Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82584.html?hp=f1
I'm very worried this group could easily decide the election. (True the Vote. They're an Anti-Voter Fraud group, but most of their activities for monitoring elections is looking to be scare tactics to intimidate people too brown or black into not voting.)
Oh, I thought OSIC was referring to my post.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The difference being that you socking granny would just be your being a jerk, while an employer actually has a reason to cut staff if the political climate harms his business.
Fighteer obviously doesn't believe the political climate will hurt these businesses, but there is no reason to believe the people making these statements don't believe it other than a preconceived notion that companies are evil and thus that it is more likely for them to be maliciously sabotaging themselves for some secret political agenda than it is for them to genuinely have a different assessment of the outlook for their own business than their critics have.
<><Politico won't load for me all of a sudden. It's running extremely slowly in Chrome.
Grizzly, we can't have a discussion if you will just strawman my arguments into "dissing business owners who think differently than I do." What I am saying is that businesses have no right to coerce their employees into voting a particular way for any reason. Statements such as "If X happens (which you are voting on), I'll have to [hire/lay off] employees," are inherently coercive and are therefore unethical.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:15:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Grizzly: The point is, you've created an arbitrary situation where people can justify "I believe this hurts my business" as an excuse to engage in political extortion. Using it as political extortion versus using it as a legitimately helpful reminder to one's employees are two events that are not distinguishable from one another.
It's Schrodinger's Management.
I'd agree that the corporations are toeing the line, and may even have crossed-though not legally crossed it, clearly. However, I personally don't like corporations. They're a necessary evil at best. However, I can't really in good faith think of a way to prosecute this without setting a dangerous legal precedent. With luck, it won't impact the election.
@Trivialis: My company releases financial statements and projections all the time. These do not take the form of general emails to all staff making a blanket assertion about the consequences of an election.
The only rational purpose of the latter statement, especially when it establishes a causal relationship between the election and the firing of workers, is coercion.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:27:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"La Cosa Nostra would love to hear that there's no legal penalty for discussing how awful it would be if something happened to your business because you didn't donate to the Family, who could protect it.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Blaming people's preconceptions is a handy strawman, Grizzly, but can we please stop it? First, I think that above statement was incorrectly worded, but even if it wasn't, I do not agree that it establishes a presumption of innocence. Rather, it establishes that political advocacy among one's employees is improper no matter the intent.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's not exactly the same. There's nothing in that party that affects to the teacher's grading. The business is trying to establish that connection, whether or not it's the case.
The dangerous precedent Dr Tentacles is talking about is that business-affiliated people would not be able to speak various things, for fear of being sued for coercion. So where do we draw the line?
I can only conclude that your biased emotional preconceptions are what lead you to disagree with Mafia extortionists then, Grizzly. Rational and fair-minded people must naturally accept that it's possible those guys aren't really threatening to break your storefront windows and kneecaps.
EDIT:
edited 18th Oct '12 11:34:19 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
The form matters. Businessmen are free to discuss politics among themselves, to donate to campaigns (or PACs), to sponsor advertising, etc., all of which is done in their capacity as private individuals. Where they may not cross the line is to use their position of power as employers to induce their employees to vote a certain way.
How about we postulate the reverse? I as an employee walk into my boss's office and demand that he vote Democrat or else I will use my knowledge of the company's workings to sabotage operations. Or let's say I'm an employee with essential knowledge whose absence will (at least temporarily) impact the company's operations, and I say, "vote Democrat or I quit". Or let's say I use my ability to send company-wide emails to directly advocate a candidate.
Are these ethical? Proper? I can be fired for any of them — why can a business owner do the same thing?
edited 18th Oct '12 11:34:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"a friendly reminder to corporation haters that that weird thing in front of you shining light that displays information while taking your input was made available to consumers like you because Intel decided to create a microprocessor, IBM thought a PC would be useful outside of government research, and Xerox thought entering everything via command line was a terrible idea.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterHuh? Who is hating on corporations? They are essential to a modern economy, even if they have gained what I feel are excessive legal privileges of late. I'm not being radical or revolutionary by saying they shouldn't do these things; if anything I am being the conservative by demanding adherence to the status quo ante.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Corporations are kind of like horses, you may need to cause them a little pain to keep them in line, you have to be careful to not feed them too much or they'll get slow, and you really don't want them walking over you.
Besides, co-operatives are corporations, and us dirty pinkoes love us some Mondragon.
edited 18th Oct '12 11:37:03 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

You missed a "not" in there.