Jeb Bush vs Hillary

[Timsup2nothin]

I, on the other hand, was a campaign volunteer for McCain in 2008, having been one in 2000. In retrospect I'm glad he lost the second time, but I sure wish we had gotten him in the first time.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Benghazi is just one of many transparency problem they have with the White House, not Hillary.

I really don't care to debate the issue. I'm simply holding up the fact that they continue to go through the motions of attacking Hillary on Benghazi when the general public just doesn't care.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really don't care to debate the issue. I'm simply holding up the fact that they continue to go through the motions of attacking Hillary on Benghazi when the general public just doesn't care.

I don't know that 'doesn't care' is absolutely on the mark. It's just that as campaign exchanges go...

"Your economic policies created a financial crisis that nearly undid the world as we know it."

"Well, Benghazi."

"Your foreign policies bogged us down in two wars where we had literally nothing to gain that cost a fortune. Lives were lost, and we are still trying to completely extricate ourselves from the mess a decade later."

"Well, Benghazi."

...is brutally one sided.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Benghazi is just one of many transparency problem they have with the White House, not Hillary. More recently, for example, is the FCC proposal to declare the internet a utility. "Net Neutrality" is a joke in poor taste.

The least transparent administration in history included Hillary for a few years don't forget.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/0...-raises-flags.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1&referrer=

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up.
Republicans react badly when told email records (required by law) don't exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Your economic policies created a financial crisis that nearly undid the world as we know it."

"Well, e-mail records."

"Your foreign policies bogged us down in two wars where we had literally nothing to gain that cost a fortune. Lives were lost, and we are still trying to completely extricate ourselves from the mess a decade later."

"Well, e-mail records."

...is still brutally one sided.

 

[Kaitzilla]

George W. Bush is running in 2016?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

George W. Bush is running in 2016?

Are you implying that the Republican platform has changed in the past twenty years? Or that any candidate running as a Republican intends to repudiate those positions? That would be news.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up.
Republicans react badly when told email records (required by law) don't exist.

So they will react badly enough to not vote for Hillary? I think Romney also had an email issue that went nowhere.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Are you implying that the Republican platform has changed in the past twenty years? Or that any candidate running as a Republican intends to repudiate those positions? That would be news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, the GOP dominated politics nationally and in most of the North for most of the period from 1860 to 1932. There have been 18 Republican presidents, the first being Abraham Lincoln, who served from 1861 until his assassination in 1865, and the most recent being George W. Bush, who served two full four-year terms 2001 to 2009. The most recent Republican presidential nominee was former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney who lost in 2012.

The party's platform is generally based on American conservatism,[8][9][10] in contrast to the contemporary American liberalism of the rival Democratic Party. The Republican Party's conservatism involves supporting free market capitalism, limited government, strong national defense, opposing regulation and labor unions, and supporting socially conservative policies.[2] The party is generally split on the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration.[11]

The platform is the same.
Nobody ever repudiates their own party.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The platform is the same.
Nobody ever repudiates their own party.

In short, they are going to run someone who represents the same policies that Bush followed right down the toilet, and if anyone votes for it they are just hoping that somehow a different result will be produced.

Pass.

 

[JollyRoger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)



The platform is the same.
Nobody ever repudiates their own party.

That platform is kind of self-contradictory as they support the free market and are against government regulation, but want to heavily regulate or eliminate a natural player in the free market - labor unions.

 

[Kaitzilla]

That platform is kind of self-contradictory as they support the free market and are against government regulation, but want to heavily regulate or eliminate a natural player in the free market - labor unions.

Wrong.
Republicans want to heavily regulate or eliminate public sector labor unions.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...R-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/

Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon...


... Roosevelt saw a "logical place" for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them.
We rate Walker’s narrow statement True.

We are just repeating history.
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2015/02/28/walker-reagan-and-patco/

It was the spring of 1981. Reagan was still a new president, and recovering from John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate him in late March. Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis met with Reagan at Camp David to give him bad news. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, wanted to go on strike. The union’s 17,000 workers manned radar centers and air traffic control towers across the country. These were tough, high-stakes, highly demanding federal jobs. The union’s contact was up, they had been working under increasingly difficult conditions, and they wanted a big pay increase.

Lewis told me Reagan was sympathetic: The increased pressures of the job justified a pay increase, and he offered an 11% jump—this within a context of his budget cutting. But Patco demanded a 100% increase. This would cost taxpayers an estimated $700 million. Reagan rejected it outright. He told Lewis to tell the union that he would not accept an illegal strike, nor would he negotiate a contract while a strike was on. He instructed Lewis to tell the head of the union, Robert Poli, something else: As a former union president he was the best friend they’ve ever had in the White House.

Reagan’s tough line was not completely comfortable for him, personally or politically. He’d had little union support in the 1980 election, but Patco was one of the few that had backed him. Not many union leaders had been friendly to him, but Patco’s had. And he was a union man. he didn’t want to be seen as a Republican union buster.

Still, Reagan believed no president could or should tolerate an illegal strike by federal employees, especially those providing a vital government service. Not only was there a law against such strikes, each member of Patco had signed a sworn affidavit agreeing not to strike.

Talks resumed, fell apart, and by the summer 70% of the air controllers walked out.

They had thought Reagan was bluffing. He wouldn’t fire them, they thought, because it would endanger the economy and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers—and for another reason, which we’ll get to in a moment.

The walkout became a crisis.

Reagan did what he said he would do: He refused to accept the strike and refused to resume negotiations. He called reporters to the Rose Garden and read from a handwritten statement he’d composed the night before. If the strikers did not return to work within 48 hours, they would be fired—and not rehired. The 48 hours was meant as a cooling-off period. In the meantime, Reagan made clear, nonstriking controllers and supervisory personnel would keep the skies open

What Reagan did not speak about was an aspect of the story that had big foreign-policy implications.

Air traffic controllers in effect controlled the skies, and American AWACS planes were patrolling those skies every day. Drew Lewis: “The issue was not only that it was an illegal strike. . . . It was also that a strike had real national-security implications—the AWACS couldn’t have gone up.” It is likely that even though the public and the press didn’t fully know of this aspect of the strike’s effects, the heads of the union did. That’s why they thought Reagan would back down. “This hasn’t come up,” said Lewis, “but the Soviets and others in the world understood the implications of the strike.”

The administration quickly put together a flight control system composed of FAA and Defense Department personnel, and private controllers, to keep commercial traffic—and US military aircraft—in the air.

It was an international story. The French government pressed the administration to make a deal. Britain backed Reagan. Canada’s flight controllers shut down the airport in Gander, Newfoundland, in solidarity with Patco. Lewis, with the president’s backing, told them that if they didn’t reopen within two hours the U.S. would never land there again. They reopened.

The administration could have arrested the strike leaders but didn’t. Congressional Democrats could have used the strike for partisan advantage and didn’t, or didn’t much.

Sen. Edward Kennedy and Lane Kirkland of the AFL CIO played helpful and constructive roles. Persuaded the administration had a case—a 100% increase was asking too much, a strike against the public safety was illegal—both kept a lot of Democrats on the Hill and in the labor movement from coming out strong against the administration.

100% pay raise!

If FDR himself was aghast at the idea of public unions having collective bargaining, who rammed it through?

In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies

And thus the average salary of all federal workers is over $75,000 today.
This will help you get started.
http://www.amazon.com/Plunder-Employee-Treasuries-Controlling-Bankrupting/dp/0984275207

Republicans are fine with private sector labor unions.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, 'right to work' is an extremely pro- private sector union stance.

You're flat out wrong to assert that they are fine with private sector unions.

 

[JollyRoger]

Republicans are fine with private sector labor unions.

So why is Scott Walker going off-platform?

 

[Kaitzilla]

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...on-legislation-home-car-industry-now-michigan

In what is arguably still the heartland of America’s union movement, the Michigan legislature passed so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) legislation on December 11th. This prevents unions from requiring workers to pay union dues. Governor Rick Snyder immediately signed the legislation into law. When he did, Michigan, whose largest city is Detroit, became the 24th RTW state.

Indiana became the 23rd in February, and much of the same debate is being aired there. Proponents of the new law argue that it is unfair to force anyone to contribute money to a union, and that it will encourage employers to move to the state. Opponents argue that unions face a “free rider” problem, representing workers who do not pay their dues, and that the legislation will force wages down. Barack Obama has weighed in, saying that the legislation is the “right to work for less money”.

RTW laws are common in the South (all the former confederate states have them on the books), but it is hard to imagine a place where one could cause more upset than in Michigan. Carworkers, in particular, are apoplectic. Only a few years ago, union members gave up many benefits in order to save the car industry. Yet although RTW makes it harder for unions to collect dues (weakening their political clout), it also makes them more accountable, as they now have to recruit members actively.

Not sure how Michigan passed Right to Work.
Aren't they like the main union stronghold?

 

[JollyRoger]

Why do Republicans want to noise into private contracts between unions and workers? Seems anti-free market. Like forbidding clauses in shareholder agreements that bind shareholders.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I guess it depends on your definition of laws against "unfair business practices".

Why can't I hire children?
I want that monopoly!
Should be able to sell me own kidney.

Politics helps decide where the lines are drawn.

 

[JollyRoger]

But if you are against regulation and for free markets, surely the line in your politics is drawn to not regulate the private run-of-the-mill contract activity between unions and those they contract with.

 

[Kaitzilla]

But if you are against regulation and for free markets, surely the line in your politics is drawn to not regulate the private run-of-the-mill contract activity between unions and those they contract with.

Aren't non-union employees a 3rd party nonsignatory to such contract activity?

I was always confused how non-union members could be forced to pay dues.
Especially if 90% of the money was spent on overhead, administration, and political donations.


It baffles me the same as paying a tax when I don't buy something.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No matter how you parse out the details of the Republican position, the overall result is demonstrably a dive into the toilet...unless, as I said, the position has changed (Kaitzilla assures us it has not) or they have a candidate who will repudiate the Republican position (and similarly we are assured that they do not). So one more time, who's up for another dunk in the toilet?

Pass.