Did you read my earlier posts? They had nothing to do with the protests, and so no... my logic has very little to do with what you described. When I was referring to the 'will of the people' I was referring to scientific polling of Wisconsin opinion.
Public polling shows that this move is opposed in Wisconsin by double digit margins: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ot_for_weakening_collective_bargaining_rights
And that's Rasmussen, a pollster with the reputation for having a right leaning bias. Now do you agree with me?
The survey of 800 Likely Voters in Wisconsin was conducted on March 2, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports
The overall sample for the survey included 30% of union households. That includes 33% with a private sector union member and 60% with a public sector union member.
So whats the problem then? The Republicans passed a bill they were elected to pass. If the public disagrees with that, they can vote them out next election. Democracy at work.
I never claimed I was - But Jhhnn posted that the Republicans were thwarting the will of the HOR and the Chief Executive. Its not the job of those people to impose THEIR WILL on the people.. its their job to represent the will of the people.
Considering how badly this is all polling for the GOP, that appears unlikely. Recall efforts take time to implement, and nobody has good polling on the individual districts. That makes two very big unknowns to consider, but if the districts behave as Wisconsin is polling as a whole the Republicans are facing a slaughter.
Why would I agree with useless polls (don't get the wrong impression, not only is your poll useless, but all others are, as well. Scientific polling is in no way scientific -- the only thing it is accurate for is the people who were polled.)? "The people" voted their representatives into office; they have spoken.
Why would I agree with useless polls (don't get the wrong impression, not only is your poll useless, but all others are, as well. Scientific polling is in no way scientific -- the only thing it is accurate for is the people who were polled.)? "The people" voted their representatives into office; they have spoken.
Think paying them less will make it better?
The problem with schools isn't teachers getting paid too much, it's the bullshit that gets pushed through that keeps teachers from being effective...(no child left behind, no "meaningful" punishment, no parental involvement, on, on, on...)
Why would I agree with useless polls (don't get the wrong impression, not only is your poll useless, but all others are, as well. Scientific polling is in no way scientific -- the only thing it is accurate for is the people who were polled.)? "The people" voted their representatives into office; they have spoken.[/QUOTE]
So then, if the repubs get voted out of office/recalled because of the kind of manuevering they've used to get rid of the way the public unions bargain with the state, you'd be all for that too? Just checking....
1. First, you are ignorant about how polls work. There are people who say things like you do about polls, who are very much like the flat-Earth or birther people.
2. The politicians *DID NOT RUN* saying they would try to remove collective bargaining from unions. That was a STEALTH AGENDA HIDDEN FROM THE VOTERS.
The voters DO NOT approve of it and were lied to by omission by the politicians.
What about people like me who love to screw up the pollsters and tell them what they want to hear?
Also would you like a little cheese to go with that whine? Maybe bluhoo cheese?
This is a victory for hardworking taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin.
Last time I checked, busting unions didn't burn Indiana to the ground.
1. First, you are ignorant about how polls work. There are people who say things like you do about polls, who are very much like the flat-Earth or birther people.
2. The politicians *DID NOT RUN* saying they would try to remove collective bargaining from unions. That was a STEALTH AGENDA HIDDEN FROM THE VOTERS.
The voters DO NOT approve of it and were lied to by omission by the politicians.
Sorry, I don't consider anything with an "estimated" "margin of error" +/- 4 accurate enough. Just because there's a process that's consistently followed makes it "scientific," but that doesn't make it accurate.
The First Day of Spring is Sunday, March 20, 2011, so yes, it's "STILL" Winter in Wisconsin, lol!
I see this as a small first step back to the values the country was founded upon.
Allow me to introduce you to the central limit theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
Like I said, if you don't consider this valid, you don't agree with math. (probably shouldn't be using your devil powered computer then either, it uses a lot of math)
+/- 4% is certainly accurate enough when you are dealing with double digit margins, that's where the phrase 'statistically significant' comes from. There is a 95% chance that the true breakdown of opinion for that population is within +/- 4 points of what they polled. Since that implies a standard deviation of 2 points, there is a 98% chance that it is within +/- 6 points.
so it is a fiscal issue. which means they needed the dems there to make the vote. so this vote was illegal in multiple.
Allow me to introduce you to the central limit theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
Like I said, if you don't consider this valid, you don't agree with math. (probably shouldn't be using your devil powered computer then either, it uses a lot of math)
+/- 4% is certainly accurate enough when you are dealing with double digit margins, that's where the phrase 'statistically significant' comes from. There is a 95% chance that the true breakdown of opinion for that population is within +/- 4 points of what they polled. Since that implies a standard deviation of 2 points, there is a 98% chance that it is within +/- 6 points.
Sorry, but there is still no guarantee. In order to believe these polls are accurate, true representations of the results, you also have to believe that people are not individuals. Simply the fact that they tend to be accurate is of no consequence, because there is no guarantee they will be for any given poll. For all you know, the people they polled who voted against, or, for that matter, for, reducing union benefits/concessions/members could be the only people who will -- and every single other person that was not part of this 800 could all vote one way or the other. However, I guess I wouldn't expect any less from someone trying to argue that "the people" voted these people into office, but that "the people" didn't have a choice in the matter.
Sorry, I don't consider anything with an "estimated" "margin of error" +/- 4 accurate enough. Just because there's a process that's consistently followed makes it "scientific," but that doesn't make it accurate.
As far as "STEALTH AGENDA HIDDEN FROM THE VOTERS," I'd say relying on others' not knowing all of the information, which is what unions do, is also a pretty stealthy way of getting your choice viewed as the popular one. The simple fact of the matter is the people voted them into office, and they cast their votes.
Normally I'd say don't be stupid but I see it's already too late.Are you going to bring back slavery and witch burning as well?
You seem to forget the underlying problems with a lot of polling. It's all predicated on the idea that you can get a really representative random sample of the population to be studied. That's the trick. I tend to believe the major polling companies because they have a track record of being at least somewhat competent, so I don't dispute the validity of this polling data.
I do have an issue with polling likely voters versus everyone in general. It might be more valid in terms of using it to predict elections and such, it doesn't say anything about the sentiment of the population as a whole. Likely voters might be 100% for something, but if they only comprise 40% of the total population, there's the possibility that the majority of people in general are against something.
I don't think that's the case in WI though, the unions have done a good job selling their absurd notions and the right to fleece people. Now it's up to the GOP to bring logic back into the picture.
No, they said all along that it wasn't just about current concessions and that for the health of the future of the state, the union collective bargaining powers had to be reigned in. That's what they're doing, helping resolve budget problems.
Typical idiocy. I am not in the top 5% holders of wealth, nor am I in a union. I want less of my money wasted by government. Fixing the union problems is a step in that direction. Of course I support it. This idiotic notion that reigning in union collective bargaining power is somehow an attack on everyone in the country even though 90% of them are not in a union anyway is absurd.