This sounds suspiciously like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"Grrr, we'll show the only party that even seems to give a shit about us! Grrr, we're so angry! Gee, I hope there won't be any repercussions for slowing/stopping contributions to said party; you know, the only one that even sometimes pretends to like us and our money."
Perhaps I shouldn't give the DNC any money for the convention because they picked a state with a Republican controlled general assembly... :?:
At least with unions this large that donate this much money they can easily explain what is wrong and why they aren't giving them money. This seems to be a much different case than an individual deciding to not vote or donate to a party. The Democratic party will actually pay attention to the former. On the other hand a threat like this would have been nice during the DNC location selection process so they had a chance to change which state it was in.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I wouldn't want to subsidize a huge economic boon to a state that is actively hostile towards labor if I were a union, either.
I mean, this isn't quite the slap in the face that putting the convention in South Carolina or Texas would be, but it's not exactly trying to cater to the unions, either.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How do the parties decide which state to stick the convention in anyway and how far out is it picked?
This seems like the kind of thing to do during the vetting process.
General elections aren't the time for pissy whining, there' the time of picking the "least of two evils" if you must.
Meh, I'm with the unions here. It's not their responsibility to give the money to the DNC, it's their responsibility to advance their interests. Which they can better do by spending their money themselves, especially in a post-Citizens United world.
EDIT: End effect should be the same.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm with iTunes and AMFE. So, you don't like the way NC treats unions. You know what might help that, the DNC holding their convention in NC for the specific reason that they think they can push NC more blue. Pulling support for the DNC because NC isn't union friendly enough is stupid and petty.
I'm with iTunes and AMFE. So, you don't like the way NC treats unions. You know what might help that, the DNC holding their convention in NC for the specific reason that they think they can push NC more blue.
Well, holding it in Florida isn't exactly a tactical blunder.
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
And this is done in RTW states, I believe, by saying 1) if you work in a union-shop, you can't be forced to pay union dues, but the union still has to represent you, and 2) saying that companies are not allowed to enter into a contract saying "all the labor we use for X is going to be through the Pipefitters/Ironworkers Local #489." I'm not positive about that last part, but I think that was part of what our retarded-ass General Assembly just passed last session in Indiana.
[ed] It creates a problem a little like you would have if the ACA didn't have the individual mandate. You end up with "free-riders" and they can cause some big problems.
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It bans unions from requiring members of a collective bargaining unit to recompensate the union for negotiating the contract. So unions starve to death.
I'm with iTunes and AMFE. So, you don't like the way NC treats unions. You know what might help that, the DNC holding their convention in NC for the specific reason that they think they can push NC more blue. Pulling support for the DNC because NC isn't union friendly enough is stupid and petty.
This is kind of my thinking about why it's being held in NC anyway. I'm wondering, and perhaps I am 100% wrong here, if the DNC is holding the convention in a place that it wants to try to push more blue this election. NC has a Dem governor (Bev Perdue, I thiiiink) so I could see them trying to take NC and make it as blue as possible by promoting themselves big-time in the state by way of the convention.
I very much understand that the unions can (and should) spend (or not) their money however they please, and I understand how holding this in a RTW state could upset them. Hell, I'm not even in a union and my state's having passed it last session infuriated me. I guess my suggestion, or thought, would be for the unions to say "look, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension." Maybe that wouldn't work. Maybe I'm pretending I live somewhere where money's not the only speech that counts in politics.
I agree with 'bum's point that they probably feel they could better spend their own money on their own messaging, in our post-CU world.
It just seems like a little bit of a miscalculation to me. The last thing we need is union/party tension, and rather than withholding money, I think some major players in the union world calling up the DNC and going "what in the flying fuck guys, c'mon" would be a smarter route than "no munnies for you then!"
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
I'm super curious as to what ruckshot is, because that sounds nasty. I believe the term you meant was Roughshod. Although I did find a community definition of Ruckshot, so that was funny.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
I'm super curious as to what ruckshot is, because that sounds nasty. I believe the term you meant was Roughshod. Although I did find a community definition of Ruckshot, so that was funny.
but thanks for the info, that sounds bad.
Roughshod.
Fuck.
23 years and I've been saying it wrong since I misheard it when I was four.
Google didn't spell check me on it though. To the search function!
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Did find this:
ruckshot - to steamroll someone or something, largely unchecked. Usually injected into the middle of the phrase "(to)run over."
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
I'm super curious as to what ruckshot is, because that sounds nasty. I believe the term you meant was Roughshod. Although I did find a community definition of Ruckshot, so that was funny.
but thanks for the info, that sounds bad.
Roughshod.
Fuck.
23 years and I've been saying it wrong since I misheard it when I was four.
Google didn't spell check me on it though. To the search function!
I know a dude who says "land blasted" instead of "lambasted."
It's... awkward.
Incenjucar on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Right to work sounds like the same bullshit from pre-depression times when people said that limiting bakers' work weeks to 60 hours was taking away their "rights to contract." Because everyone knows bakers really want to be able to work for 100 hours a week, WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING THE WORKING MAN.
Could someone remind me what Right-to-Work is again? Because the name sounds good, but the context reminds me it's bad for some reason.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
I'm super curious as to what ruckshot is, because that sounds nasty. I believe the term you meant was Roughshod. Although I did find a community definition of Ruckshot, so that was funny.
but thanks for the info, that sounds bad.
Roughshod.
Fuck.
23 years and I've been saying it wrong since I misheard it when I was four.
Google didn't spell check me on it though. To the search function!
I know a dude who says "land blasted" instead of "lambasted."
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
It's still incredibly fucking stupid to pull support from the DNC for trying to turn NC more blue.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
One should also remember that the unions are not the DNC's only interest group and it'd be stupid if they only listened to them.
It'd be great if all fifty states were worker friendly, it really would be.
But they aren't, and you don't get to piss on the cheerios of millions of voters just because you made a union feel sad on the inside.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
Let's actually examine that WSJ article. This is how the right used to stick stuff in before they both a cable news network:
Democrats are struggling to raise money for the party's national convention this summer in Charlotte, N.C., in part because they've barred corporations and lobbyists from contributing.
Now, one set of donors the party was banking on—organized labor—says it won't help pay for the event or will scale back contributions, partly because it is upset that the convention will be in a state considered unfriendly to unions.
...
Labor unions are also financially strapped. As the number of union workers declines, they are devoting more resources to fighting antiunion efforts in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states.
"With all these battles going on, we are contributing our money to them to fight these right-wing governors," said Vince Panvini, former political director of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, who works as a union consultant.
One top AFL-CIO official said: "We are going to be spending our resources on membership education, not skyboxes."
At most its a process story, but its presented as "Dems lose union support."
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
They have more than two choices. Inside "support democrats" is a whole continuum of choices, they can support them a lot, a little, on everything, only on some things...
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
They have more than two choices. Inside "support democrats" is a whole continuum of choices, they can support them a lot, a little, on everything, only on some things...
Directly via contributions, via educating their members, via training their members as volunteers, via independent expenditure ads...
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
They have more than two choices. Inside "support democrats" is a whole continuum of choices, they can support them a lot, a little, on everything, only on some things...
No, there really isn't. Non-support of Dems is de facto support of Reps. We don't live in a political vacuum. If you don't support one side of our shitty two party system, it makes the other side stronger.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the best way to convince and organization to change a decision they've made is to keep giving them money.
this?
ook, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension.
nobody gives even half a shit about this
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
They have more than two choices. Inside "support democrats" is a whole continuum of choices, they can support them a lot, a little, on everything, only on some things...
No, there really isn't. Non-support of Dems is de facto support of Reps. We don't live in a political vacuum. If you don't support one side of our shitty two party system, it makes the other side stronger.
They can support Dems at local/state level and nationally through ad buys without contributing to the DNC directly.
There are literally only two reasons why a party holds their convention in a particular state. Either they're trying to convert a state to their side or they're trying to prevent a state from converting to the other side. The only reason the DNC would choose to hold their convention in North Carolina is because they feel they can make progress in pushing the state more blue. The only reason RNC is holding their convention in Tampa Bay is to try to prevent Florida from flipping blue.
If unions are pissed with how NC treats unions, is there any other better way to change that than the state becoming more friendly to Democrats during elections???
Even as someone who has worked for the party, I don't believe anyone's support is automatically obligated to the party because of the nature of the two party system. If you or a family member was uninsured or uninsurable before ACA, and your member voted against it, I'm not going to hold it against you if you put your loyalty to the family member ahead of your loyalty to the party. If you're gay, and your member has repeatedly said he's against gay marriage (and condescendingly refers to people like you as fudge-packers behind your back -- TRUE STORY!), please feel free not to support him.
If you would kindly give a contribution to a vulnerable member in a nearby district who does support your issues, I'd call us more than square.
Washington Post/ABC has a Virginia poll that shows a seven point lead for Obama. Interesting facts:
*66% of respondents said that they believe the country is headed down the wrong track.
*However, 53% of respondents either somewhat approve or strongly approve of President Obama's job performance.
*About as many respondents said they were either satisfied or enthusiastically satisfied with the administrations policies as said that they were dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with same.
*At the same time, about 60% of respondents said that they were either dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with the policies proposed by the Republican Congress.
*There is marginal support for ACA by about 3%. Last year, voters were opposed to the act by about 6%
*When asked what effect having Bob McDonnell as Mitt Romney's running mate would have on a respondent's vote, 10% of respondents said it would make them more likely to vote for the Republican ticket. However, 19% said it would make them more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket.
As far as the head-to-head matchup goes, that hasn't changed in the Post's polling by more than two points in about a year. The responses to the other questions has changed a bit more, though.
One I forgot to mention -- Tea Party support dropped pretty seriously. Virginians were split pretty evenly on the Tea Party in the last poll, but there's a net disapproval now of about 10%.
Posts
At least with unions this large that donate this much money they can easily explain what is wrong and why they aren't giving them money. This seems to be a much different case than an individual deciding to not vote or donate to a party. The Democratic party will actually pay attention to the former. On the other hand a threat like this would have been nice during the DNC location selection process so they had a chance to change which state it was in.
I mean, this isn't quite the slap in the face that putting the convention in South Carolina or Texas would be, but it's not exactly trying to cater to the unions, either.
This seems like the kind of thing to do during the vetting process.
General elections aren't the time for pissy whining, there' the time of picking the "least of two evils" if you must.
EDIT: End effect should be the same.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It's sold as protection for workers who don't want to be run down by the EVIL UNIONS.
In practice it allows companies to run ruckshot over their workers and treat them like shit.
Well, holding it in Florida isn't exactly a tactical blunder.
And this is done in RTW states, I believe, by saying 1) if you work in a union-shop, you can't be forced to pay union dues, but the union still has to represent you, and 2) saying that companies are not allowed to enter into a contract saying "all the labor we use for X is going to be through the Pipefitters/Ironworkers Local #489." I'm not positive about that last part, but I think that was part of what our retarded-ass General Assembly just passed last session in Indiana.
[ed] It creates a problem a little like you would have if the ACA didn't have the individual mandate. You end up with "free-riders" and they can cause some big problems.
It bans unions from requiring members of a collective bargaining unit to recompensate the union for negotiating the contract. So unions starve to death.
I also don't like the idea of management being able to fuck over their workers.
Unions are the only real world solution to the second, and greater, evil.
So in AMFE's Idealogically-Driven-But-Tempered-By-Reality Brain, unions get supported.
This is kind of my thinking about why it's being held in NC anyway. I'm wondering, and perhaps I am 100% wrong here, if the DNC is holding the convention in a place that it wants to try to push more blue this election. NC has a Dem governor (Bev Perdue, I thiiiink) so I could see them trying to take NC and make it as blue as possible by promoting themselves big-time in the state by way of the convention.
I very much understand that the unions can (and should) spend (or not) their money however they please, and I understand how holding this in a RTW state could upset them. Hell, I'm not even in a union and my state's having passed it last session infuriated me. I guess my suggestion, or thought, would be for the unions to say "look, we're kinda pissed about this. NC just shat all over unions. We know this election cycle is huge, so we're not going to be holding back funds to the Dem party, but we do want to make it very clear that this bothers us, and makes us feel as though you're not concerned about a huge, active constituency in your party. Please keep that in mind going forward, because we don't need to blow this in November because of union/party tension." Maybe that wouldn't work. Maybe I'm pretending I live somewhere where money's not the only speech that counts in politics.
I agree with 'bum's point that they probably feel they could better spend their own money on their own messaging, in our post-CU world.
It just seems like a little bit of a miscalculation to me. The last thing we need is union/party tension, and rather than withholding money, I think some major players in the union world calling up the DNC and going "what in the flying fuck guys, c'mon" would be a smarter route than "no munnies for you then!"
I'm super curious as to what ruckshot is, because that sounds nasty. I believe the term you meant was Roughshod. Although I did find a community definition of Ruckshot, so that was funny.
but thanks for the info, that sounds bad.
Good news! In the US, forcing someone to join a union has been illegal for decades!
this?
nobody gives even half a shit about this
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Roughshod.
Fuck.
23 years and I've been saying it wrong since I misheard it when I was four.
Google didn't spell check me on it though. To the search function!
ruckshot - to steamroll someone or something, largely unchecked. Usually injected into the middle of the phrase "(to)run over."
Maybe it's just lolretahdahdsouth thing
I know a dude who says "land blasted" instead of "lambasted."
It's... awkward.
Well now that's just stupid.
<shrug> Ok, if you say so.
Generally when a big donor says "look, we're pissed, in the future how about we don't do this, kay?" someone listens. If I called the Pres up and was like "yo, quit with the war on drugs or you're not gonna get my $25" who the fuck cares? If the unions collectively say "you're not getting our $TX" someone's ass might get the message. Maybe.
It's still incredibly fucking stupid to pull support from the DNC for trying to turn NC more blue.
people care when donors actually stop giving money, not when they write a letter to the editor.
I mean, so let's say the union does what you want; what message is that sending? "Okay dems, we'll keep giving you money as long as you don't mind us getting a little pub by criticizing you lightly."
And when it's three months closer to the election the same reasoning will presumably apply, and so on and so on. Unions' job isn't to be a democratic surrogate, it's to represent their members.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It'd be great if all fifty states were worker friendly, it really would be.
But they aren't, and you don't get to piss on the cheerios of millions of voters just because you made a union feel sad on the inside.
We're playing with live ammo here.
Unions have two choices, support Democrats or support Republicans. You don't get another choice. So which one do you think would better serve their members? There's also only one way that the union's ultimate goal of turning NC more union friendly is going to happen. And that's by NC becoming more blue. And that's only going to happen when the Democratic party becomes more influential in the state. You know, like the DNC holding their convention in NC, or something like that.
At most its a process story, but its presented as "Dems lose union support."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They have more than two choices. Inside "support democrats" is a whole continuum of choices, they can support them a lot, a little, on everything, only on some things...
Directly via contributions, via educating their members, via training their members as volunteers, via independent expenditure ads...
No, there really isn't. Non-support of Dems is de facto support of Reps. We don't live in a political vacuum. If you don't support one side of our shitty two party system, it makes the other side stronger.
They can support Dems at local/state level and nationally through ad buys without contributing to the DNC directly.
If unions are pissed with how NC treats unions, is there any other better way to change that than the state becoming more friendly to Democrats during elections???
If you would kindly give a contribution to a vulnerable member in a nearby district who does support your issues, I'd call us more than square.
*66% of respondents said that they believe the country is headed down the wrong track.
*However, 53% of respondents either somewhat approve or strongly approve of President Obama's job performance.
*About as many respondents said they were either satisfied or enthusiastically satisfied with the administrations policies as said that they were dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with same.
*At the same time, about 60% of respondents said that they were either dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with the policies proposed by the Republican Congress.
*There is marginal support for ACA by about 3%. Last year, voters were opposed to the act by about 6%
*When asked what effect having Bob McDonnell as Mitt Romney's running mate would have on a respondent's vote, 10% of respondents said it would make them more likely to vote for the Republican ticket. However, 19% said it would make them more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket.
One I forgot to mention -- Tea Party support dropped pretty seriously. Virginians were split pretty evenly on the Tea Party in the last poll, but there's a net disapproval now of about 10%.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget