But the term predated the actual vote. It was coined in 2015 before the primary.

You should definitely remove this when you get a chance because you don’t want him to allege that you’re releasing his information since the screenshot does contain identifying information.

But that said, I would confirm that he’s previously provided everything listed under ORS 652.610 because that’s what he’s legally required to provide for each paystub. If he hasn’t, then he’s been in violation of the law and you may be able to pursue the private right of action listed in the statute. But you’ll want to consult with the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries and possibly a lawyer.

One thing that is especially odd, beyond the dubious claim of having spoken to a lawyer, is that he claims to have already compiled the documentation. Why would he spend 8.8 hours doing the work of compiling documentation if he isn’t already certain you’re going to pay him the $1232? That’s not logical. He likely hasn’t done the work and if it actually did take that long, it would be due to his choice of poor document management. If he had digital records, it definitely wouldn’t take that long and it’s his choice on how he managements his documents.

I’m not reading that link the same way you are. It seems like from the summary of the bill, that is just calling for more transparency in paystub information. But the employer is already required to provide a significant number of fields on a paystub under ORS 652.610. So from my reading of the OP’s account, their boss hadn’t provided all of what is listed under ORS 652.610 and there is a private right of action on that statute.

Taking the Adderall is necessary before sorting the Adderall.

If I had a dollar for every time capitalism worked, it would all be spent on overpriced crap in order to survive and only a few cents would be given to the workers who actually made and provided it and the rest would go to a billionaire and executive parasites who were born into privilege and provide nothing of value to the process.

Kidnapper, human trafficker, genocidal foot soldier

If nothing else, not capitalizing first letters and proper nouns will just look weird to many readers. If there’s no capitalization in a sentence, I’m inclined to assume the writer accidentally mistyped an incomplete sentence or phrase. Not capitalizing proper nouns will create significant confusion since some proper nouns are also general terms.

“after friday, land is out.”

Is that a reference to land as in earth or is it a reference to someone whose last name is Land?

Making communication more difficult by requiring your reader to spend more effort to parse your intended message might not be a good idea.

No, you see, other people have believed in it so it must be true!

Same people who made Obama phone jokes are eager to sign up to be ripped off by Trump mobile.

Somebody doth protest too much.

Do you find this weak troll act fulfilling and useful? Good use of your time? Healthy outlet for your emotional issues?

So you are just actively advocating for a worse-than-useless solution that only helps ensure the least favorable party gets more votes while arrogantly pretending you know better than the people who have to live with the results. Got it.

That’s not a denial…

The obvious answer, voting 3rd party doesn’t register with you people.

So you admit you don’t understand first past the post voting systems.

Yes, that’s a subjective perspective on the matter. And…?

I also keep seeing this:

“The progressive congresswoman deserves the heat she’s getting for her vote against a bill that would’ve held back aid to Jerusalem”

People keep calling the amendment a bill, which it is not. Even the PhD author of that article is misconstruing the vote in question despite correctly identifying it as an amendment elsewhere.

AOC voted against the bill that funded Israel. Full stop. Saying otherwise is counterfactual, i.e a lie. Full stop.

You can quibble over the repercussions of the amendment vote. I wouldn’t have voted for or against it personally. But saying she voted for funding Israel is not correct. Saying she funds genocide is not only incorrect but would be defamation if she weren’t a public figure.

But I will ask again, what is the value of attacking AOC on this point? Will it drive voters further to the left? Will it win primaries for progressive candidates? Will it in any way affect the funding of genocide in Gaza? What is the value of this fight? If it’s just feeling self-righteous but doesn’t have any useful results, why pursue it so fiercely? The only people this fight benefits are those who want someone farther right than AOC in office.

That’s what ranked choice voting can get you.

Except if you know the amendment will fail and you know the amendment is a stunt by a racist conspiracy theorist, you can’t be expected to take it seriously.

But again, what’s the endgame for this criticism? She resigns and someone more centrist or corporate or right leaning takes her place? She feels bad and remembers next time to virtue signal meaningless gestures instead of attempting to achieve plausible goals?

So you acknowledge it didn’t have a chance of passing and was thus of completely null value, except as far as you get to use it to attack someone for not virtue signalling your preferred message. And it’s really super important to drag her because doing so will magically help more leftists come to power in the US and topple the authoritarian regime…? What’s your end game on this strategy? You’ll die on a useless hill from a MAGA boot on your face and your last satisfied utterance will be, “at least we told AOC off that one time,” is that it? Do you think this witch hunt will have any useful results?

AOC still voted against blocking military aid to Israel.

No, she didn’t. Any number times zero is zero. She could have voted for an amendment to kick puppies and then voted against the bill and thus ultimately voted against kicking puppies. You don’t seem to understand how bills and amendments work.

What result do you want to happen here?

Do the same give me her voting history of when she opposed funding this genocide.

Literally the bill in question. If you aren’t familiar with the bill the amendment was for, you don’t know what we’re discussing.

and your reply to me was basically plugging your ears shouting “LALALA I Cannot Hear Cannot See…”

No, my reply is that you’re spewing racist conspiracy theories.

kenyian secret-muslim immigrant

Again with the racism and conspiracy theories. You’re not even trying to hide it. You clearly have no moral grounds to criticize other people.

At issue here is the first vote only.

The first vote was meaningless. It was a political stunt amendment by a racist conspiracy theorist. And a single vote for or against the amendment has no chance of affecting whether Israel got funds for more genocide.

This yearly military budget bill always gets passed, without exception, which AOC knows. She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote.

It’s really weird that you’re able to see this inevitability, yet you’re not able to also see the inevitable failure of the amendment MTG put forth. This is exactly why all this foaming at the mouth over a doomed amendment vote is so misdirected! It had no practical, functional, or realistic bearing on anything in reality other than for MTG to tell her conspiracy theorist followers that she opposes Jewish people getting more space lasers or however she wants to spin it.

That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?

She explained her reasoning. Why are you asking what she intended when she already explained why? I don’t agree with the reasoning, but it was still a meaningless act.

You’re complaining she put expired ingredients in a meal that she threw out and never served anyone. Meanwhile Trump is dodging Epstein list revelations, ICE is brutalizing and human trafficking (and genociding) immigrants, but at least we have someone to attack and feel morally superior to who literally didn’t fund Israel as was falsely claimed.