WIlks Brothers political leanings
- Thread starter ovis2
- Start date
You bet. That's the nice thing about unions, even non-union members benefit from Union gains like a 40 hour work week, weekends and living wages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIGKlicb8n0
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Gee Nameless, aren't you kind of young to be such a cynic?
Not if the cynicism is warranted, and I believe it is more so now than ever before in my life.
I'm 30, and have yet to acquire the wisdom of the ancients.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
No,
I just don't think the Citizens United decision is as big of a deal as some of you do.
Last edited:
JWP58
Banned
Unions are not what they were during the industrial revolution. Now they simply strong arm companies for unsustainable wages and benefits.......see Detroit for a real life example.
Detroit happened for a variety of reasons. I'm not convinced that Unions advocating for good wages for people who worked for Auto industry are part of that. I would imagine that the Aztec had as much to do with Detroit's decline as anything else. When you offer a product no one wants, no one will buy it.
Unions I work with are mostly guys who came up through the ranks or public employees like Firefighters, first responders and teachers as well as the AFL-CIO kind. AFL_CIO in Wyoming is one of the bigger lobby groups when it comes to public lands and wildlife too, FYI.
But, we seem to be straying from the OP - which is the Wilks Bro's giving $15 million to a Cruz Super-Pac. This is the billionaires election, and I tend to agree with BHR that it's $15 million down the tubes. Luckily for the Wilk's, the PAC can switch gears after Cruz loses in the primary and spend that money on which ever other candidate they wish to purchase.
Huh?
I am at a loss as to why people accept the "either/or" proposition that their "team leaders" try to force them into. I don't. You can be good on multiple issues.
Just because you are a Republican doesn't mean you have to screw over public land users. Just because you are a Democrat doesn't mean you have to be a gun grabber. There are examples on both sides that show you can be good on both topics.
I see the 2016 Presidential election shaping up as another "least offensive of two disappointing choices." Fortunately, my life is structured such that no matter who wins, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. The actions of the President, with the balances of Congress and Courts, has very little impact on the way I've structured my daily life.
Like most, I have about four to six issues that are primary to me; albeit they are different issues than most people have. No matter what side of the aisle a person is from, they are going to get pressure from me to support those top priorities. And they are going to get hammered if they do things detrimental to those priorities. I don't give a rat's ass whether they are R or D, or something in between.
I continue to scratch my head when I see people defending "the team" no matter how detrimental that team leader is to what that voter says is an important interest. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so maybe I am missing something obvious.
I see Rs and Ds make excuses for their own candidates, even when the candidate is clearly out of step with some of the topics. Rather than pressure that candidate to rethink their offending ideas, folks seem to just give them excuses, because they are part of the "Team."
I have no doubt that both teams would sell me and my issues down the river, if they though screwing over my priorities could help them. I'm not going to sit quietly and take that, or defend them.
To those who might get the wrong impression, I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in my life. And given how they operate on the national level, I struggle to see myself ever voting for a Democratic president. Not saying it won't ever happen.
Yet, some of the Republicans I've voted for have done some of the dumbest things I can recall. And when they do, I make sure to let them know. Just because I might vote for someone doesn't mean I am going to give them a free pass. Just because I am fiscally very conservative and socially somewhat conservative, doesn't mean I am going to stand silent while politicians claiming to be conservative tries to screw over hunters and public land users.
Just my personal opinion, but if all Americans ditched their allegiance to parties, we would be better off. I can't wait until the day that this country gets fed up enough with the two corrupt entities who are playing us as fools, Republicans and Democrats, and other alternatives can come forward. The Rs and Ds claim to be mortal enemies, until such time it comes to topics about campaign and election reform. When those topics come up, they rig the game such that it is only practical for two groups to succeed. I might not live long enough to see the day, but a country cannot continue down a path that continues to provide such poor alternatives.
RobG
Well-known member
It does make you wonder why the WIlks would do that. Perhaps they are trying to show the candidates the kind of money you can expect if you march to their drum.
Regarding the both sides thing. At the national level I'm not sure it is a huge influence in the democrat/republican election because both sides have a lot of money. However, the extreme right is now targeting people in the primaries who don't march to their drums. Thus if a republican takes a moderate view he can expect to pay for it in the primary even if the replacement is so extreme they will lose the general. It doesn't matter how much money the Ds have since they aren't in that election.
This is especially a problem in the state elections where "normal" republicans don't have the resources to counter these big pacs if they are chosen as a target. The Rs win here so that puts a nutjob into the legislature (or PSC, judge, etc). It is a very bad situation for out of state interests to have such strong influence in people-poor, resource-rich states like MT.
I'm not sure what's worse, president Hillary and all the divisive politics that will continue with her, or the fact that the Rs don't have a viable candidate.
Divisive politics is like wolves: There's too much money in it for certain people to ever quit with the divisiveness.
Funny thing about the money as well, groups like the Chamber of Commerce are now threatening to go after hard line R's who have stopped a lot of good stuff in congress (according to the chamber) because they want yet another stupid vote on ACA, etc.
The money is turning away from the hardline towards moderates, with a few billion exceptions.
onpoint
Well-known member
"with a few billion exceptions"
If that statement wasn't such a depressing indication of the truth about our political system, it would be funny as hell......
If that statement wasn't such a depressing indication of the truth about our political system, it would be funny as hell......
Great points by many and I especially like Fins, as they mirror my views closely. I have never voted for a Dem. president, but on other levels it's more important to vote for those with similar views as mine and what I believe is best for my family, business, morals, and my recreation. I have never been into politics and honestly before I joined this site I did not realize how badly some of the Rs wanted to take our public lands. That's the benefit of this forum and Randy's show, they educate in many ways. Keep up the good work! I'll keep reading and learning up to the point where people here start attacking each other personally.
As far as unions,... I don't understand those either. I don't see what's wrong with "work or find a new job" - the worst thing I see unions do is make it tough for employers to get rid of bad employees. If an employee doesn't like his/her working conditions or pay they should quit and go find a better job, not expect a union to get them what they or the unions thinks they deserve. If an employer can't keep employees because they leave looking for better pay or conditions he will soon change his business or be out of business if he has no employees.
As far as unions,... I don't understand those either. I don't see what's wrong with "work or find a new job" - the worst thing I see unions do is make it tough for employers to get rid of bad employees. If an employee doesn't like his/her working conditions or pay they should quit and go find a better job, not expect a union to get them what they or the unions thinks they deserve. If an employer can't keep employees because they leave looking for better pay or conditions he will soon change his business or be out of business if he has no employees.
It never works like that.
When we didn't have unions, we had deplorable working conditions and almost slave wages. The middle class didn't really exist. The push to repeal fair labor practices is going to cause the political pendulum to swing even farther left than Hillary. Foxtrot 1's article is a good read regarding that.
While I doubt Sanders can pull out a primary win let alone a general election win, he is still commanding 10,000 people at rallies and is raising significant funds from Americans who don't have second or third homes.
backsmasher23
Member
+1 on Walker, doing good things in WI
shoots-straight
Well-known member
If you had family history here you might be a little bit more concerned. Montana history is repeating itself and all the ugliness that came with it.
JWP58
Banned
That's because they've drank the kool-aid on "wealth redistribution", that the open democratic socialist wants to do (even more so than what's being done currently). I guess they think a little coin up front will earn them more on the back end....you when it's taken from the "haves" and handed to the "have nots".
I don't care what letter follows their name, I care about their objectives. And hardcore socialism isn't something I could ever support.
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
Yeah, the last thing in the world we would want is more people to have more money so that our country can be a world leader again.
JWP58
Banned
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
Yeah, the last thing in the world we would want is more people to have more money so that our country can be a world leader again.
I have zero problem with people working hard an earning a living, as I do that myself. However I do have a problem with people being handed other people's hard earned money simply because they believe they are "entitled" to it. Socialists I'm sure disagree.
I quess I'm a socialist because I think that single moms should be able to get WIC and feed kids, or that grandma should get SSI so she can eat cat food and pay for the heating.
JWP58
Banned
Ya that'd be great if old grannies and single mom's were the only folks that used(or abused) welfare.
Obama phones, wic, housing, tax credits, etc. The cards are stacked against people who work in this country. Why work when you can make living on handouts.
Donate all the money you want to charitable organizations. It's not the government's job to provide everything needed to survive
Last edited:
jryoung
Well-known member
Anyone ever read this by Nick Hanauer.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ng-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VbZ64fm6daQ
Probably best summed up by this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ng-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VbZ64fm6daQ
Probably best summed up by this:
Similar threads
