Go vote

[Kuya]

McDonald’s Owner Warns Workers: No Raises If Dems Win

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has launched an investigation after the owner of a McDonald’s restaurant in Canton, Ohio warned workers that they won’t receive any raises if Democrats win on Tuesday. When workers at the McDonald’s received their paycheck, they also received a note from the restaurant’s owner listing the Republican candidates to vote for. The McDonald’s owner wrote, “If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not.”

It's like we're going back in time.

[Dimmauk]

It's like we're going back in time.

Walmart did the same thing. LOL

[Kuya]

Capitalistic indentured servitude sure is swell

[Yugl]

It's like we're going back in time.

WHERE IS THIS KUYA?! BETTER NOT BE STIRRING UP FALSE SHIT ABOUT MCDONALDS!

[Dimmauk]

Is it better than Communism?

[Kuya]

Is it better than Communism?

Not for these poor fags lol

WHERE IS THIS KUYA?! BETTER NOT BE STIRRING UP FALSE SHIT ABOUT MCDONALDS!

You mean a link?

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/1/headlines#7

[Yugl]

Right above that is better news. Retribution against Rand Paul supporters.

[Sukian]

If you dont know the issues your doing a disservice by voting. Most people watch TV and see the ad campaign commercials. Do you know the stance of a majority of the political issues for EVERY person you are voting for? If you do you are about 5-10% of the total population that are voting. If not you are being influenced by outside sources that should not be a part of your judgement.

Personally I dont because I dont want to waste time looking into the stances of said politicians. I'll still have to pay taxes in the end, democratic or republican (most republicans say they wont raise taxes and some dont, but majority keep them at the previous democratic level or raise them higher)

[Yugl]

If you dont know the issues your doing a disservice by voting. Most people watch TV and see the ad campaign commercials. Do you know the stance of a majority of the political issues for EVERY person you are voting for? If you do you are about 5-10% of the total population that are voting. If not you are being influenced by outside sources that should not be a part of your judgement.

Personally I dont because I dont want to waste time looking into the stances of said politicians. I'll still have to pay taxes in the end, democratic or republican (most republicans say they wont raise taxes and some dont, but majority keep them at the previous democratic level or raise them higher)

I don't have much time to tear this up, but I'll give you a few points to consider:
1. YOU'RE
2. It's not necessary to know the politician's stance on every freaking issue. Single issue voters are not much worse than multi-issue voters because some issues (arguably) are more important than others.
3. Why shouldn't outside influences impact your judgment? Better question: When are outside influences NOT impacting your judgment? If culture, priming, and conditioning are real, then we've already been "influenced." Why should we strictly base choices on these influences rather than media influences?
4. When you vote for a candidate, you're essentially trying to "predict" the future. You're either predicting that this is the best candidate (of the selection) to get X value into politics, the candidate will produce the best result, or some combination of the two (Unless you like to just fuck around or practice split ticketing). Knowing more about a candidate doesn't necessarily help you because in the end, you're talking about the future of events. In short, Kuya can tell you he'll save the environment today then burn down Texas tomorrow.

[Sukian]

2. I said majority for a reason. If you aren't willing to spend the time to find out some of the basic platforms the politicians is running on and only voting for them cause they have 1 stance you like, then there is much more wrong than your views of politics. Would you eat a plate of food where the potatoes were amazing but the steak, other veggies wine all were poisoned? BTW you dont get a choice whether you only want potatoes here, you get the whole dish when you vote someone in.

3.Outside influences that shouldn't impact as much as they should is what I'm trying to get out. Such as the television or the radio commercials with the mudslinging. Believe it or not but a vast number of American's will follow these statements and take them out of context (sup tea party)

4. Of course no one knows the outcome, often times events happen that alter a politicians stance that they had originally taken. All I stated was a common known fact about taxes and what politicians do with them.

Edit 3. sorry I didn't really answer your question at the end there. You shouldn't make the entirety of your decision based on these media facts is what I'm saying. Influenced sure, but basis for decision? Absolutely not. Don't deny that this what people do either, how many people you know visit the websites of the politician after seeing a political ad? How many even know the website when its given at the end of each individual ad tbh? XD

[Yabby]

If the potatoes is the main reason i'm buying the dish, then yes.

[Yugl]

2. I said majority for a reason. If you aren't willing to spend the time to find out some of the basic platforms the politicians is running on and only voting for them cause they have 1 stance you like, then there is much more wrong than your views of politics. Would you eat a plate of food where the potatoes were amazing but the steak, other veggies wine all were poisoned? BTW you dont get a choice whether you only want potatoes here, you get the whole dish when you vote someone in.

That depends. If you look at what I said, I mentioned that some issues are more important than others. Are the outcomes of having potatoes more important than the poisoned steak? If so, go for it. Is the poisoned steak more important than the potatoes? Refrain from it.

3.Outside influences that shouldn't impact as much as they should is what I'm trying to get out. Such as the television or the radio commercials with the mudslinging. Believe it or not but a vast number of American's will follow these statements and take them out of context (sup tea party)

Thanks, but until you give me substantive reasons that follow from natural findings (Rather than "In general, blah blah blah"), you're expressing opinion. You need to give me a lock-down argument as to why those influences are more acceptable than media influences.

4. Of course no one knows the outcome, often times events happen that alter a politicians stance that they had originally taken. All I stated was a common known fact about taxes and what politicians do with them.

I'm not talking about your taxes bit. I'm talking about a general point about elections in general and your critique of "uninformed" voters. To assert that knowing the facts somehow produces "better outcomes" (Whether global or personal) is to suggest you know something about the future, which goes back to my previous statement.

[Acturus]

I don't understand the witchhunt for non-voters, specifically the "vote, regardless of for whom" line.
Personally, I'd rather people who disagree with me didn't vote. Vote for my candidate or abstain, please.

Here in 'Merica, our ballots are chock full of voting creaminess, so abstaining from the vote entirely is something I consider pretty stupid. There's no law that I know of in any state that says ballots must be completely filled in to count.

I would be just as happy with voters who ignored every single candidacy and only voted on their state/county/municipality's specific amendments/propositions/decisions.

"Get out and vote" is supposed to mean more than "go vote for a bunch of idiots who spent money telling you how bad their opponent is". But a lot of people don't seem to get that.

[Altariel]

Kuya can tell you he'll save the environment today then burn down Texas tomorrow.

One could argue that would be fulfilling the pledge.

[Yugl]

One could argue that would be fulfilling the pledge.

Well played sir!

[bigrougabagel]

Walmart did the same thing. LOL

source? I would be highly interested.

[Dimmauk]

source? I would be highly interested.

UPDATE: Wal-Mart has issued a statement regarding The Wall Street Journal article outlining how it's warning employees to beware of voting for Democrats. AP has the details. The Wall Street Journal article is excerpted below this excerpt from AP:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

The original report from The Wall Street Journal:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise ...

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

[Yabby]

I worked for walmart a while back, and yes they do have meetings that talk about the "Evil union's" at least once a year.

[bigrougabagel]

Fucking unions ruining a corporations ability to work full time employees 28 hour work weeks at minimum wage with no health benefits. Thanks for the info Dimm. On a side note, Walmart is starting to get even creepier. They have a walk in clinic at the one near me. I understand that it "might" reduce loads at any local emergency centers for people that have no health insurance, but there is something kind of odd about getting stitches/check-ups/prostate exams at the same place you buy toilet paper, a desk and 3 pink snuggies at 4am.

[Atreides]

express medical clinics are nothing new and will probably become a lot more widespread in numerous retail locations (not just walmart) over the next decade or so. They're supposed to be independently run by a nurse practitioner so I don't think Walmart will have any say in how they're run, if you trust Walmart to fill your prescriptions you should be able to get treated there just as easily.

But it wouldnt surprise me at all if walmart was storing everyone's medical records somewhere for some nefarious purpose either