Should Gov. Walker be Recalled?

[SoCal]

With all the protest going on in WI, and Walker not willing to negotiate his hardline stance, do you think he will be recalled?

 

[martybegan]

With all the protest going on in WI, and Walker not willing to negotiate his hardline stance, do you think he will face a recall vote?

Your poll question(s) are framed poorly. In your title you ask if he SHOULD be recalled, but your question in the body of the text is if he WILL be recalled.

Two entirely different things.

 

[Oddball]

Not....Gonna...Happen.

The current shitstorm will blow over long before the election could be set up.

 

[bodecea]

With all the protest going on in WI, and Walker not willing to negotiate his hardline stance, do you think he will face a recall vote?

Not my state. When we recalled Grey Davis here, we got AH-nold....with Darryl Issa crying, crying, crying.

 

[Oddball]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

 

[R.D.]

Just because the scream the loudest does not make them the majority.

 

[SoCal]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

 

[del]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its because a give right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

 

[Jarhead]

im just wondering what the opinion is. it seems the majority of the WI public doesnt like his hardline stance. if he keeps pushing to take away rights, how long will people accept this..

Actually, it was proven on here that it is the exact opposite.

The poll that was touted to show that there is support to recall?

Actually showed that of the 1.1 million people that voted for Barrett? Only 700,000 wanted a recall.

which means that 1/3 of those that voted for Barrett are happy with Walker as governor.

Interesting how poll results are presnted in a way that decieves the public.....no?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

People don't get recalled for keeping their promises.

 

[Jarhead]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

Their "right" was the right to ask for collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining was a negotiated item in a contract.

 

[WillowTree]

He should be awarded the Nobel Peace prize.

 

[Oddball]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

Um....WRONG-O!!

A right, by definition, requires no politician or bureaucrat to "give" it to you.

Collective bargaining is a privilege....Deal with it.

 

[martybegan]

idiot, in order to get a recall on the ballot, it first has be a petition signed by enough voters. hence do you think he will "face" a recall vote. I didnt asked if he would be recalled.

Your topic is " should Governor walker be recalled"

This implies support of recalling him, both by filing the petition, and voting yes in a recall vote.

In the body of the text, you ask "do you think he will face a recall vote." This asks the person if they think a vote will happen, not if they think it is right or not.

A person could answer "Yes" to the first question, if they think a recall would happen, but still think the answer to the one in your title is "No", or even in reverse

The more civil answer would be to say, "yes, i actually meant the question in the body of the text i wrote, not in my title"

Instead, in one of your first posts, call someone a name in a childish lash out when asked a simple question, and shown the gap in the logic of your post.

Edit: Also nice attempt to remove your snap response to my pointing out your post title and body were conflicting.

 

[SoCal]

There's no "right" of collective bargaining.

The *privilege* was extended by the state...It only follows that it may be taken away.

On top if that, the only part of collective bargaining being taken away is that involving benefits, not pay.

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

Their "right" was the right to ask for collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining was a negotiated item in a contract.

youre correct. they were granted the rights of collective bargaining per the contract. the semantics of this isnt the issue i wanted to discuss.

i simply see this as a contract dispute. the unions have a contract in place with the state. the state no longer likes that contract, so they need to negotiate a new one. instead walker simply wants to take away their ability to negotiate for the whole, and that is wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

I checked "no" in the poll and the question doesn't really matter. He won't be recalled. And he shouldn't be recalled.

The union, however, should be billed for the $7.5 MILLION dollars in damage their goons and thugs have done to the Wisconsin state capitol.

The problem with collective bargaining in the public sector is that one administration can contractually obligate future administrations and the tax payers for liabilities for decades when those subsequent administrations and the tax payers had no place at the table to negotiate those contracts. That lets an unscrupulous or incompetent adminsitration create the problem that Wisconsin now faces--billions of dollars in obligations contracted years ago for which there is no money to pay.

Somebody has to bite the bullet and correct the situation. Walker ran on a promise to do so and he is honoring that promise. The man is not evil or incompetent or intractable. He looks like a real American hero to a whole lot of us.

 

[R.D.]

i simply see this as a contract dispute. the unions have a contract in place with the state. the state no longer likes that contract, so they need to negotiate a new one. instead walker simply wants to take away their ability to negotiate for the whole, and that is wrong.

Did Obama's federal pay freeze lead you to make polls too?

 

[WillowTree]

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

Their "right" was the right to ask for collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining was a negotiated item in a contract.

youre correct. they were granted the rights of collective bargaining per the contract. the semantics of this isnt the issue i wanted to discuss.

i simply see this as a contract dispute. the unions have a contract in place with the state. the state no longer likes that contract, so they need to negotiate a new one. instead walker simply wants to take away their ability to negotiate for the whole, and that is wrong.

No, you are wrong. Walker has stated Wisconsin is broke. He asked them to contribute to their health care and to their pensions which they did, then he said they may continue to "collective bargain" for their wages but not for their benefits. Do you see the difference? And, secondly was that rep you sent me positive or negative. I cannot tell, all I got was a shade of grey.

 

[Oddball]

Somebody has to bite the bullet and correct the situation. Walker ran on a promise to do so and he is honoring that promise. The man is not evil or incompetent or intractable. He looks like a real American hero to a whole lot of us.

A dude with an (R) next to his name who won't cave...It's about time.

 

[Jarhead]

when the state agreed to give them collective bargaining "rights" its became a given right. (not the same as an inalienable right) thats what i meant by right.

Their "right" was the right to ask for collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining was a negotiated item in a contract.

youre correct. they were granted the rights of collective bargaining per the contract. the semantics of this isnt the issue i wanted to discuss.

i simply see this as a contract dispute. the unions have a contract in place with the state. the state no longer likes that contract, so they need to negotiate a new one. instead walker simply wants to take away their ability to negotiate for the whole, and that is wrong.

Actually....

and to really put it in context...and using a metaphore...

A new CEO (governor) came into a company (state) that had serious financial issues. He had proimised the stockholders (voters) that he will not only do what he can to clean up the mess BUT ALSO DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO to prevent the mess from happening again.

He reviewed the financials and had to make some very difficult decisions. Knowing these decisions may not be popular, he made them anyway as he truly believed that the employees were a bit overpaid and their tactics of negotiating may put them in a difficult situation in the future.

Knowing that it may not go over well with the employees, he opted to allow the board of directors (the state senate) vote on it...and let the majority win. Sure, he knew he had like thinkers as a majority on the board, but if the idea was THAT BAD, he would lose the vote.

THAT is how it happened....without the spin.