What are you trying to do Loki? I already told you the SCOTUS ruling is only part of the bigger fight to push arbitration. I already told you that in this context my reference to Trump is a reference to his administration and cronies. I already told you that the SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with Neil Gorsuch (Trump's appointee) writing the opinion. I already told you how Trump sent Pence in to break the tie in Congress over whether or not to kill the rule that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) added to prohibit banks from forcing customers into arbitration. I already told you how Trump himself uses arbitration agreements to block his own employees from the courts.

So, what's with this weak little stab? "uh... did Trump order the SCOTUS ruling?" Simple answer... no. Simple observation... makes no difference.

What are you trying to do Loki? I already told you the SCOTUS ruling is only part of the bigger fight to push arbitration. I already told you that in this context my reference to Trump is a reference to his administration and cronies. I already told you that the SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with Neil Gorsuch (Trump's appointee) writing the opinion. I already told you how Trump sent Pence in to break the tie in Congress over whether or not to kill the rule that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) added to prohibit banks from forcing customers into arbitration. I already told you how Trump himself uses arbitration agreements to block his own employees from the courts.

So, what's with this weak little stab? "uh... did Trump order the SCOTUS ruling?" Simple answer... no. Simple observation... makes no difference.

Says the guy who responds to my point about swapping the OBJECT of a sentence with a pedantic "lesson" about swapping SUBJECTS in a sentence. The OBJECT in both your sentences is the hamburger, Sparky. You DO understand the difference between the object and the subject, right?

Here's how ridiculous this argument has been... (objects in red, subjects in blue).

You: do you still support the right of all employees to pay confiscatory union dues, whether they want to or not?

Me : You're asking if I support a mandatory right... Is that like forcing someone to have a right to free speech?

You: I'll try again in a simpler manner, without any sarcasm or nuances which so easily confuse you. Do you support the right of unions to force workers to pay confiscatory union dues, whether the workers want to or not?

I didn't say you swapped the subject, the subject is clearly the same in both sentences... I said you swapped the OBJECT, which you did, and that DOES change the meaning of the sentence. Your second sentence made sense because you are asking if I think unions have a right to force workers to pay dues. The first sentence did NOT make sense because you were asking if employees have a right to be forced to pay dues.

If you are a smart as you seem to think you are you would have noticed your error and it would have been very easy to just say something like "may bad, let me rephrase." I wouldn't have thought anything about it... people make grammatical mistakes all the time. But you chose to be insulting... and you continued to attack MY understanding of the language because I pointed out your error. I was just going to let it go, but when you put on the sock puppets I decided to put this whole argument to rest and now you have to deal with being b*tch-slapped because of a stupid grammatical error.