the cac mamba
Veteran
why didnt you answer the question
Stupid People That "Protest Voted" in 2016 Really F*cked Us
- Thread starter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Start date
You don’t get perfect. You get better. Better is good.
Bernie would have lost. You all are the same ones who want to cater to trump voters who don’t fukk with you and refuse to understand this but you all keep overestimating Bernie’s appeal and how trump flips on sanders the moment he’s not useful to dig at Hillary.
Trump literally flipped on an iconic American company , Harley Davidson, yesterday.
The GOP loves Bernie. And y’all never connect the fukking dots why.
i agree with everything you said.but I don’t like this “I’m not a democrat” bullshyt.So you're fine with four more years of Trump and decades of white supremacists on the Supreme Court because misery loves company?
1. I'm not a Democrat. I just think now is not the fukking time for black people to sit at home and not exercise their political power.
2. The Supreme Court has never made laws that directly harm black people because the Supreme Court doesn't make laws.
But they've most certainly made decisions and rulings that have.
But that said, I'm off it. If you're fine with black folks staying home and not voting while the GOP rolls back civil rights, because at least it's not the "status quo", you got a right to your opinion.
Claim the party and pull at the reins. Take charge.
Because Republicans are?You're straight up admitting that the Democrats should have no incentive to address Black issues in the same thread that you're trying to convince us to vote Democrat.
obama literally enacted criminal justice reform. Full stop.I ain't gonna let Trump do shyt. YOU Democrats are the ones who put him in office by holding the water for Wall Street, the prison complex, drone wars everywhere, and focusing on partisan wins while doing a shytty job of actually addressing people's real concerns, then putting forth a terrible candidate that no one liked and who ran a terrible campaign that completely disrespected the people who she wanted to vote for her.
And this fear-mongering. Trump has put ONE fifty-year-old dude in the Supreme Court, he ain't no "open White Supremacist" and he probably ain't gonna be there for 40 years. Hell, one of the worst Supreme Court Justices for a minute now is a Gullah-speaking Black man from Georgia.
The Supreme Court in modern history has almost never even made any laws that directly harmed Black people, it has only opened up loopholes by which the rest of society can do stupid shyt...and if the rest of society is that bent on doing stupid shyt, then we're screwed whether the Supreme Court opens up those loopholes or not. You have to be thinking about changing the whole system and the whole direction of things, not selling yourself out for the status quo just to hope that'll buy you another political appointment or two.
Off yourself.
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
No that's why people stayed home.
Boo boo. Hillary ain’t your girlfriend. I need a competent leader, not a lover.
the cac mamba
Veteran
but hillary did lose, after you told us she was running a master class in campaigning
why are you credible on this issue?
I wanted her to win. What’s your point? It’s pre-electoral hype. You fukking useless moron.
Worthless Loser
Blackpilled
Honestly people should stop living in the past and be energized for the midterms and 2020.
the cac mamba
Veteran
you think you're useful because you have a thread dedicated to posting other peoples ideas, sources and opinions?
mueller isnt checking that shyt#BothSides :queenhillary:
#LesserEvils
#NeoliberalShills :drakeumad:
Supreme Court Delivers a Sharp Blow to Labor Unions
June 27, 2018
Mark Janus spoke to the news media outside the Supreme Court in February. Mr. Janus, who works for the state of Illinois, sued the union that represents state employees, saying he does not agree with its positions and should not be forced to pay fees to support its work.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to organized labor. By a 5-to-4 vote, with the more conservative justices in the majority, the court ruled that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be required to help pay for collective bargaining.
The ruling means that public-sector unions across the nation, already under political pressure, could lose tens of millions of dollars and see their effectiveness diminished.
The court based its ruling on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that may be at odds with their beliefs.
Unions say that reasoning is flawed. Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of payments spent on political activities, like advertising to support a political candidate.
Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, and workers should not be free to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the costs.
The decision could encourage many workers perfectly happy with their unions’ work to make the economically rational decision to opt out of paying for it.
Limiting the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups. They seemed poised to succeed in the Supreme Court in 2016, when a majority of the justices looked ready to rule that the fees were unconstitutional.
But Justice Antonin Scalia died not long after the earlier case was argued, and it ended in a 4-to-4 deadlock. The new case, which had been filed in 2015, was waiting in the wings and soon reached the Supreme Court. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, voted with the majority.
The court overruled its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which had made a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments. Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violated the First Amendment, the court said. But it was constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.”
That distinction is untenable and unworkable, the majority said.
The court struck down an Illinois law that requires government workers who choose not to join a union to “pay their proportionate share of the costs of the collective bargaining process, contract administration and pursuing matters affecting wages, hours and other conditions of employment.” More than 20 states have similar laws.
The case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466, was brought Mark Janus, a child support specialist who works for the state government in Illinois. He sued the union, saying he does not agree with its positions and should not be forced to pay fees to support its work.
The decision is unlikely to have a direct impact on unionized employees of private businesses, because the First Amendment restricts government action and not private conduct. But unions now represent only 6.5 percent of private sector employees, down from the upper teens in the early 1980s, and most of the labor movement’s strength these days is in the public sector
You realize you don't get this without getting other people to vote for her. Right?
I agree Hillary would have been a better president compared to Trump. But she lost. Period. Doesnt matter NOW what you think of her. She. Lost .
So NOW, the problem is that we have a supreme Court that can possibly go conservative for the next few decades unimpeded if we don't win in 2020. What is your solution to fix THAT? You have to have more thoughts beyond pouting about 2016 not going your way. shyt is done. It's over.
Personally, I'm solution oriented, instead of focusing on past failures. There are a lot of folks on here who prefer to whine about the past instead of shifting their thinking towards what can be done to make sure dude doesn't get another term .
If you feel like it's hopeless than ok, say that and I would then ask why even be engaged politically anymore then?
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
You also need someone who can beat a political novice in an election.
