Bernie!

[1sickbastard]

I wonder that the Vegas odds makers are offering for the election results?

From Oddsshark:
http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures



"Sanders was +700 to win the Democratic nomination the day before March 26, but has jumped to +500 after claiming the three states that Saturday. Sanders also had a considerable boost in his odds to become the POTUS, but Clinton is still the odds-on favorite.

With the Republicans taking a couple weeks off between their primaries, there has been no movement in those markets with Donald Trump heavily favored to get the nomination for the party."

 

[BoyNextDoor]

https://media.giphy.com/media/tucqXd0Qk9GdW/giphy.gif

 

[JackLuis]

Bernie Sanders Stands With Workers And Slams GOP After Unions Get Supreme Court Win

Bernie Sanders used labor's victory in a deadlocked Supreme Court case to stand with America's workers and warn that Republicans are one conservative Supreme Court justice away from gutting organized labor.

Gosh, if Garland had been on the court the Rethuglicans might have fucked the Unions again!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

...gutting organized labor.

Don't you think that that horse has pretty much left the barn? I mean, look at our economy. Until someone figures out how to unionize Uber drivers, dope dealers, phone sex workers, and the guys selling fruit at the freeway off-ramps, there is not much for unions to do.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Bernie Sanders Stands With Workers And Slams GOP After Unions Get Supreme Court Win



Gosh, if Garland had been on the court the Rethuglicans might have fucked the Unions again!

Garland is not a good pick. I have to force myself to remember that Obama is the lesser evil. I am going to have a really hard time holding my nose and voting Clinton if it comes to that.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Garland is not a good pick. I have to force myself to remember that Obama is the lesser evil. I am going to have a really hard time holding my nose and voting Clinton if it comes to that.

I recommend this commentary on Garland by the Black Agenda Report. And I this "lesser evil" stuff has got to go. The country has simply gotten progressively more evil.

 

[phrodeau]

Don't you think that that horse has pretty much left the barn? I mean, look at our economy. Until someone figures out how to unionize Uber drivers, dope dealers, phone sex workers, and the guys selling fruit at the freeway off-ramps, there is not much for unions to do.

There's the workers at Wal-Mart.

 

[Sean Renaud]

By what standard precisely have we gotten progressively more evil?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Bernie Sanders Stands With Workers And Slams GOP After Unions Get Supreme Court Win



Gosh, if Garland had been on the court the Rethuglicans might have fucked the Unions again!

This case was - and still is - workers vs. unions. So far the workers have lost.

 

[sr71plt]

Unions represent workers. To suggest that members of unions don't work is simply juvenile and, frankly, stupid.

That's like saying no one in government is working. Trust me, if they didn't, you'd know it within five minutes and you'd be dead in the water.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Unions represent workers. To suggest that members of unions don't work is simply juvenile and, frankly, stupid.

That's like saying no one in government is working. Trust me, if they didn't, you'd know it within five minutes and you'd be dead in the water.

Rank and file members of unions work, but some union bosses don't always do so. If this is about my previous post, The court case being discussed was some workers objecting to being forced to join unions or to pay union dues.

 

[sr71plt]

Rank and file members of unions work, but some union bosses don't always do so. If this is about my previous post, The court case being discussed was some workers objecting to being forced to join unions or to pay union dues.

Even with that admission, your original post on that was false and dumb, wasn't it?

If unions didn't exist, even more workers would be losing out.

 

[SexyAlison]

http://i.imgur.com/o8TI468.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hvUFR1G.jpg

 

[Boxlicker101]

Even with that admission, your original post on that was false and dumb, wasn't it?

If unions didn't exist, even more workers would be losing out.

No, the post was a true statement. To a large degree, I agree with your second sentence.

 

[sr71plt]

No, the post was a true statement. To a large degree, I agree with your second sentence.

You contrasted unions with workers. I'm sorry that you can't even understand what you yourself posted.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You contrasted unions with workers. I'm sorry that you can't even understand what you yourself posted.

A union is a group of workers, but not all those workers agree with the union bosses about everything. For instance, unions tend to support Dems and contribute to their campaigns. Some of the individual working people may disagree and may support, for whatever reason, Ted Cruz. Is it right for the unions to take money from the latter group in order to support somebody that members of that group dislike?

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, yes, I know that your misstatement just went right over your head. Enough of your nonsense for the night.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

By what standard precisely have we gotten progressively more evil?

I would suggest a couple, for starters, with a few examples from this century:

1. Progressively more flagrant flouting of international law, and more repulsive imperial bullying of other nations. Starting with the Bush Jr. administration, we adopted the "Blair Doctrine" which says that we arrogate to ourselves the authority to make war or sponsor coup d'etats against any nation whose government we dislike ("regime change.") Bush also initiated the practice of drone assassinations, a policy of state terrorism. Obama kept all these policies and intensified them, with a massive escalation of drone killings (despite studies carried out by his own administration that found that we are mainly just indiscriminately slaughtering civilians). Obama has racked up a total of 7 nations now against which he has launched military attacks of various sorts, which under the Nuremburg statutes constitutes "preventive war", a war crime.

2. Economic policies which encourage parasitic financial speculation while punishing productive activity. This has resulted in the well-documented shift in income distribution from the "have-nots" to the "haves", creating the "1%" phenomenon -- "Robin Hood in reverse."

 

[Sean Renaud]

A union is a group of workers, but not all those workers agree with the union bosses about everything. For instance, unions tend to support Dems and contribute to their campaigns. Some of the individual working people may disagree and may support, for whatever reason, Ted Cruz. Is it right for the unions to take money from the latter group in order to support somebody that members of that group dislike?

Yes it is. The union's job is to protect the workers in it's union. Which means it has to protect itself.

I would suggest a couple, for starters, with a few examples from this century:

1. Progressively more flagrant flouting of international law, and more repulsive imperial bullying of other nations. Starting with the Bush Jr. administration, we adopted the "Blair Doctrine" which says that we arrogate to ourselves the authority to make war or sponsor coup d'etats against any nation whose government we dislike ("regime change.") Bush also initiated the practice of drone assassinations, a policy of state terrorism. Obama kept all these policies and intensified them, with a massive escalation of drone killings (despite studies carried out by his own administration that found that we are mainly just indiscriminately slaughtering civilians). Obama has racked up a total of 7 nations now against which he has launched military attacks of various sorts, which under the Nuremburg statutes constitutes "preventive war", a war crime.

2. Economic policies which encourage parasitic financial speculation while punishing productive activity. This has resulted in the well-documented shift in income distribution from the "have-nots" to the "haves", creating the "1%" phenomenon -- "Robin Hood in reverse."

1. That seems to have been our over all policy since WWII and the real reason we didn't do that earlier wasn't morality it was a lack of weight to throw around.

2. Not sure I buy that it is punishing productive activity but the rest of this I agree with.

Though I'm still happy state during that same period people of my skin color got rid of legalized discrimination. Gays can marry. We're on the cusp of legalizing weed. Religion is slowly losing it's strangle hold.

Crime is down across board (the planet really.). Our greatest threat to security is a bunch of desert punks for whom the largest realistic victory (9/11 as a fluke with no rivals in size and scope before or since) is killing a few hundred civilians in a sneak attack. My parents (and some of you) grew up in a world where a war a nuclear war at that with Russia was something real.

Our economics is cray cray and most of that can be dated back to the Reagan Admin but on that front you are correct there are no good guys, just evil and slightly less evil.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Though I'm still happy state during that same period people of my skin color got rid of legalized discrimination. Gays can marry. We're on the cusp of legalizing weed. Religion is slowly losing it's strangle hold.

Crime is down across board (the planet really.). Our greatest threat to security is a bunch of desert punks for whom the largest realistic victory (9/11 as a fluke with no rivals in size and scope before or since) is killing a few hundred civilians in a sneak attack. My parents (and some of you) grew up in a world where a war a nuclear war at that with Russia was something real.

Americans aren't paying attention, or they aren't relying on honest media, which boils down to the same thing. The Russian leadership has said on several occasions that the danger of nuclear war is greater now than it was at the height of the cold war. Obama keeps looking for more and more opportunities to provoke Russia, including the regime change operations in Syria and Ukraine and the positioning of nuclear weapons along Russia's borders. Obama has also launched a $1 trillion dollar program to expand the US nuclear arsenal, and don't tell me that Republicans made him do it. As bad as George W Bush was, he didn't seem to feel the compulsion to dominate Putin.

Discrimination against African-Americans is no longer legal, but the economic circumstances that they face have deteriorated dramatically during the past two administrations.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Americans aren't paying attention, or they aren't relying on honest media, which boils down to the same thing. The Russian leadership has said on several occasions that the danger of nuclear war is greater now than it was at the height of the cold war. Obama keeps looking for more and more opportunities to provoke Russia, including the regime change operations in Syria and Ukraine and the positioning of nuclear weapons along Russia's borders. Obama has also launched a $1 trillion dollar program to expand the US nuclear arsenal, and don't tell me that Republicans made him do it. As bad as George W Bush was, he didn't seem to feel the compulsion to dominate Putin.

Discrimination against African-Americans is no longer legal, but the economic circumstances that they face have deteriorated dramatically during the past two administrations.

The Russian leadership is talking shit because that's what Putin does. We aren't going to nuclear war at least not with Russia. Whether or not Republicans made him or not is irrelevant. 1 trillion over 30 years amounts to around 30 billion a year. It's bloody chump change and ultimately not all of that is even actually "nukes" anyway.

Economic circumstances have long sucked but are steadily getting better. The police are a bit worse than they were previously but still.

That's still net gain over previous times in history and certainly isn't showing this railroad of fail.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

A union is a group of workers, but not all those workers agree with the union bosses about everything. For instance, unions tend to support Dems and contribute to their campaigns. Some of the individual working people may disagree and may support, for whatever reason, Ted Cruz. Is it right for the unions to take money from the latter group in order to support somebody that members of that group dislike?

Yes it is. The union's job is to protect the workers in it's union. Which means it has to protect itself.

The union's job is to protect workers from predations by management, but what about those times when the union is the predator? Who will protect the workers then?

 

[Sean Renaud]

The workers themselves can find new jobs if the union is that big a problem. However the case your building isn't about the union being predatory at all, it's about some union workers wanting to support Republicans who will destroy the union if given the chance.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Insert SexyAlison's derp here

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. So sorry.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The workers themselves can find new jobs if the union is that big a problem. However the case your building isn't about the union being predatory at all, it's about some union workers wanting to support Republicans who will destroy the union if given the chance.

Finding jobs is not that easy, especially for somebody who has been working in factory assembly work. Unions can be predatory especially the Teamsters, but the case in question was a teachers' union. Teachers tend to be intelligent and educated, and some of them do vote Republican for a variety of reasons. Unions support pro-choice candidates, as do I, but there are many people who oppose abortions. Nevertheless, the unions require pro-life people to financially support those politicians who will vote contrary to such people's wishes and beliefs.

Do you think that's right? - that people should be required to donate money to politicians whom they oppose?