2012 Presidential Election Polls

[knapplc]

Really can't hold Mitt Romney responsible for the actions of one of his supporters

 

It's a good thing nobody is doing that then, isn't it?

[zoogs]

Well, I don't even think it reflects a mentality that would be affirmed by the Romney presidency. It's a politically motivate business owner using his position to overreach because he of his strong feelings about the upcoming election. It's a phenomenon that is not party or candidate related, and it seemed you were using this example as a case-in-point for your fears about a Romney presidency.

 

It is a mentality I would applaud you for fighting.

[knapplc]

I would make the assertion that this employer is not unrepresentative of the mentality of Romney supporters.

[Conga3]

I would make the assertion that this employer is not unrepresentative of the mentality of Romney supporters.

Agreed. I've printed the email out and have it hanging on my wall. Considering framing it.

 

It's a truly brilliant piece.

[carlfense]

Has a legal mind commented on the email that Siegel wrote and sent to his employees about whether the DOJ or State Attorney or whoever has an opportunity to go after him for breaking this law?

 

Not in general... specifically this email.

What is your question exactly?

 

Has the DOJ or a state attorney gone after him for breaking the law? Not that I know of.

 

Could the DOJ or a state attorney go after him for breaking the law? It would certainly appear so.

 

Would the DOJ or a state attorney prevail in a case against the employer under this section of the US Code? That's a closer question, but the gist of the letter seems to be that the employer is likely to fire employees if Obama is re-elected. Given the fact that the letter is specifically about voter choice . . . it looks like a strong case to me.

[carlfense]

It's a truly brilliant piece.

Well, don't give too much credit to the CEO. If I'm remembering correctly most of this was plagiarized from a different person.

[Conga3]

Has a legal mind commented on the email that Siegel wrote and sent to his employees about whether the DOJ or State Attorney or whoever has an opportunity to go after him for breaking this law?

 

Not in general... specifically this email.

What is your question exactly?

 

Has the DOJ or a state attorney gone after him for breaking the law? Not that I know of.

 

Could the DOJ or a state attorney go after him for breaking the law? It would certainly appear so.

 

Would the DOJ or a state attorney prevail in a case against the employer under this section of the US Code? That's a closer question, but the gist of the letter seems to be that the employer is likely to fire employees if Obama is re-elected. Given the fact that the letter is specifically about voter choice . . . it looks like a strong case to me.

 

Usually by now, a retired DOJ attorney or judge, or whatever would have been interviewed by the press, asked to comment on if Siegel could now become the target of a prosecution for violating that voter protection law.

 

My guess is, that if the story hasn't advanced to that point yet, all the contacts that the reporters have questioned regarding this have more or less said there is no case to be made...

[knapplc]

The worry isn't that this specific case is up for immediate prosecution. The worry is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails. If this doesn't cross the line (and I think it does), what's to stop the next guy taking it a step further, and the next guy taking it a step further? It's not OK to threaten your employees' livelihood if they don't vote a certain way.

 

Likely this is bluster on the part of this particular CEO, akin to those who were moving to Canada if Bush II got reelected (yet somehow remained in the States), but this can't be viewed as anything other than a troubling statement by this CEO.

[knapplc]

Usually by now, a retired DOJ attorney or judge, or whatever would have been interviewed by the press, asked to comment on if Siegel could now become the target of a prosecution for violating that voter protection law.

 

My guess is, that if the story hasn't advanced to that point yet, all the contacts that the reporters have questioned regarding this have more or less said there is no case to be made...

 

Can you cite another case where such a timeline has happened this quickly?

[BigRedBuster]

Really can't hold Mitt Romney responsible for the actions of one of his supporters.

 

Disagree that this is about regulation, it's about tax policy, amount and the code in general. I do not know if I would support Obama's plan for a slight tax increase here. It seems it will have limiting effects and won't really generate real significant amounts of revenue. It's a band-aid that neither goes a long way in fixing the problem nor seems good for the long term.

 

Romney isn't against regulation.

 

I think I find Carl's singular reason of the Supreme Court appointee to be a pretty compelling argument. It is interesting that as we make a decision about the executive branch, it could also have a significant effect on the judicial branch.

 

Just one more reason to NOT vote for Obama.

[Conga3]

The worry isn't that this specific case is up for immediate prosecution. The worry is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails. If this doesn't cross the line (and I think it does), what's to stop the next guy taking it a step further, and the next guy taking it a step further? It's not OK to threaten your employees' livelihood if they don't vote a certain way.

 

Likely this is bluster on the part of this particular CEO, akin to those who were moving to Canada if Bush II got reelected (yet somehow remained in the States), but this can't be viewed as anything other than a troubling statement by this CEO.

 

The worry hope is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails.

 

This sort of email is more a threat to the concept of class warfare.

 

It attacks the notion that there are different outcomes for the employer/employee when the government interferes through taxes/regulation.

 

What is good for the American who makes 1mil/yr is good for his employee who makes 50K.

 

That a tax on the wealthy is a tax on the middle class and poor.

 

For some, these statements are inconceivable. For some, class warfare is all they understand.

[BigRedBuster]

The worry isn't that this specific case is up for immediate prosecution. The worry is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails. If this doesn't cross the line (and I think it does), what's to stop the next guy taking it a step further, and the next guy taking it a step further? It's not OK to threaten your employees' livelihood if they don't vote a certain way.

 

Likely this is bluster on the part of this particular CEO, akin to those who were moving to Canada if Bush II got reelected (yet somehow remained in the States), but this can't be viewed as anything other than a troubling statement by this CEO.

 

Knapplc

 

I tend to agree with you on this even though I argued that he had the freedom to do it. In my first post I said that I would never do it and I suggest all CEOs refrain from such an issue.

 

BUT, this is a common occurrence with absolutely every single union and labor and minority group that supports the Democrats every single election cycle. I know you claimed you didn't support unions doing it. But, It is so blatantly done by them that it baffles me why this one email from this one CEO has ruffle your feathers so much. Obviously it is because it is against your guy and the union propaganda is FOR your guy.

[knapplc]

The worry hope is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails.

 

This sort of email is more a threat to the concept of class warfare.

 

It attacks the notion that there are different outcomes for the employer/employee when the government interferes through taxes/regulation.

 

What is good for the American who makes 1mil/yr is good for his employee who makes 50K.

 

That a tax on the wealthy is a tax on the middle class and poor.

 

For some, these statements are inconceivable. For some, class warfare is all they understand.

 

 

Class Warfare! Class Warfare!

 

 

[knapplc]

BUT, this is a common occurrence with absolutely every single union and labor and minority group that supports the Democrats every single election cycle. I know you claimed you didn't support unions doing it. But, It is so blatantly done by them that it baffles me why this one email from this one CEO has ruffle your feathers so much. Obviously it is because it is against your guy and the union propaganda is FOR your guy.

 

Are you equally outraged when Labor Unions "coerce" their membership is a similar fashion?

 

Yes.

[Conga3]

The worry hope is that employers are now feeling comfortable enough to send such emails.

 

This sort of email is more a threat to the concept of class warfare.

 

It attacks the notion that there are different outcomes for the employer/employee when the government interferes through taxes/regulation.

 

What is good for the American who makes 1mil/yr is good for his employee who makes 50K.

 

That a tax on the wealthy is a tax on the middle class and poor.

 

For some, these statements are inconceivable. For some, class warfare is all they understand.

 

 

Class Warfare! Class Warfare!

 

 

This must be some sort of "trigger" word for you?

 

I'm intrigued!

 

Do you dismiss the concept outright? Or are simply tired of hearing it used?

 

Please explain...

 

I think we are probably both big fans of democracy, and our little 200+yr experiment.

 

When I see politicians trying to gain power through "divide and conquer" tactics, I fear for the survival of our democracy.

 

There couldn't be an easier time in history to argue against the promotion of "class warfare" than right now. We are seeing democracies crumble before our eyes in Europe.