The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread



HEADLINES
UAW.jpg

UAW loses yet again in Tennessee

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 1:01 pm on June 15, 2019

Back in April, we looked at the efforts by United Auto Workers (UAW) to get their foot in the door at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was their second effort after failing in a similar effort in 2014. The union painted the company as a bunch of villains who didn’t want to allow workers to organize, but opponents of the proposal pointed out that unionization would only drive up costs and potentially wind up eliminating jobs in the long run. With politicians and celebrities weighing in on both sides, everyone expected a close vote. But now the process has ended and the result was the same. The workers voted against joining the UAW and will continue to represent themselves through an internal employee organization. (Associated Press)




Workers at Volkswagen’s plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, voted Friday night against forming a factory-wide union, handing a setback to the United Auto Workers’ efforts to gain a foothold among foreign auto facilities in the South.

The vote of hourly workers began Wednesday and concluded Friday. Preliminary results show 833 employees voted against representation and 776 voted for it, the German automaker said in a statement. VW said about 93% of the roughly 1,700 eligible employees voted.

“Our employees have spoken,” Frank Fischer, president and CEO of Volkswagen Chattanooga, said in the company statement.

The 883 to 776 result was pretty much the same margin we saw in 2014 when workers voted 712 to 626 against unionization.
 
Has anybody ever been exonerated for something you were never accused of or charged with?
Evidence of a crime is needed in order to charge someone with that crime.

Mueller did report:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

I agree with M. I think he is guilty too.
 
Mueller did not charge the President with obstruction
But you think the idiots in Congress will...very optimistic of you.

.

Under the Constitution, the House gets to decide whether or not to charge the President with impeachable crimes. The Senate then sits as the jury to hear the House's case and the President's defense, with the Chief Justice presiding. Were you out that week in high school?

Mueller's role so far has been as an investigator, and he may become a primary witness in both proceedings.
 
Mueller did not charge the President with obstruction
But you think the idiots in Congress will...very optimistic of you.

.

M was not allowed under DOJ policy and established precedent to charge the President with anything. If you didn't know that before this year, it's in M's report.

This has all been covered here before. Are you really as ignorant as you appear, or just repeatedly being a troll?
 
M was not allowed under DOJ policy and established precedent to charge the President with anything. If you didn't know that before this year, it's in M's report.

This has all been covered here before. Are you really as ignorant as you appear, or just repeatedly being a troll?
This is just another lie you’ve been instructed to propagate you fascist.
 
"We did not determine that the President did commit a crime".

Interesting, but garbage. An actual sentence from M reads "At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Who is feeding you your garbage today, or have you finished W&P already?
 
Interesting, but garbage. An actual sentence from M reads "At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Who is feeding you your garbage today, or have you finished W&P already?
Its not a prosectutor's or "investigator's" job to exonerate.
If he could have found an actual crime to pin the President with, he would have said so.
His "we didnt because we cant convict" is a cop out.

Ken Starr listed several counts against Bill Clinton.
 
Its not a prosectutor's or "investigator's" job to exonerate.
If he could have found an actual crime to pin the President with, he would have said so.
His "we didnt because we cant convict" is a cop out.

Ken Starr listed several counts against Bill Clinton.

More garbage, and I noticed you are not revealing your source.
 
Its not a prosectutor's or "investigator's" job to exonerate.
If he could have found an actual crime to pin the President with, he would have said so.
His "we didnt because we cant convict" is a cop out.

Ken Starr listed several counts against Bill Clinton.
Seems you have your blinders on and only want to here what you want to hear. You seem to be backed up and in need of a proper plunging . . . it's oozing from your every pore.
 
Read what Mueller wrote in the report.
Seems there is a partisan dividing line concerning the Mueller report. Those who unfailingly support t won't read the Mueller report as, in reality, they know what's in it don't want to hear it . . . and those that don't/won't and may never forgive America for electing this buffoon, and Republicans for bending over forward for this con man who do read the report knowing what is in it and relishing it.
 
Back
Top