who simply pays their dues. It's unfortunately very much a good boys club if they'll even take your case for wrongful dismissal, unless it affects many employees.
The unions already differentiate between employees and union members, and what little protection they offer from unreasonable firing doesn't help so-called free-riders. There are a lot of other benefits to joining the union - often they'll have supplemented health insurance, disability, etc. They provide counseling, job placement, training, and a host of other benefits that "free riders" wouldn't get.
With a right-to-work law, they will simply need to more fully justify their existence. One of the many problems with forced participation is that they didn't have to fight for the individual employee - and often don't. If someone is fired by the company against union rules, the union could choose to take the case to arbitration or not, and they would't lose anything but that one member. But most union members know people who've been fired while under the union's supposed protection without cause, and the union failed to do what the union supposedly promises - advocate for the individual and the group.
If the union doesn't want "free riders" then the union will now have to do a better job communicating their benefits to their members, who can now vote with their wallets as to whether the union is actually doing a good job or not.
Under the forced membership rules, the only power members had against the union was whether to strike or not, and with some unions requiring only a simple majority, nearly half the members could disagree with the union before the union took notice and considered their needs.
This is actually something I've been wanting to happen for awhile. If you don't feel like your union is actively working in your best interest, you should be organizing the people who agree with you into one that will. The main reason it doesn't happen is few people are willing to actually perform the kind of work and sacrifice it takes to get it off the ground. You also need to get a lot of shops involved... hiring a full time lawyer isn't cheap and it's the kind of cost best spread amount a hundred/thousand guys instead of a single shop. Building a union takes time and effort, but when you have one that is actually active in it's role then you can perform your job with some sense of security.
Regardless, as I've stated in another thread, it's likely Unions are on their way out if they can't adapt to the needs of my generation. Millennials don't join up because they expect to be switching jobs as soon as a better one comes along or the moment they have enough funding to work on their own projects. Why join the union if you aren't planning to stay in one industry for a long period of time? We just quit and find a new job if there is problem, as we aren't exactly having trouble finding work.
Necronic
Staff member
John Oliver fucking NAILED this one. There is substantial evidence that what they are trying to prevent doesn't even exist, and there is substantial evidence that the unintended consequences people were afraid of is actually occurring.
Well, assuming these consequences even were unintentional.
Dave
Staff member
So Hillary says, "Sure, I'll release the transcripts of my paid speeches when everyone else does as well!" Right.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-speech-transcripts-219472?cmpid=sf
So what does Bernie do? Releases a video of one of his paid speeches. He made $500. That he donated to charity.
Game, set, match - Bernie.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-speech-transcripts-219472?cmpid=sf
So what does Bernie do? Releases a video of one of his paid speeches. He made $500. That he donated to charity.
Game, set, match - Bernie.
Ouch.
It is amusing to see those who decried Kim Davis promote the Pope's encouragement that world leaders who are catholic should ignore their laws and mandates to support their religious conscience in refusing to allow death penalty and other executions.
One promoted bigotry. The other promoted not killing people. I don't see the connection.
Yeah. Hate vs don't murder? That's a mighty wide chasm to jump.
The one indicating they won't perform their legally mandated duty due to their religious convictions, the other one doing exactly the same thing.
You can justify one religiously motivated decision and not the other if you like, but it's really just a reflection of you saying it's ok to force your religious beliefs on others if you agree with those beliefs, and you saying others can't force their beliefs on others if you disagree.
Necronic
Staff member
Actually one wouldn't perform their legally mandated duty. The other is encouraging that people abolish the death penalty. Even if the pope was encouraging the end of gay marriage rights then that would still be quite different from what Kim Davis did. One broke the law, the other encouraged a review of it.
And this is ignoring the fact that while gay marriage may go against Leviticus which is filled with a VAST array of antiquated rules that no one follows anymore, the death penalty violates 1 of the 10 commandments. Something God felt was so important that he wrote it in stone and handed it to some guy. There's a pretty big difference theologically between those.
And this is ignoring the fact that while gay marriage may go against Leviticus which is filled with a VAST array of antiquated rules that no one follows anymore, the death penalty violates 1 of the 10 commandments. Something God felt was so important that he wrote it in stone and handed it to some guy. There's a pretty big difference theologically between those.
I'm glad there are so many ways to justify this, because otherwise a lot of people would be feeling the uncomfortable effects of cognitive dissonance.
I merely find it amusing to see Slate and many others promoting one religious stand when they were so recently decrying another religious stand.[DOUBLEPOST=1456151832,1456151572][/DOUBLEPOST]
We will see if any of them actually follow through with this proposal, or continue to carry out executions and work on changing the law, as you suggest.
I merely find it amusing to see Slate and many others promoting one religious stand when they were so recently decrying another religious stand.[DOUBLEPOST=1456151832,1456151572][/DOUBLEPOST]
It will be fairly clear to many catholic people that when the pope said, "I propose to all those among them who are Catholic to make a courageous and exemplary gesture: may no execution sentence be carried out in this Holy Year of Mercy," he was essentially calling on leaders not to merely reform the law, but to simply stop carrying out executions regardless of the law.
We will see if any of them actually follow through with this proposal, or continue to carry out executions and work on changing the law, as you suggest.
Necronic
Staff member
Theologically the argument is weak because you are comparing Leviticus and the 10 commandments. And secularly the argument is weak since you are comparing someone who actively broke the law and someone who advocated breaking it.
It would be like comparing Trumps calls for illegal practices against muslims and Hillary's illegal handling of classified documents.
Seriously though, I'll never understand why the religious right has chosen homosexuality as the ground to die fighting for. I understand many of the other stances they take, like abortion, even if I do not agree with them. This one I don't. They will not win. History will not agree with them. And the theology itself only barely agrees with them. There are far more instances in the bible talking about loving someone for their faults than there are about why this specific sin is so intolerable, and there is simply a wealth of absurd proscriptions and prescriptions in Leviticus, this just being one of them. To me it's mostly coming from demagogic preachers who trust that their followers will not have a strong grounding in theology and use that to promote hatred, thinking they can take the Lord's name in vain as they please to fight their own battles. In many ways it's not that different from how some Imam's have corrupted Islam. The only reason I can guess as to why they do this is that it's useful to maintain an "us vs them" attitude in some churches as it appeals to weaker minds.
It would be like comparing Trumps calls for illegal practices against muslims and Hillary's illegal handling of classified documents.
Seriously though, I'll never understand why the religious right has chosen homosexuality as the ground to die fighting for. I understand many of the other stances they take, like abortion, even if I do not agree with them. This one I don't. They will not win. History will not agree with them. And the theology itself only barely agrees with them. There are far more instances in the bible talking about loving someone for their faults than there are about why this specific sin is so intolerable, and there is simply a wealth of absurd proscriptions and prescriptions in Leviticus, this just being one of them. To me it's mostly coming from demagogic preachers who trust that their followers will not have a strong grounding in theology and use that to promote hatred, thinking they can take the Lord's name in vain as they please to fight their own battles. In many ways it's not that different from how some Imam's have corrupted Islam. The only reason I can guess as to why they do this is that it's useful to maintain an "us vs them" attitude in some churches as it appeals to weaker minds.