Opinion how are unions not a right wing thing?

[EradiatedHaggis]

Unions arent viewed to be Republican because nothing means what it means anymore.

Republicans are rarely Conservative, Liberals are rarely broad-minded and Liberal. You got Neo-Cons on both sides, religious on both sides, both have their extremists to the far side of their politics and the base, no longer has a voice...mostly only the wacko's get to speak.

This is how the party that fought for free speech, is now attacking it openly and says its against big business yet is always in bed with it behind closed doors.
And how the party that stands for individuality somehow always backs the bosses against workers...and supports religion, both of which are anti-individualism.

Its because the loons are running the asylum.

 

[hillelslovak87]

This is the issue. Anyone familiar with teachers unions and their political leanings as well as their history of protecting bad teachers and defending/upholding low standards already knows this.

People on message boards expect to be given one link with the entire history. Anyone familiar with teachers unions already knows this. It's been a major issue for my whole voting lifetime.

You're like the dude that asked me how I knew there was an abolitionist movement in the US before the Civil War. Prove it! Only the ignorant ask for proof of what anyone can research for themselves.

If you are confident in your knowledge, you can bring proof to bear for your claims. If someone asked you to prove a pre civil war abolition movement, and you couldn't provide facts for that either, that's on you, as there are plenty of examples stretching back decades before the 1850s.

 

[KeepItRealist]

If you are confident in your knowledge, you can bring proof to bear for your claims. If someone asked you to prove a pre civil war abolition movement, and you couldn't provide facts for that either, that's on you, as there are plenty of examples stretching back decades before the 1850s.

So I should spend my time finding hundreds of links on the battles between teachers unions and politicians and political groups because this dude doesn't want to Google?

It's not a ludicrous claim. Anyone who pays any attention to politics for the past 30 years has to be familiar with the controversies surrounding the teachers unions. This dude acting like he never heard of such a thing says it all. No links from me is going to educate such a person.

 

[Trotsky]

Hard to defend Bernie's total lack of ethics and integrity when it's specifically asked, isn't it?

If you're really interested in my opinion on that, you can search my posts. I've explained it several times, including once yesterday or Monday.

If you think that not condemning your country to the almost certain election of Trump - a corrupt and incompetent plutocrat who has since then filled the judiciary with billionaire-cock-sucking hacks, filled government agencies with lobbyists, profiteers, and crooks, and radically redistributed wealth and power upwards - as opposed to staying in for personal glory is "selling out," then you're a moron. Even if it was absolutely clear that Sanders had the primary stolen (it's not; he didn't), him running in the general and sealing an outcome that is infinitely worse for the country than the election of Clinton would have been one of the most despicably selfish things possible.

I don't think this was his calculus whatsoever. And this would reflect kind of a lowly opinion of Sanders as a person and a public servant.

I think his position is exactly what he's continually said: that Trump/the GOP is an existential threat to the country due to his/its indefensible, reckless, and utterly corrupt policies, and that he cared more about his country and the welfare of its people than his personal glory. Running would have all but guaranteed four years of...well, exactly what we're seeing. It's going to take a generation to undo the harm that the Trump presidency has done in terms of institutional competence, trust in government and media, equitable resource distribution, reducing partisanship, and (perhaps mostly) accomplishing meaningful policy without right-wing hack judges hamstringing the country from healing itself and effectuating real democracy. He wasn't going to go with a 99% chance of that happening just for a 1% chance of his becoming president - then or ever.

But you're not. You just wanted to change the subject because you were dead to rights on not knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Higus]

So I should spend my time finding hundreds of links on the battles between teachers unions and politicians and political groups because this dude doesn't want to Google?

You've spent more effort defending your choice to not provide sources at this point.

 

[KeepItRealist]

You've spent more effort defending your choice to not provide sources at this point.

Hardly. It takes 10 seconds to write a post. But I get it. A lot of people on here don't know history at all and don't care. They want a website URL they accept as non-partisan enough to explain everything to them.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Unions are a feature of Communism. Communism is basically society is one big union. That being said there's a handful of unions conservatives love, like the police union.

They love police unions because the GOP make belive theyre the law and order party even though they aren’t close to that.

 

[KeepItRealist]

If you're really interested in my opinion on that, you can search my posts. I've explained it several times, including once yesterday or Monday.

​

But you're not. You just wanted to change the subject because you were dead to rights on not knowing what you're talking about.

Trump = Bad. So let's help to elect a woman who cheated in the primary, cheated in the debates, took money from foreign governments, broke a hundred national security laws, lied about it incessantly and has not one ethical bone in her body. Got it.

Yep. The teachers unions don't protect bad teachers. No one has ever said such a thing. That's definitely a Bernie supporter.

 

[Higus]

Hardly. It takes 10 seconds to write a post. But I get it. A lot of people on here don't know history at all and don't care. They want a website URL they accept as non-partisan enough to explain everything to them.

How long does it take to source something that is supposedly common knowledge?

 

[KeepItRealist]

How long does it take to source something that is supposedly common knowledge?

Of course. Supposedly common knowledge. No one on Sherdog has ever heard of any of the controversies surrounding teachers unions. That's a shock.

You tell me. Go google "teachers unions" and any number of terms you want: low standards, bad teachers, political campaigning etc.. You do it for him.

 

[Trotsky]

Yep. The teachers unions don't protect bad teachers. No one has ever said such a thing. That's definitely a Bernie supporter.

People have said that. The fact that someone somewhere has said a union defended a bad teacher does not equate to the existence of teacher's unions degrading public education.

Just like the fact that someone once said that vegetables can be used as weapons doesn't mean that Europe conquered the Americas brandishing stalks of celery.

 

[hillelslovak87]

So I should spend my time finding hundreds of links on the battles between teachers unions and politicians and political groups because this dude doesn't want to Google?

It's not a ludicrous claim. Anyone who pays any attention to politics for the past 30 years has to be familiar with the controversies surrounding the teachers unions. This dude acting like he never heard of such a thing says it all. No links from me is going to educate such a person.

Nobody said you need to bring 100 links, don't be melodramatic. When adults make claims about history, they bring information when questioned. The duty to provide information in defense of your proposition lies upon you, and nobody else, if you want to be taken seriously when pressed.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Nobody said you need to bring 100 links, don't be melodramatic. When adults make claims about history, they bring information when questioned. The duty to provide information in defense of your proposition lies upon you, and nobody else, if you want to be taken seriously when pressed.

Well I'm not going to bother for the same reason I won't go look for URLs talking about the abolitionist movement before the Civil War, it's pointless. Anyone interested can do research on their own. Anyone who claims the teachers unions don't protect bad teachers, are not far-left and have helped lower the standards of education in this country is ignorant beyond hope. No one can help them.

 

[Gunny]

they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?

I can’t speak for the right but unions are problematic for a number of reasons. For one, they often breed corruption and have frequently been overrun with criminality. They are also often unnecessarily adversarial and self defeating. Take the bakers union driving hostess out of business then across the border as just one example of this. Finally, they are often piss poor at serving the interests of many of their members. I used to be an AGMA member and my take away was that I was required to pay them a lot of money for the privilege of having them negotiate rules that protected senior members from more qualified younger members like myself. In the world of public education union negotiated mandatory pay schedules virtually prevent schools from hiring teachers with advanced/terminal degrees. Seasoned professional educators often aren’t even granted an interview while a recent grad with no-experience can get hired almost anywhere. There are plenty of reasons to dislike unions that have nothing to do with one’s commitment to lifting the working class.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Part of the reason for this is that the “powerful” are generally white males

It doesn't hurt but right-wingers have hated unions since their inception in the mid 1800s in Europe and the US, when everyone was white (aka, the peak of Western Civilization).

 

[Higus]

Of course. Supposedly common knowledge. No one on Sherdog has ever heard of any of the controversies surrounding teachers unions. That's a shock.

You tell me. Go google "teachers unions" and any number of terms you want: low standards, bad teachers, political campaigning etc.. You do it for him.

The argument you originally made was that the teacher union is largely responsible for "pathetic" state of education in the US.
There doesn't seem to be a consensus opinion/report that says they are unequivocally bad, tbh.

 

[KeepItRealist]

The argument you originally made was that the teacher union is largely responsible for "pathetic" state of education in the US.
There doesn't seem to be a consensus opinion/report that says they are unequivocally bad, tbh.

You see, forcing schools to keep bad teachers and lowering standards is responsible for public education in the US becoming so embarrassing. It's the same issue.

Although in the end, it was liberals in this country not expecting black kids to catch up after desegregation in the South that is really the root of all the problems with public education today. Giving birth to this mentality of passing kids at all costs and social promotions and all that nonsense.

 

[Amerikuracana]

they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?

It's an old dynamic. Well off white guys battled organized labor. I'm not even making the post, but I'm pretty sure the money is about to switch it up, either to see if it can, or because pro right talk is being limited and marginalized, and moving unions to the right would make them easier to propagandist against. The left just listens to their phones; end of story there, so they can be switched easily against those dirty blue collar deplorables.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Oh, and the money wants women and minorities in white collar jobs of influence now, because quite frankly it makes it easier for the powers that be.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Well I'm not going to bother for the same reason I won't go look for URLs talking about the abolitionist movement before the Civil War, it's pointless. Anyone interested can do research on their own. Anyone who claims the teachers unions don't protect bad teachers, are far-left and have helped lower the standards of education in this country is ignorant beyond hope. No one can help them.

If you're going to speak of history, it behooves you to actually show what you're talking about. That's the point of an exchange in information. Simply going "look it up!!" is lazy.

Then again, if you know what you're talking about, you wouldn't need a link necessarily, you could have simply spoken of pre-civil war abolitionists off the top of your head, like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass or even go back further to men like Oglethorpe. That is, if you actually knew what you were talking about, and weren't just throwing shit out there.....