USA Politics

It was the first ever in Colorado, it is not normal at all. The driver behind this was the state gun control law.

The Wisconsin recalls over public unions were also pretty unique, those were over a year ago, they tried to recall the governor and several members of the senate. The governor won his election and the senate races were split.

Recalls do not happen often, the most famous would probably the one in California that made Arnold the governator.

Some city officials in Bell, CA were tossed out due to corruption semi recently. But, given the number of elected offices that are subject to recall, it is incredibly rare.
 
Hmm... I still don't see how this represents a system working well. Exceptions for the reasons you cited previously, fair enough --but this recall is based on not liking one policy of someone you voted in. There's nothing wrong with that --but who agrees with everything a candidate represents?
Onhell said:
Exactly. These guys have to remember, their personal opinions have to be put aside and they are there to represent their constituents. Too many politicians forget that once in office.
Click to expand...
In this regard, I find this statement baffling. What else do they have apart from their personal opinions? I mean, to suggest the public/voters have some sort of collective view that a candidate should mirror doesn't make sense. Therefore, one is always going to disagree with something, surely? And leading on from this --are you going to throw people out every time you disagree with one policy issue? (If an issue was that damn important to you, you should have ascertained the representatives view before you voted for them; &/or the system should have ideally delivered this information to you prior to you voting.) The hypothetical precedent this sets is chaos & disfunctional government. Politicians should most certainly allow their own views to be informed by the opinion of their voters (i.e. by the views of others). But they must, surely, make decisions based on their own experience & views; not those of someone else?
 
Last edited:
I think this was an unusual case, people do not agree with their representatives quite a bit, but recalls are very rare and in cases like this generally only happen if the politicians in question do something pretty blatant against what the majority wants to happen. It seems to be a case where the public thought these two sold them out to other interests against their interests.

In this history of the state, this has never happened, so it is a bit much to say that people will be thrown out every time people disagree.
 
I asked the question "are you going to..." (i.e. I didn't suggest this was an example of it happening "every time") & clearly stated "hypothetically" --as in, hypothetically you could recall about everything you disagree with; a theoretical vote on every policy issue.

I certainly agree that if someone's position shifts on a particular issue, then the public can't very well know this unless told/revealed; & likewise if true intentions/views are withheld/concealed (from the public, by a candidate) prior to being voted into a particular office. However, in general, I still feel it's a failing of the system for someone's views (& therefore likely future stance) not to be known on something pretty major, like gun control for example. Hence my quibble over this being democracy working.

Plus, the elephant in the proverbial room, here, is the idea that the public/voters are, with their opinion/views, to be any more trusted, or relied upon, than those they voted in...
 
As I said, I am generally against these recalls happening except in certain circumstances. But, those who have been kicked out of office have generally been seen as flat out ignoring the will of the people in general, it rarely happens, but when it does they seem to be in extreme cases.


Who knows whose views are to be most trusted, but in a case like this where it seems to have been a single issue election, the argument is pretty much do the voters want more or less gun control. Voters chose less. I doubt anyone outside of these districts knows what they ran on or what they said about gun control ... but voters seem to have decided they went against the position they ran on and ignored the public debate over this issue.

Gun control was not really a major issue when they were elected, it became an issue more recently.
 
Fair enough. I still, as someone from the UK (& we obviously discussed this in a previous thread), fundamentally don't understand the US's general (& I generalise here, obviously...) attitude to firearms. It seems to me (coupled with the death penalty) highly anachronistic for the leading western democracy of our time to want to preserve something, in my view, so utterly outdated as the concept of the right to bear arms. I understand the arguments; yet, sort of, don't. Honestly, I'm continually baffled by it...
 
It is fair to say people often do not understand things about other countries (or in the case of the US some states do not understand other states). I do not think it is so much a matter of right or wrong versus a group of people in a geographical proximity to one another deciding how they want to live their lives, which might be in a completely different manner than someone thousands (or even a hundred) miles away.

With the increasing ease of moving from state to state in the US, I think you will see more and more like minded groupings than in the past.
 
bearfan said:
It is fair to say people often do not understand things about other countries (or in the case of the US some states do not understand other states).
Click to expand...
Agreed, this is why I tend to stay out of European political discussions. I base a lot of my opinions of the US on my own experiences here. I can't really apply that to a country where things are different.

bearfan said:
Gun control was not really a major issue when they were elected, it became an issue more recently.
Click to expand...
Right, there are two things that should be considered with the gun control thing.

1: Hunting is huge in Colorado. This isn't an argument against gun control, but rather a fact that explains why this was a big issue. Tons of people out here own firearms.

2: There was a big shooting here recently. This isn't an argument for gun control, but it really triggered the push for gun control laws, especially in Colorado (understandably). The gun control issue was pretty much ignored before that, probably because of the big hunting culture. Running on the platform of being against guns isn't going to be very popular. Thus, these senators probably avoided the topic, that is until the shooting.

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Hmm... I still don't see how this represents a system working well. Exceptions for the reasons you cited previously, fair enough --but this recall is based on not liking one policy of someone you voted in. There's nothing wrong with that --but who agrees with everything a candidate represents?

In this regard, I find this statement baffling. What else do they have apart from their personal opinions? I mean, to suggest the public/voters have some sort of collective view that a candidate should mirror doesn't make sense. Therefore, one is always going to disagree with something, surely? And leading on from this --are you going to throw people out every time you disagree with one policy issue?
Click to expand...
I think this proved that these senators weren't working in the best interest of the people. If they are going to push policies that are the opposite of what people want, they are simply not doing their job. We elect politicians to represent the people, we vote for candidates who best mirror our own opinions. That's not to say they shouldn't be mindless puppets to someone else, but rather (especially in a local government) listen when there's a call for a certain policy. And while we shouldn't throw people out if we disagree with one policy issue, it should be taken into account during election day. That's why we have them, to get rid of people who aren't working for the good of the citizens. If only we took advantage of that system..

(If an issue was that damn important to you, you should have ascertained the representatives view before you voted for them; &/or the system should have ideally delivered this information to you prior to you voting.)
Click to expand...
Politicians lie. And like I said before, these senators probably avoided the gun control issue when running.
That's why people have been so upset with Obama lately, for example. He promised a transparent administration and we got the opposite.
 
The White House denied an exemption for Unions ... I guess this is what happens when you support something before you read it

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...793.html?hp=f2

The Obama administration on Friday told labor union leaders that their health plans would not be eligible for tax subsidies under Obamacare next year.

A White House official said the Treasury Department has concluded that such an exemption is not possible under the Affordable Care Act. The labor unions have been asking that their union plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans, be eligible for premium subsidies the way plans on the new insurance exchange will be.

A senior administration official said the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies but couldn’t find one.

“It’s black and white,” the official said — there is no way to make the union plans, which are considered workplace benefits and already receive special tax treatment for that status, eligible.

(Also on POLITICO: AFL-CIO President: Leave me alone)

Labor officials met privately with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Labor Secretary Tom Perez on Friday afternoon to press their case that the Affordable Care Act will have consequences for the benefits of union employees.

The president “heard the concern about the future of the nonprofit plans,” the senior administration official said.

The Treasury Department spelled out the details of the administration’s decision in a letter Friday to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.).

“The Treasury Department issued a letter today making clear that it does not see a legal way for individuals in multi-employer group health plans to receive individual market tax credits as well as the favorable tax treatment associated with employer-provided health insurance at the same time,” the White House official said in a statement.


“The president expressed in the meeting that he wakes up every day thinking about how to help working Americans and build the middle class — he also expressed that the Affordable Care Act will work to create new affordable health care for millions of Americans this year,” the official added.

Labor officials worry that the lack of subsides for those multi-employer Taft-Hartley health care plans could encourage employers to move unionized employees onto the public exchanges created by the new law. They also worry that the law could encourage employers to move some full-time employees to part-time to avoid having to provide health insurance.

As a result of the disagreement over the implementation of the health care law, union officials and their rank-and-file members have been among the most vocal critics of the Affordable Care Act — Obama’s signature domestic achievement — in recent weeks. Before the law’s passage, unions were vocal supporters.

The disagreement has grown increasingly acrid over the summer.


The nation’s largest labor group — the AFL-CIO — concluded its annual meeting in Los Angeles earlier this week by strongly condemning the law in a statement that said it was “highly disruptive” to union benefits.

“On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members, along with millions of other hardworking Americans,” the Teamsters, UFCW and UNITE HERE wrote in a joint letter this summer.

According to the White House, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, UNITE HERE President D. Taylor, Teamsters Secretary Ken Hall, Plumbers and Pipefitters President Bill Hite, Electrical Workers President Ed Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen and Building and Construction Trades Department Secretary-Treasurer Brent Booker attended the White House meeting Friday.

White House officials did discuss how to make the plans eligible to enter the exchanges, which would require several changes to how many of the plans operate today. Many of the union plans, as they exist, do not accept all applicants — just one of the reasons they wouldn’t qualify to offer their insurance on the exchanges.

Union officials emerged from the meeting in no mood to talk to reporters after more than an hour of closed-door consultations with the president and administration officials.

“It was a good meeting,” Trumka told reporters in a short statement as he left the White House grounds. “We’re continuing to work on problem solving. You’ve got the only quote you’re going to get.”

The AFL-CIO declined to comment on the White House’s decision.

Not all labor unions oppose the law.

The SEIU remains supportive of Obamacare — even announcing this week that it was pitching in for outreach and enrollment efforts across the country.
 
1230007_536643829748979_1859441950_n.jpg
 
Apple stated the print is stored in the phone only, it does not go to a central database. If that is discovered to be a lie it would spell the end for the company.
 
Part of the freakout about this is what if Apple is lying - the other part is that people don't understand how technology works.

Apple, like all the other tech companies, has already lied about their complacency in NSA spying.
 
Hell if I know what would happen there. I think it'd be 5-4 or perhaps 6-3 in favour of that somehow being constitutional. I think it'd be a weird split, too. Scalia and Thomas with Breyer and Ginsburg against the remainder.
 
Depending on the case, I think it could be ruled unconstitutional .. though Roberts is a bit of wild card given his Obamacare ruling
 
bearfan said:
Depending on the case, I think it could be ruled unconstitutional .. though Roberts is a bit of wild card given his Obamacare ruling
Click to expand...
I don't know. That one was pretty darned political to me. I can't see him going against the administration on this one.
 
I think it depends on the case ... at a minimum, Scalia, Thomas, and possibly Alito .. plus the 2 leftist judges can get us to 5
 
Alito has a very, very strong history of favouring administrative privilege. So does Kennedy. Kagan will surely vote for her old boss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top