Obama was wrong to have voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Reasons to agree:

1. A baby that is born is no longer a fetus, it is a baby. It is wrong to kill babies. It is especially wrong to kill babies when the baby no longer requires his or her mother to provide life. Once a baby is born, it no longer requires it's mother and could be given up for adoption. We can agree to disagree on abortions during the first few months, but partial-birth abortion is the way that lawyers, like Obama, allow a mother to kill a baby, before the feet come all the way out. By leaving the baby partially inside the mother, lawyers will say that it is not a baby. This is disgusting, and is an example of why people should specifically hate Obama, and lawyers in general.
2. Obama said that he would have supported the act, if it provided for exceptions to the mother's life. This is a lie. John K. Wilson, an Obama Supporter said; "Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion." This is a straw man argument. The bill would not have criminalized virtually all abortions. This is a bold-faced lie. John K. Wilson is making a slippery slope argument, saying that if a fetus is truly defined as a person, then some day other people could use that definition to write another law that outlawed virtually all abortions. However, the bill that Obama voted against only had anything to do with partial-birth abortions, and it is a scare tactics and lies to say that it had anything to do with anything else.
3. An "On the Issues" article says, "In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion". This uses very misleading wording. It says the bill would have "turned doctors into felons". This is stupid. The bill would have made it a felony in Illinois to perform "so-called" partial-birth abortions. First of all, the guy, John K. Wilson, p.147-148, uses the words "so called" partial-birth abortions, as though it is inaccurate. What happens in a partial birth abortion is the woman goes through labor, and the baby comes partly out of the womb. The baby is then killed, while the baby has been partially born. The baby is killed before it comes all the way out, because if the baby was born all the way, it would be illegal to kill it. So I don't know what John K. Wilson is complaining about by calling it "so-called" partial birth abortion, but yes the bill would have made those doctors who committed felonies, into felons. But it is not like doctors would not know that partial birth abortions were illegal. It’s not like we would surprise them, or trick them. The wording is stupid. If you made a law that said doctors can’t juggle babies, that would also turn doctors into felons. But only those doctors who ignored the law and continued their baby juggling ways.
4. Obama says that we should trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. Weather you believe partial-birth abortion is right or wrong, you can’t use that sort of logic. Obama is too smart to have used this kind of argument without knowing how stupid it is. He knows that it is a sham, but he uses this sort of logic, because stupid people agree with him. That sort of logic is exactly like saying, that we should trust men to make their own decisions about tax evasion. When you start something with the words, “Lets trust women to make their own decisions”, you are ½ the way to convincing stupid people, and you get to avoid making any decisions about something being right or wrong yourself. Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding? A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families (and politicians) who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually (no one makes them casually? A lot of teen boys don't use condoms because they don't like the way they feel. A lot of teen age girls don't force their boyfrinds to use condoms because they don't want to make them mad. A lot of people make life decisions very casually. 1.2 million abortions in 2005. A lot of those were decisions made casually). And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy (yes, withing the first months of pregancy, but partial birth abortions are full term). And I think that’s where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so (so we should legalize aeverything that is rare? I could make ridiculus examples, like canabalsm, to make a point, but then people would say that I'm crazy, or that I'm comparing the two. No. I'm attacking the logic. We shouldn't legalize everything that is rare). But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions (no the broader issue is you were asked about partial birth abortion, and your trying to change the subject)? And I trust them to do it (so I'm not going to answer the question). There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree (not if you don't answer the questions honestly) and can we start talking about the things we do agree on (oh my gosh, oh my gosh! Can you stop asking me difficult questions)? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances (just because Obama wants to ignore this practice doesn't make it go away. Ignoring it will allow it to keep happening). Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Reasons to disagree:

1. Obama said that he would have supported the act, if it provided for exceptions to the mother's life. He said; "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that." http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Webpages that agree:

1. http://www.moralaccountability.com/obama-on-abortion/
   

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)
3. Making themselves feel better about decisions they might have made.

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)
3. Making themselves feel better about decisions they might have made.
   

Obama is right to try to bring more educated english speaking people to America

 Background: Obama said in an interview with IANS he would support "comprehensive immigration reform", including the H-1B visa program "to attract some of the world most talented people to America". "We know that we cannot and should not put up walls around our economy."^[147]

Reasons to agree:

1. America is like a baseball team. If we are going to beat other countries, we have to recruit the best players. We need to make America attractive to smart people. Smart people should be attracted by our freedom, rule of law, free press, and fair system.
2. Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.
3. "We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration." ~ Governor Romney, AP, June 23, 2006

Reasons to disagree:

1. Business people don't want to pay American scientist and engineers very much money and so they want to bring in foreign scientist and engineers. Instead we should turn the tables, and bring in people with MBAs from India, so that American businessmen don't make as much money. Some people with MBAs walk around talking about motivation, and team building, as if it wasn’t just all stupid crap that they make up to make themselves feel important. We should bring in low wage business people to run our companies, and not bring in low wage scientist and engineers.
   

Obama is right to call for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide

Reasons to agree:

1. You should call a spade a spade.

Obama is right to give the director of National Intelligence a fixed term independent of Presidential control

 

Reasons to agree:

1. This would be one means of depoliticizing the intelligence process

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Interest

Please help me brainstorm the most probable interest of those who agree or disagree with President Obama on each issue. Just leave what you think motivates each side in the comment section, and I will add it to the list. Also, tell me the percentage of those who agree with Obama you think are motivated by each motivation. I will try to put the most likely motivation towards the top of the list.

The book Getting to Yes, tells us that we need to focus on interest instead of positions. To understand why someone believes something we must understand their interest. What are their values? Different interest or values lead to different positions.

Of course it is best when the author of an idea submits their interest. However others users of the website could submit and then vote on the most likely motivations of each side.

We need to also classify interest as opposing interest or mutual interest.

Businesses interest might include low taxes and good infrastructure.

Typical Format

Thesis #1

Interest...

...of those who agree with Thesis #1	...of those who disagree with Thesis #1
1. IOTWA#1	1. IOTWD#1
2. IOTWA#2	2. IOTWD#2

Explanation

A technique taught in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, is to focus on interest not positions. In addition to having a place for listing pros and cons, I would like to have a place for the listing of interest. If we are going to make progress sometimes we have to stop listening to the stupid things people are saying, and try to figure out what their motivation is, and what makes them want to say those stupid things. It will often turn out that the real reason someone supports something has nothing to do with the arguments that they try to use to advance their ideas.

Members of a country, business, or trade organization could list their interest. Businesses could list their interest of low taxes, and good infrastructure. Psychologist could compile a list of all of the interest of a family. A slight variation on this would be to allow people to list their goals.

These list of solutions, interest, and goals would become pretty long. If written on paper they may become a big mess. However the internet offers great opportunities in the organization of data. People could be allowed to vote on weather or not they think certain interest or solutions to a problem are valid. The interest that are the most valid could rise to the top. This would make the site more user friendly. However those interest that are not generally accepted will still be presented on the site, for those who are concerned primarily about the interest of the minority.

The technology behind the internet will will make such things as responding to a specific solution, interest, or goal will be possible. The evaluation process could be used to let the site users evaluate the responses that people make. This will allow a truly dynamic give and take between different positions. If the evaluation process thrives then this dynamic give and take will constantly get better. Those positions solutions, interest, and goals that are described clearly, and are truly valid and logical will get the most acceptance.

However traditional problems may arise between people as the work their way to the real issue, and deal with road blocks in the dynamic exchange of ideas. On advantage of this web site is the natural way that the people are separated from the problems. You are not arguing with a person you are arguing with an idea. Hopefully you will not be arguing with a slopy idea, with lots of road blocks, you will be working the best but most valid idea.

One way that we could direct people in the way of evaluating solutions, interest, and goals in the best way. We could ask people if the way the solution, interest, or goal was worded might cause people problems. Perhaps someone worded their position in a partisan way, or maybe used hostile emotions. Each of these separate issues could be a plus or minus, that sends your idea up or down the slide. Questions could be asked such as, is this action consistent with principles? Yes or no.

I would also have a section of my web site designated to the hottest issues. This issues would be the ones in which violence is taking place. This would help focus interest on the issues that need the most help.

One of the principles of Getting to Yes to to work together with your advisory on the problem, instead of working against each other. For this purpose we will rarely frame conflict of group a vs. b. However there are some things that could be done in this method that may help people resolve conflict.

Assuming that on the web site we have already listed all of the interest of every party, we can go forward with specific conflicts between groups. For instance in the case of the Israel and her Palestinian neighbors we could have a section on the site specifically about that conflict. This enable people to list such things as common goals. Both the Israelis and the Palestinian people want economic security, and other fundamental needs.

Some typical motivations are listed below:

1. Financial gain


2. Groupism


3. Racism


4. Liberal guilt


5. Moral clarity


6. Party Affiliation Groupism


7. Political laziness and issue crossover


8. Self delusion


9. The desire to be seen as unique

I took a conflict resolution class, that taught mediation techniques. I highly recommended "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without giving in" by Roger Fisher and Willium Ury. Chapter 3 is called "Focus on Interest not positions". I don't want to repeat their arguments, but just want to state that we will never make progress until we get to the root cause of a conflict. From the book, "Interest motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your positions something you have decided upon. Your interest are what caused you to so decide."Again, whenever their is disagreement we have to get at the root cause of the disagreement. To do this we have to understand common, and opposing interest. If we just give a place for people to try and brainstorm, and understand these interest, we will make a lot of progress.Please tell me what you think! Should we have additional categories for "common" and "opposing" interest?

Obama is right to expand the United States Armed Forces

 

During the speech Obama called for an expansion of the United States Armed Forces "by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines", an idea previously introduced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Reasons to agree:

1. We should have enough perminant troops that if we ever wanted to do another Iran, we could win it easily.

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)
3. Security
   
4. Money / Jobs. Securing jobs for family or friends who are employed by US Military or defense spending.

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)
3. Not using money on things that kill people.
   
4. Anti-Americansim. Those who are overseas might not want America to be able to defend itself.

Obama is right to say, we "will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money"

Obama is right to say that we "will fire government managers who aren't getting results"

 

Reasons to agree:

1. The Chinese work 14 hour days. Their smartest engineers work for $600 dollars a year, and live in housing owned by the company they work for. They eat, sleep, and dream their jobs. They are lean, mean, and efficient. We will not be able to sell our products on the open market, unless our businesses become more efficient. We will not be able to compete, unless businesses have the ability to fire those who are not effective. The same goes with government. If our government takes more money, and does less with it than other governments, then this will be a worse place to live than other countries. If our government is not efficient at what it does, it will put our country at a competitive disadvantage, and the smartest people will want to go to another country to live. We used to be able to afford inefficient wasteful government. We will no longer be the best country, if we don't do things more efficiently. We can keep our since of entitlement, but we will not be able to keep our lack of efficiency, and our spot as the best place on the planet to live.

Reasons to agree:

1. Word mean nothing. Obama is owned by the unions. He will never expand the right of businesses or government to lay off inefficient managers. No matter what he says.

Obama is right on affirmative action based on class

 Obama has indicated support for affirmative action based on class, not just race, (q.v. redistributive change) in comments where he said that his daughters should be treated by prospective colleges and employers as people that grew up with a privileged background.

Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric, By David Kuhn - The Politico "Obama has called for government to 'craft' a policy 'in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.'

Reasons to agree:

1. We don't want an aristocracy.


2. Schools should be impressed when students come a long ways without any advantages. Of course you are going to take someone's background into consideration when you are trying to get an overall understanding of their potential.

Reasons to disagree:

1. If we are going to compete with the Chinese, and overcome the problems that we face, it is not enough to put kids into schools that came from disadvantaged background, so that we feel like we are being fair. Life is not fair. We need to put kids into the top schools, that got the top scores.

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)


2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


3. Racism (5%)


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Money lost from others advancing because of affirmative action
   
   

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
   


2. Democratic party groupism (40%)


3. Liberal guilt.


4. Political laziness & issue crossover.


5. Money made from advancing because of affirmative action

Obama is wrong on racial affirmative action

Obama writes in his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without diminishing opportunities for white students."

Reasons to agree:

1. It not that big of a deal, and Obama may be correct, that it is fair to give advantages to groups that were held back. However what he says is not logically sound. You can't give advantages to one group, without taking those advantages from another group. I'm not saying that I think affirmative action is wrong, I'm just saying that you shouldn't lie to us about it. If you think that minorities have been held back, and that they need help, just tell us that, but don't lie to the majority and tell them that their "opportunies" will not be "diminishe[ed]".

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is right):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Obama was wrong to support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Interest of those who agree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Republican Party by attacking a democrat.
   
2. Racism (critisizing a minority because he is a minority)

Interest of those who disagree (that Obama is wrong):

1. Promoting the Democratic Party by defending a democrat.
   
2. Liberal guilt (defending a minority because he is a minority)

Obama was wrong to vote YES on funding for social services for noncitizens

Reasons to agree:

1. It is feels "nice" to let illegal aliens to receive social services, but you have to be smart, and fair also. Why don't we give social services to South Americans, Europeans, or Chinese? Because they are not US citizens. Just because someone breaks into our country illegally, and hangs out here long enough to make friends, doesn't mean that we should give them social security. It might be nice (and democrats want SOOOO much for everyone to think that they are nice) but it is stupid to give non citizens benefits of citizenship, unless you are willing to say there is no such things as borders, no such thing as laws, no such thing as rules, and the government is just going to give everything to anybody who wants anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to vote YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security

Reasons to agree:

1. It is nice to let illegal aliens participate in social security, but you have to be smart, and fair also. Why don't we give social security to South Americans, Europeans, or Chinese? Because they are not US citizens. Just because someone breaks into our country illegally, and hangs out here long enough to make friends, doesn't mean that we should give them social security. It might be nice (and democrats want SOOOO much for everyone to think that they are nice) but it is stupid to give non citizens benefits of citizenship, unless you are willing to say there is no such things as borders, no such thing as laws, no such thing as rules, and the government is just going to give everything to anybody who wants anything.
   

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to vote NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government

Reasons to agree:

1. When the Germans, Dutch, Italian, immigrants came to America, they all learned English, so that they could fully participate in a new country.
2. E pluribus unum, Latin for "Out of Many, One"
   

Background

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm

Obama was wrong to flip-flop on public financing of his campaign.

Reasons to agree:

1. On January 24, 2007, in reference to his stated plan to take public financing should he procure the nomination, he said, "I think that for a time, the presidential public financing system works." On November 27, he said, "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," and on February 28, 2008, he wrote that he planned to "aggressively pursue" a publicly financed campaign, later promising to sit down with John McCain to ensure "a public system" of campaign financing is preserved.^[75] However, on June 19, 2008, he opted out of public campaign financing. John McCain kept his promise. Obama did not.
   

Obama is right to support PAYGO.

 "We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue".

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.187-189 Oct 1, 2006Reasons to agree:

1. Everyone else has to pay for things they want. So should the government.

Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care

Background: 

"The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." Barak Obama, Jan 24rth 2007.

Thesis: Obama was Wrong to support universal healthcare

Reasons to agree:

1. Fiscal Concerns

   • Primary Argument: Unsustainable cost burden on taxpayers and government.
   • Supporting Evidence:
     • U.S. federal deficit trends.
     • Projected cost increases without systemic reform.
     • Tax hike estimates.
   • Qualitative Assessment:
     • Concerns are well-supported by financial data and budgetary projections.
     • Raises legitimate questions about the feasibility of funding mechanisms.

   ---

   2. Quality of Care

   • Primary Argument: Centralized systems could reduce care quality and stifle innovation.
   • Supporting Evidence:
     • Longer wait times in universal systems (e.g., Canada, UK).
     • Comparative R&D spending between private and public systems.
   • Qualitative Assessment:
     • Evidence is mixed; while delays are noted, health outcomes are generally strong in universal systems.
     • The potential for reduced innovation requires deeper investigation.

   ---

   3. Individual Liberty

• Primary Argument: Government control over healthcare limits personal freedom.
• Supporting Evidence:
  • Constitutional interpretations emphasize limited government intervention.
  • Personal responsibility and autonomy principles.
• Qualitative Assessment:
• Philosophical objection with limited empirical grounding.
• Highlights ideological tensions rather than practical barriers.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Public Health Benefits

• Primary Argument: Universal access to preventative care reduces overall healthcare costs
  • Supporting Evidence:
    • Studies show early intervention reduces expensive emergency care
    • Data from countries with universal systems showing better health outcomes

2. Economic Efficiency

• Primary Argument: A single-payer system reduces administrative overhead
  • Supporting Evidence:
    • Medicare administrative costs vs private insurance overhead
    • International comparisons of healthcare spending per capita

3. Ethical Imperative

• Primary Argument: Healthcare access should be a fundamental right
• Supporting Evidence:
• UN declarations on human rights
• Ethics frameworks on basic human needs

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Costs

1. Implementation Costs:
   • Infrastructure creation and upgrades.
   • Administrative reorganization.
   • Workforce training.
2. Ongoing Costs:
   • Annual healthcare funding.
   • Technological maintenance and updates.
   • Salaries and benefits for expanded healthcare roles.

Benefits

1. Direct Benefits:
   • Universal access to preventative care.
   • Reduced reliance on emergency services.
   • Streamlined administrative systems.
2. Indirect Benefits:
   • Higher workforce productivity due to better health.
   • Decreased bankruptcy rates tied to medical bills.
   • Improved national health metrics.

---

Stakeholder Interests

Shared Interests

1. Enhanced health outcomes.
2. Cost-efficient systems.
3. High-quality care access.
4. Long-term system sustainability.

Opposing Interests

1. Role and scope of government involvement.
2. Equitable and viable funding mechanisms.
3. Realistic implementation timelines.
4. Autonomy over healthcare choices.

---

Objective Criteria for Evaluation

1. Population health outcome metrics.
2. Cost per capita and budget allocation impacts.
3. Administrative efficiency (e.g., cost of operations).
4. Patient and provider satisfaction surveys.
5. Metrics for innovation and R&D.
6. Average wait times for services.

---

Conclusion

The ISE framework underscores strong arguments on both sides of the universal healthcare debate. While public health and economic efficiency highlight compelling societal benefits, opposing perspectives on fiscal sustainability, potential quality concerns, and individual liberty emphasize critical challenges. Future progress requires:

• Developing hybrid solutions addressing fiscal and implementation concerns.
• Continuing to gather evidence and refine arguments for a comprehensive evaluation.
• Focusing on shared stakeholder interests to bridge ideological divides.

This analysis is adaptable, allowing for updates as new evidence and arguments emerge. Users are encouraged to contribute their perspectives to refine the discussion further.

Obama is wrong to appose oil extraction from ANWR

Reasons to agree:

1. We should treat the earth as a Garden not an un-touchable wildlife preserve.

2. All the oil in Alaska will someday burn. We can either burn it in our cars, or it will burn when the Sun engulfs the inner planets of our solar system, as it becomes a red-giant, before it burns out. Nothing we do to be nice to the planet matters in the long run. The sun will consume the Earth and everything on it. Sure. We should recycle, buy Prius cars, build green buildings, smart grids, and stop pollution. We need to save the Brazilian rain forest, and stop pollution. But there is absolutely nothing worth saving in ANWR, and nothing bad that could happen from extracting it's oil. It is a big frozen tundra, with miserable caribou that would lean against the pipeline for warmth in the depth of winter.

Obama is wrong to oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada

Reasons to agree:

1. We have to put spent nuclear material somewhere, and the scientist said Yucca Mountain is the best place. This decision shouldn't be made by politicians, like Obama, but by scientist.

Obama is wrong to support the $0.54-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol

Reasons to agree:

1. We won't be able to get countries to buy from us, if we tariff their products.
2. If we don't tariff middle east oil, we sure as hell should not be tariffing brazilian ethanol.

Obama is wrong to cosponsor the bill that would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's "Kentucky River" 532 U.S. 706 (2001) decision.

Reasons to agree:

1. The bill redefined many employees lacking the authority to hire, fire, or discipline, as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws. If you don't have the authority to hire, fire, or discipline, that means you are not a "supervisor".

Obama is wrong to circumvent the secret ballot requirement to organize a union

Reasons to agree

1. Union leaders (often the mob), or coworkers would intimidate you into doing what they want.
2. Unions already have too much power.
3. The secret ballot is American. Taking away the secret ballot is un-American.