When some group of which I am not a member

[MineralMan]

endorses one or another Democratic primary candidate, my reaction is simply "OK." Since I'm not a member of that group, whether it's a women's group, an LGBT group or a group that represents some racial or ethnic demographic, why would I have a comment about their endorsement? If a labor union makes the endorsement, I can't comment, because I'm not a member or even in that profession.

As a non-member, I do not fully understand the reasons for their endorsements. I cannot, since I am not a part of that group. For me to comment on their endorsement in a negative way would be highly arrogant of me. Why on Earth would I be qualified to judge their decision, since I do not share whatever it is that makes them a member of that group?

Now, I might agree or disagree with their endorsement, but I have no say in it. Nor do I have an complete understanding of the reason for their decision. Organizations, like individuals, have agency in what they do. Unless I'm a member, I have no role in any group's decisions, so I don't presume to advise groups what they should do.

The same applies to individuals who endorse a candidate. I'm not that person, so my input is of no value. Individuals have agency in their decisions. It's not for me to advise them on what they should or should not do with regard to endorsing a candidate for public office. I can agree or disagree, but that doesn't really matter.

It is solely the decision of individuals and groups of individuals to decide such things for themselves. To believe otherwise is to assume that one knows better than the individual or group what is important. How can anyone presume to know that?

[highprincipleswork]

1. You're not under the impression that nobody here is a member of a union, are you?

A union of which I am a member recently endorsed, without polling its membership in any way.

I consider that out of bounds. To use our collective authority in this way is deplorable.

Furthermore, if you look at progressive organization like PDA and MoveOn, who have polled their members, one will notice that the members overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders. I think one could expect the same from every union in the country, to be perfectly honest.

Yes, we are currently expressing our dissatisfaction in a variety of ways.

[MineralMan]

2. Of course not. I've seen many people say they are

members of a particular union. I also know people on DU who are women, people of color, or are part of other groups. They clearly have the right to express their beliefs without being questioned about the reasons for those beliefs.

[highprincipleswork]

7. In any dialogue about beliefs, isn't it fair game to ask someone the causation behind their beliefs?

I realize that the reasons may feel sensitive to the person that holds them, but if we are to engage in dialogue over beliefs isn't it fair game to ask the substantiation for the beliefs?

Isn't it fair game to bring up facts or substantive evidence to the contrary, from the other side?

The fact that we allow private groups on the site, from which members of the site can be banned, and that those same sites post information or opinion that then appears in headlines seems very strange to me. An indication that some people are not interested in discourse. They simply wish to believe what they wish to believe and say what they wish to say on a group site without any questioning whatsoever.

Is that what this site is for?

I'm all in favor of us respecting those with whom we disagree, and I can see how we (and I include myself) may have a tendency to go over the line in a moment of passion. I also understand how we can be sensitive or even defensive about our point of view.

But is this a site for discussion and discourse, needing to brook some controversy, or is it something else?

[seaglass]

15. Not true. My husband is a member of IAFF who has not endorsed this time around and probably won't.

If they polled their members there is a good chance they would choose a Republican - there are a lot of Republican firefighters in case you didn't know that! The unions goal is to promote legislation that would benefit the union as a whole, not individual member's wants and needs and preferences that are wholly not union related.

These are the IAFF priorities:
1.) Repealing the Cadillac Tax
2.) Pension protection
3.) Safer and Fire Act Grants
4.) Collecting Sales Tax on On-Line purchases

Do you think these are priorities individual members use when selecting who to vote for?

[HassleCat]

3. Well, not exactly

We know there has been some "insider trading" involved in some of these endorsements. Unions and other organizations don't benefit very much, if at all, by endorsing during the primaries. If their candidate loses the primary, they have to scramble to mend fences before the general election. My union endorsed Clinton, and I wish they had not done that.

[guillaumeb]

4. How very unreasonably reasonable of you.

If you follow my reasoning.

You do realize that you being so agreeable might be disagreeable to some here? And if that is so, that exposes your agreeable, reasonable statement as merely a front to disguise your real agenda.

Have a great day MM.

Guillaume B

[whatchamacallit]

5. Like an on-line algorithmic PSA generator...

Also, I'd like to think we're all members of the ethic demographic

[MineralMan]

8. LOL. Edited.

Thanks for noticing my post and reading it closely enough to find my misspelling.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. It matters if it is members or just leadership that endorsed.

If it is the leadership then the group you really need to be a member of is the top 1%

[MineralMan]

9. I suppose that's true, but it's often difficult to tell.

In every group, there will be some members who disagree with the decisions of the group's leaders. Generally, group leadership tries to represent the majority viewpoint of its members. Since most groups elect their own leaders, that's probably usually correct. Again, since I'm not a member of the group, I don't really know how the decisions were reached in many cases.

In other cases, the methodology of the decision is also announced. Still, there will always be some members who disagree. That's the nature of group decisions, isn't it? In the case of political endorsements, those who disagree will simply vote in another way than the one endorsed by the group.

Most of us are members of more than one group, really. I don't always agree with the majority decisions of any group to which I belong.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. Which is why the unions who voted on who to endorse....

give a clearer picture of support among people of that social and economic demographic.

5 have done that. 5 have chosen Bernie.

Plus there is the MoveOn vote and endorsement.

Bernie has the support of the middle class. Hillary has the support of the influence peddling power brokers.

[cheapdate]

11. Good grief!

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - Baphomet

Do what you want. I'll continue to express my opinions in the public sphere on any and all matters related to public or civic life, including public endorsements if I choose. Anyone is free to heed or ignore my opinion as they choose.

[MineralMan]

12. As will we all, of course, including me.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. When some kid is on my lawn and I don't want that

kid on my lawn, I stand on my porch and yell "you kid, get off my lawn!"

On the other hand I like turtles.

[MineralMan]

14. Hmm....you don't like kids?

Kids are always going across my lawn. They live on my block, and they're welcome to do that, as far as I'm concerned. If I'm outside, I'll say "Hi" to them. I've learned some Hmong phrases from some of them, too.

I haven't seen any turtles on my lawn, though. There are plenty of them at the nearby pond though, but this time of year, they're out of sight.