|
Post by duke on Oct 18, 2012 12:23:02 GMT -5
Newly-discovered audio from a conference call in June captures Mitt Romney asking business owners to urge their employees to vote for him. by Annie-Rose Strasser Romney, speaking on a call to the very conservative National Federation of Independent Business, tells a group of business owners that they should “make it very clear†how they feel about the candidates. The audio, discovered by In These Times, also captures Romney telling the business owners to “pass… along to your employees†how their jobs might be effected by who wins in November: I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope â€' I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well. thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638927/s/249816da/l/0Lthinkprogress0Borg0Celection0C20A120C10A0C170C10A378810Cleaked0Eaudio0Eromney0Eemployers0C/story01.htm
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 19, 2012 11:50:37 GMT -5
News flash!: Romney running for President! Oh the horror!
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 19, 2012 12:20:40 GMT -5
News flash!: Romney running for President! Oh the horror! Many people across the political spectrum see this brand of voter intimidation in the workplace as far more of a problem than you do. It's easy to imagine that you are willing to overlook the practice in this narrow instance, since it benefits your preferred candidate. But the fact of the matter is that this type of behavior was explicitly prohibited prior to the Citizens United case. So welcome to the new paradigm - and remember your own complicity on this day when the practice inevitably works against your best interests in the future. Remember that you put your political party above the interests of the republic.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 19, 2012 13:25:18 GMT -5
Two words bot. Secret Ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 19, 2012 14:19:05 GMT -5
Two words bot. Secret Ballot. Voting is not the sole form of political expression. Employees can volunteer, donate money, put bumper stickers on their cars, talk politics with co-workers, etc. These perfectly legitimate activities - and I would argue that this openness are part of what makes our political system so great. But now you are weighing in in favor of bosses - with money and influence - intimidating workers and curbing their political expression? Making it clear that support of a work-sanctioned candidate is expected? I think that's just more than simply inappropriate - it's flat out un-American, and I bet if this was a case in which a politician whom you did NOT support was pressing employers to intimidate their workers, you'd be very much against it. A couple of black guys tried to look tough in front of a single polling place 4 years ago, and folks like you raised hell over "voter intimidation". Here we are 4 years later, and you simply shrug when a candidate OPENLY advocates systematic voter intimidation carried out by employers. Violating a core principle of our political heritage - the independent agency of the voter - just to score a couple of cheap points in 2012 for Mitt Romney. That's not "conservative" in any way, shape or form. That's wild-eyed radicalism, it's extremist and it's dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Oct 19, 2012 16:11:12 GMT -5
dang. Now I feel all sad and empty inside. I just can't stand it when you're unhappy with me.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 19, 2012 16:55:06 GMT -5
dang. Now I feel all sad and empty inside. I just can't stand it when you're unhappy with me. Cope.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 22, 2012 11:52:33 GMT -5
News flash!: Romney running for President! Oh the horror! Many people across the political spectrum see this brand of voter intimidation in the workplace as far more of a problem than you do. It's easy to imagine that you are willing to overlook the practice in this narrow instance, since it benefits your preferred candidate. But the fact of the matter is that this type of behavior was explicitly prohibited prior to the Citizens United case. So welcome to the new paradigm - and remember your own complicity on this day when the practice inevitably works against your best interests in the future. Remember that you put your political party above the interests of the republic. i don't hear much uproart when union thugs employ similar tactics. of course, we know who they support, so that makes it ok.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 22, 2012 11:56:32 GMT -5
i don't hear much uproart when union thugs employ similar tactics. of course, we know who they support, so that makes it ok. Unions can't fire you for supporting an opposing candidate, so your analogy simply doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 22, 2012 12:02:46 GMT -5
Wheels: i don't hear much uproart when union thugs employ similar tactics. of course, we know who they support, so that makes it ok. Post the recent incident and I will applaud the disclosure. Intimidation by threat of force or termination from any source is wrong.
The lack of posting a union voter intimidation does not indicate support.
Like the judge will tell you, we are not talking about illegal behavior by anyone other than you right now. The post was about Romney the candidate not a third party supporter either. Raising another issue does not in anyway justify Romney's act but it does indicate that you think it does.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 22, 2012 12:09:40 GMT -5
i don't hear much uproart when union thugs employ similar tactics. of course, we know who they support, so that makes it ok. Unions can't fire you for supporting an opposing candidate, so your analogy simply doesn't work. yeah, unions have no power. they can't intimidate members.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 22, 2012 12:12:40 GMT -5
Wheels: i don't hear much uproart when union thugs employ similar tactics. of course, we know who they support, so that makes it ok. Post the recent incident and I will applaud the disclosure. Intimidation by threat of force or termination from any source is wrong. post a recent incident of intimidation by threat of force or termination by an employer and i will post one about union intimidation.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 22, 2012 12:20:04 GMT -5
post a recent incident of intimidation by threat of force or termination by an employer and i will post one about union intimidation. As I have pointed out, unions don't hire and fire employees, so you are comparing two completely different things. To the extent that unions intimidate members to vote one way or another I condemn it. But you are actually defending the practice of employer intimidation in a case where the power asymmetry is as lopsided as it is right now? You guys would accept Soviet-style voting thuggery just to see Obama lose the election. What you fail to grasp is that you are choosing your blind hatred and partisan affiliation at your own peril. You are just fine making it OK for a future employer to "instruct" future employees to vote for a future liberal democrat - just so you can elect Mitt Romney? As an American who prizes the integrity of the independent voter, this sounds like an extremely sketchy deal to me.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 22, 2012 12:34:07 GMT -5
Unions can't fire you for supporting an opposing candidate, so your analogy simply doesn't work. yeah, unions have no power. they can't intimidate members. They can and do, and I certainly oppose that. But they cannot FIRE members - employers can, and that is a CRITICAL distinction.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 22, 2012 12:36:01 GMT -5
post a recent incident of intimidation by threat of force or termination by an employer and i will post one about union intimidation. As I have pointed out, unions don't hire and fire employees, so you are comparing two completely different things. To the extent that unions intimidate members to vote one way or another I condemn it. But you are actually defending the practice of employer intimidation in a case where the power asymmetry is as lopsided as it is right now? and you are actually being dishonest. i defended nothing. i simply pointed out the hypocrisy. show me an incident where an employee was actually intimidated and i'll condemn it. telling your employees that you can't hire extra workers b/c of obama's policies is not intimidation. telling employees that you may have to close your doors is not intimidation. we have, however, seen where the current administration is willing to bribe employers not to send out layoff warnings. i guess that's ok since, you know, the democrats are doing it. finance.yahoo.com/news/white-house-discourages-layoff-warnings-204257446--election.html
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 22, 2012 12:37:21 GMT -5
yeah, unions have no power. they can't intimidate members. They can and do, and I certainly oppose that. But they cannot FIRE members - employers can, and that is a CRITICAL distinction. true, but i'd rather be fired than physically harmed, or worse.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 22, 2012 12:45:58 GMT -5
true, but i'd rather be fired than physically harmed, or worse. Then I guess we just differ on terms of moral courage. If a union wants to threaten me with physical violence because I don't support their candidate, I'll press criminal an/or civil charges or go to the hospital with my pride and faith in our democratic republic intact. If an employer fires me for supporting the wrong candidate, I've got zero legal recourse. And you are fine with that. Not I.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 22, 2012 12:55:46 GMT -5
show me an incident where an employee was actually intimidated and i'll condemn it. telling your employees that you can't hire extra workers b/c of obama's policies is not intimidation. telling employees that you may have to close your doors is not intimidation. To anyone aside from a right-wing apologist, it's an obvious threat. As I have said all along, I am willing to critique the Administration on many of its policies and practices....I think that you cite a very questionable practice - one that is indicative of the distortions that have come as a result of the defense industrial complex. But what is to be done? Vote for Romney, who promises to entrench this distortion more deeply by boosting military spending through the roof, exploding the already-high federal deficit? That's your idea of a good way of solving this problem? I think it's the OPPOSITE of what to do in order to get rid of this distortion. Your commitment to party loyalty and cheap point-scoring is obscuring your logic and the clarity needed to address the underlying problem here.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Oct 23, 2012 12:45:23 GMT -5
I see wheels has gone silent since his challenge to post a threat to fire was indeed posted. Wheels: Where are your promised Union threats?
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 23, 2012 16:30:40 GMT -5
Then I guess we just differ on terms of moral courage. you being more willing to get a physical beat-down vs. being fired is not courageous or moral. it's stupidity. If an employer fires me for supporting the wrong candidate, I've got zero legal recourse. wrong. voter intimidation is illegal, no matter who does it. And you are fine with that. it's sad that honesty escapes you.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 16:39:20 GMT -5
you being more willing to get a physical beat-down vs. being fired is not courageous or moral. it's stupidity. That's what all people who are afraid to fight for what they believe in might say. I would expect you to call the black students who refused to walk away from the Woolworth's lunch counter "stupid", too. I see such action as heroism and the force that makes America great. But hey, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It's harder to prove indirect employer coercion than a direct physical threat, and you darn well know it. You are the one who is trafficking in false equivalencies here.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Oct 23, 2012 16:40:01 GMT -5
show me an incident where an employee was actually intimidated and i'll condemn it. telling your employees that you can't hire extra workers b/c of obama's policies is not intimidation. telling employees that you may have to close your doors is not intimidation. To anyone aside from a right-wing apologist, it's an obvious threat. it's no more a threat than one campaign telling the voters that the other campaign will destroy the economy. we could start with the white house not advising companies to violate the law. that might be good. then we could say that telling those companies that you will pay for their legal troubles if they do violate the law is, you know, not acceptable. yeah, that sounds like a good approach. Your commitment to party loyalty and cheap point-scoring is obscuring your logic and the clarity needed to address the underlying problem here. haha, your hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.
|
|
|
Post by Motherjones on Oct 23, 2012 16:50:32 GMT -5
Perhaps you can point me to evidence of such a systematic "campaign". Thanks.
They are not violating the law. Just because John McCain doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. Go fish.
Ooh, a crude ad hominem attack. It's what usually happens when you're run out of ideas.
|
|