And what is wrong with that, exactly?
woot ness
1

Thank you. Your attitude perfectly expresses the point I was trying to make.

Making union dues compulsory is literally (and this time I am using the word correctly) ruling over someone. You create a rule for them and you forcing them to do it. Running a union in a way that makes people want to join voluntarily and pay for that service is good leadership. You have a choice.

I see this attitude with both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats force their agenda on half the population, Republicans force their agenda on the other half of the population. Rules pile on top of rules, people are constantly told how they should behave and what they should do, and people become more and more unhappy.

People on both sides are tired of it and want a change. They may only see what’s happening to them and not realize what they are doing to others, but that is what is happening. I guarantee that Republicans say “What’s wrong with that?” about their rules too. “My America is best! Move somewhere else if you don’t like it!”

In my opinion, this is what happened in this election. People may not understand why, but they feel like things aren’t working for them. They wanted to break the system. They elected someone who they thought would do that (I personally think he is more of the same and nothing will change).

Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn’t. I suspect you’ll disagree. Perhaps the following can expresses this sentiment more eloquently than I can however:

“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.” — Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.