We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where there's a will and agreement, the procedure can always be navigated.

Mueller and Rosenstein will not have a choice.

If you are a Senate Republican, why on Earth would you agree to this? You're about to get a conservative justice. Why would you want a more moderate justice? And your deal ties Senate Republicans to Trump -- without knowing what more Mueller has (my bet -- quite a bit), Senate Republicans would be letting Trump fire Rosenstein to take out Mueller to protect himself, something that would strike most people as corrupt.

But other than that, it sounds like a great deal for everyone.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Hi Hank

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Adder

The tape thing is pure speculation. The history of money laundering is from Trump, Inc (which is largely repackaging of reporting by Adam Davidson from the New Yorker and others).

The payments to Cohen from foreign governments is inference from the two missing suspicious activity reports, with me being "optimistic" that they're missing because Mueller has had them suppressed.

Thanks.

Also, I feel bad that I agree with the Janus decision. But I do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Thanks.

Also, I feel bad that I agree with the Janus decision. But I do.

That decision seems completely wrong to me, because they idea that being taxed to pay for something you disagree with is such a far cry from, e.g., a Jehovah's Witness being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. No one thinks that a union is voicing the views of non-members for whom it is obligated to negotiate. In other words, the First Amendment is just a pretext to stick it to public unions.

I don't understand why states can't circumvent the new rule by taxing employees for funds which the legislature then allocates to the unions.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That decision seems completely wrong to me, because they idea that being taxed to pay for something you disagree with is such a far cry from, e.g., a Jehovah's Witness being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. No one thinks that a union is voicing the views of non-members for whom it is obligated to negotiate. In other words, the First Amendment is just a pretext to stick it to public unions.

Yes but public unions have destroyed my state. Irrevocably.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Thanks.

Also, I feel bad that I agree with the Janus decision. But I do.

I dunno. Seems like if you're going to opt out of your compatriots' union, maybe you should have to opt out of the contract they bargain for.

But more specifically to the case, I'm not a big believer in the concept of compelled speech.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Yes but public unions have destroyed my state. Irrevocably.

I'm sure that sort of thinking is what motivated the Janus majority.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So yesterday a leading Conservative public intellectual called for vigilantes to shoot reporters. Today there was a mass shooting at a newspaper in Annapolis.

But, see, civility has won because I didn't call either the Conservative intellectual or the shooter a nasty name.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So yesterday a leading Conservative public intellectual called for vigilantes to shoot reporters. Today there was a mass shooting at a newspaper in Annapolis.

But, see, civility has won because I didn't call either the Conservative intellectual or the shooter a nasty name.

I think it's a stretch to call Milo a leading conservative public intellectual. Conservative and public, yes, but neither leading nor intellectual.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

I dunno. Seems like if you're going to opt out of your compatriots' union, maybe you should have to opt out of the contract they bargain for.

But if you are in a non Right to Work state, you don't have the option of opting out, no?

If every state were Right to Work, then this wouldn't be an issue. The whole issue is people being compelled to be represented by the union.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think it's a stretch to call Milo a leading conservative public intellectual. Conservative and public, yes, but neither leading nor intellectual.

He's not conservative, but I know that you apply the term to anything you think is bad.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sure that sort of thinking is what motivated the Janus majority.

Or they really care about being free from compelled speech, which is consistent with the NIFLA case this term.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

He's not conservative, but I know that you apply the term to anything you think is bad.

First they don't want you calling people Nazis or White Supremacists, then they don't want you calling them conservatives.

I'm afraid the conservative brand is going to have to live with Trump, Milo, Hannity, and the crew. You brought them, you pay for them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

He's not conservative, but I know that you apply the term to anything you think is bad.

I don't know much about what he thinks, but I am pretty sure he identifies as a conservative. What I've been trying to do is describe how people who self-identify as conservatives think, because that essentially is what conservatism is.

I understand that that's frustrating to people like you who have strong views, self-identify as conservative, and think that other people who don't significantly share your views are not really conservative. Your views may make more sense and be more principled. But the movement took a different direction and it left you behind, and there are more of them than of you.

eta: They are re-defining what it means to be conservative. So you and folks like you are just going to need to find a new way to self-identify.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But if you are in a non Right to Work state, you don't have the option of opting out, no?

If every state were Right to Work, then this wouldn't be an issue. The whole issue is people being compelled to be represented by the union.

It's odd to me that people see a First Amendment issue when workers are compelled to be represented in contractual negotiations by a union, but don't see it when shareholders are represented by corporate officers on the other side of the negotiation. There is compulsion on both sides. You are just as free to leave your job as to sell your shares.