Posted on 09/12/2015 11:59:20 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Insofar as we apparently need to have one, I think Walker would make a great Sec. of Labor in the Trump/Cruz administration.
Gov Walker picked a good place to do it.
If any place needed to have a Wetback Roundup done, is this State. Put a net around it and through in some Bounty hunters and let the fun begin
‘Working people’=saps
“.. I think Walker would make a great Sec. of Labor in the Trump/Cruz administration.”
A President Walker would be better, as such he could continue the fight against Labor Bosses - against all progressive foes of a healthy economy and strong U.S. job market.
http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/246356-gop-battles-to-defund-work-of-obama-labor-board
If his free-fall in Iowa continues then Nevada isn't going to matter.
What is your take on mandatory public sector union dues?
My take is that this country has far more pressing issues than public sector unions.
Ah! Replies pimping you own posts again! Your 2012 Perry is showing, again.
Who was your candidate in 2008, 2012?
You see no problem with millions of government employees forcibly required to fund the Democratic Party?
Do you support confiscatory union dues?
So the "concern" for government employees is only because their union funds Democrats. Not that money is taken from them for dues. Not because the union works against their interests. Not because the union is inherently bad for government. But solely for political gain.
Your 2012 Perry is showing, again.
Your 2012 Perry is showing, again.
For all those reasons (I didn’t know you needed a list), and it begins with and flows from the Democratic Party’s ability to forcibly take someones earnings and use it for political activism.
Your inability to answer a probing question is showing.
Did your candidate win in 2008 or in 2012?
Do you support confiscatory union dues?
So when unions support Republicans, like the law enforcement and fire unions in Wisconsin did, then they're great? It's fine that police and fire have their dues forcibly taken from their checks because it's used for a good cause? Your concern for union members is touching.
If that’s the topic, then I highly believe he’s missing an opportunity to highlight his record in lieu of reiterating something everybody already knows.
People may fall asleep on their feet.
If someone wants to be in a union, good for them, they can give all that they want to freely give.
You don’t want to talk about forcibly taking their money.
Why?
I don’t have a copy of his speech.
I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.