Honestly, I think the reverse. Banning public sector unions bans the Teacher's Union, which stops fundraising to campaign against the voucher system.
Also, you don't need a constitutional amendment to do this ban. Just a state law.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Also, you don't need a constitutional amendment to do this ban. Just a state law.
Ehhh aren't unions covered under the 1A?
Might require an amendment.
Then again it's public sector Unions not private so you might be right.
No, they thankfully aren't. In fact, in some states public sector unions are already banned.
Note that 1A basically slices both ways if it was applied as intended: you are free to form a union and strike whenever, and we are free to fire you for being in a union. The US clamped down on both of that. Unconstitutional? Maybe, but not according to SCOTUS.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
A fraction of a percent of the population, concentrated in regions where the parents are - if not fine- then at least not particularly terrified by the motion.
It won't lose them any votes. It might even win them some.
Yeah? That's kinda my point. You need to go out and convince people, not demand they come to you and prostrate themselves before you.
Turning away less insane people for not being as obsessive about ticking off every minor ideological point in the list will doom any ideology.
Yeah, but not openly. Progress. The fall of the USSR really shut them up. It's the biggest setback they've faced in over a century, all thanks to Reagan.
Like WHAT?
LordDemiurge
Well-known member
The results would be fairly interesting.
Leftist would have to choose. They finally get to ban police unions, but they have to choose if they value that more than keeping the teacher's union alive.
You don't seem to understand how movements win stuff. You don't actually need a majority. This is the issue with the silent majority. In fact, a committed, vocal minority can actually cause much more change than a silent majority.
No, your point is a logical fallacy. It's called a false dilemma, where you claim there are only two options when there is in fact more than two.
You are saying that holding that you can either a) hold true to a belief and not attract followers, or b) attract followers through compromise.
But in fact all of history shows this to be wrong. People are frequently attracted to ideologies that ask something of them, one that doesn't bend to meet them, but just says what it is. In fact, an ideology requiring some sacrifice to join is usually a good thing for the ideology or group, as it allows the ingroup/outgroup mechanics to work better. And really, at an evolutionary level, that's the core of politics/ideology: ingroup/outgroup managing. And requiring a sacrifice to join is classic tribal behavior.
Christianity? Islam? Perhaps the two biggest ideologies on the planet?
Oh, they always chose the unions. It happened in wisconsin awhile ago, IIRC.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
My argument is simply this: if you gatekeep everyone who isn't as fanatical as Perpetually Online reactionary NEETs, that's all your ideology will have as voters.
Electoral politics is a simple arithmetic. You need to win more votes than the enemy in every electoral division. Which you can't do if you've scared off all the normals.
Are you joking? Christianity was basically history's biggest master class in using syncretism and adapting beliefs to get more followers. As for Islam, it spread only through conquest and brute force, tools that modern conservatives don't have.
See, this is your issue. You think the backlash against RINOs is coming from online people. It isn't. Trump is the grassroots. And now you are complaining that people not accepting RINOs is too far? Well, RINOs don't have another option, so why should they be listened too? They are stuck between two choices, and the new Republicans are pointing out that they have no choice.
No, quite simply you are out of touch here.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if you could debate honestly. You've repeatedly tried to change your point.
Your original point:
Now you are claiming it's only about online people. Guess what Christianity required? You to believe that Jesus was the son of God, died on the cross, etc. Sure, you could mix and match somewhat, to see if you liked it, but to actually be accepted by other Christians? You had to toss your old pagan beliefs.
To be accepted as a Christian, you couldn't muck about with other gods.
To be accepted as a republican now, you can't muck about with RINOs, as they're endangered.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Too convenient for Boeing ... just as soon as the problems with their stuff has become public information.Update, the guy told the public he wasn’t suicidal.
'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death
A close family friend of John Barnett said he predicted he might wind up dead and that a story could surface that he killed himself.abcnews4.com
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
it absorbed many of the trappings and ceremonies of the cultures that it spread to, but never at the expense of the core message.
if there was something that truly clashed with that message it was done away with.
DarthOne
☦️
I see what you did there and I like it.
Pfftthahaahahaha
Now I know you're full of shit.
Protip- ritualized child genital mutilation to cater to the deranged fantasies of a minority of inherent sexual Super Predators is never popular.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
But suffice it to say, I don't see them losing the election over it.
If Biden loses, it'll be because of treason from his radical allies and anger over inflation.
Sending the US military to Gaza and/or breaking ties with Israel over what they are doing in response to Oct 7th is more likely to sink Biden than any amount of trans issues, this is true.
It doesn't need to cost Biden the election, it needs to cost Dems and moderates elections locally.
Which it has.
Which it has.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
If you're arguing with perpetually online reactionary NEETS, why are you expecting a different kind of behavior?
If you want a more measured, reasonable discussion, go find the local chapter of Turning Point USA, or the Republican Party, etc, and talk with people IRL.
Some of us on this forum self-moderate, but others have embraced the black pill, their own spite, or any number of other things. It's an internet political forum; this is the kind of thing you get.
Not in the way you're talking about.
Catholics notoriously would make moves along the lines of: 'Ah, celebrating the solstice by worshipping pagan gods? No! Why don't you celebrate the Birth of Jesus instead? You want to put up a tree? Sure, fine, whatever, but you're not worshipping Frigga, there is only one true God.
"And the human sacrifices will stop."
Odd bits of culture certainly are mutated semi-adopted remnants of old pagan practices, but for all its faults, the Catholic church was pretty consistent on, and inexorably pushed towards, maintaining the integrity of the core doctrines of Christianity.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Even this atheist acknowledges Christian success at ending human sacrifice in barbarian Europe.
I've stopped arguing with them now. Thankfully, there ARE reasonable people on this board.
LordDemiurge
Well-known member
In Boston I once attended an Italian Catholic holiday. And saw a shrine for a Saint bedecked in offerings and money.
It looked almost exactly like a celebration a Hindu friend once took to me see.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Yep. The way Catholics have walked the line with 'honoring' vs 'idolizing' saints is one of my beefs with them.