The 2016 "Presidential Elections" Show

[bullhusk]

UAW president Dennis Williams asks GM: "How much profit do you need to make?"

I would ask the same of the UAW.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

how about 'As much as we can for the share holders!'

[41chevy]

how about 'As much as we can for the share holders!'

The Federal bail out had General Motors give the United Auto Workers union 17.5% of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion federal backed note to finance a trust that will take over retiree health care costs. They are stock holders!

[kscarbel2]

In the same vein, United Technologies subsidiary UTC Climate, Controls & Security announced on Wednesday to thrilled employees that it will relocate its Carrier brand heating and air conditioning plants in Indianapolis and Huntington, Indiana to Mexico.

Altogether, 2,100 American workers will lose their jobs.

Can you hear that "giant sucking sound", of big business-lobbied NAFTA draining millions of American jobs to lawless Mexico?

[41chevy]

Now Hillary stated the Dems have created in 7 years over 15 million jobs...and at least seven of them are full time at minimum wage and all seven are held by citizens not illegals! Paul

[kscarbel2]

[kscarbel2]

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Last nights debate showed just how incompetent most of the republican candidates are... Kindergartners are better behaved!

[Underdog]

I agree something seriously wrong if a company like Ford or Carrier or whoever can ship raw materials overseas, produce a product and ship that product to the U.S. cheaper than building it domestically. The politicians on both sides have provided lip service on the issue for 40 years, and the voters continue to fall for it. But does anything ever change? The special interest groups control the situation, politicians, no matter what they say, are powerless to make any changes. Taxation and union labor have American corporations in a stranglehold. They cannot compete with overseas production. I agree that our standard of living may be compromised, but if you can't compete and the jobs go away completely then who really wins?

Politicians on the Democrat side consistently rail against " the rich man" and " giant corporations ", but ultimately who provides the jobs for the so-called 99%? Most of the politicians are of the 1% ( although they would like you to believe otherwise). I personally hold no animosity towards the " rich man" who provides jobs for many millions like myself. A reduction in corporate taxes would do wonders to spur the economy in the United States, and allow us to compete globally. If a corporation pays less in taxes, they are more likely to expand, add jobs, and increase payroll. And I include Obummer care as being a giant tax on corporations, especially small businesses.

[Keith Pommerening]

On 2/14/2016 at 11:53 PM, Underdog said:

I agree something seriously wrong if a company like Ford or Carrier or whoever can ship raw materials overseas, produce a product and ship that product to the U.S. cheaper than building it domestically. The politicians on both sides have provided lip service on the issue for 40 years, and the voters continue to fall for it. But does anything ever change? The special interest groups control the situation, politicians, no matter what they say, are powerless to make any changes. Taxation and union labor have American corporations in a stranglehold. They cannot compete with overseas production. I agree that our standard of living may be compromised, but if you can't compete and the jobs go away completely then who really wins?

Politicians on the Democrat side consistently rail against " the rich man" and " giant corporations ", but ultimately who provides the jobs for the so-called 99%? Most of the politicians are of the 1% ( although they would like you to believe otherwise). I personally hold no animosity towards the " rich man" who provides jobs for many millions like myself. A reduction in corporate taxes would do wonders to spur the economy in the United States, and allow us to compete globally. If a corporation pays less in taxes, they are more likely to expand, add jobs, and increase payroll. And I include Obummer care as being a giant tax on corporations, especially small businesses.

Have a friend who has a smallish business. He likes rich guys. Said he did a job for a poor guy one time. He didn't get paid.

[Underdog]

My boss has approximately 100 employees with drivers, shop and office personnel. I prefer working for a small company ( or for myself), although our business relies on contracts with big corporations like Ford, Nissan and Subaru. A small business owner is more in tune with expenses and waste. My boss and I get along well because, he says, I run my truck and think like an owner-operator. He notices and appreciates my efforts, and rewards me in kind.

As for Obummer care, my company has Blue Cross, but our cost is up this year too. The private insurance companies are subsidizing all the FREELOADERS.

[RowdyRebel]

I missed the first half of last night's debate...Reince Priebus has got to go. I mean seriously, why would you schedule a debate...in SOUTH CAROLINA of all places...DURING a Nascar race?

[RowdyRebel]

...but as for the "outsourcing" problem, it always pisses me off at election time when people ask politicians "What are YOU going to do to stop outsourcing?" Well, as long as there is a demand for CHEAP products made overseas, corporations will continue to use cheap foreign labor. When people start saying "I'm not going to pay $160 for that pair of boots made in China when I can buy this other pair of boots that were made here in America for $200", then companies will start making things here in America. If you want to buy a car, make sure the 1st number in the VIN is a 1. If it isn't, don't buy it. If there isn't a market for foreign-made vehicles, manufacturers will build them here. There really isn't anything a politician can do, because if you impose a tax on products made elsewhere and imported here, those countries will impose a tax on our stuff we are trying to export. We the people need to actively LOOK for products "made in the USA" and buy them whenever we have that option instead of "saving" a few bucks on something made in some 3rd world sweat shop that probably won't last half as long anyway. If the market demands "cheap", companies will provide it. If the market demands "made in USA", again, companies will provide it. When government attempts to artificially control the market by penalizing corporations when they try to satisfy market demands, we run into problems. Look for that "made in USA" indication on the products you buy, and buy American made products whenever possible. THAT is the best way to slow/stop the outsourcing of jobs. Need a new air conditioner? Make sure the HVAC company doing the installation knows you want a unit made in the USA. If enough people refuse to buy mexican-made units, suddenly Carrier's market share dries up and they rethink their decision as their "made in USA" competition starts replacing units Carrier might have otherwise sold. Money talks, and EVERY dollar you spend sends a message. Do you want "CHEAP"? Or do you want jobs in America?

[other dog]

On 2/14/2016 at 11:53 PM, Underdog said:

I agree something seriously wrong if a company like Ford or Carrier or whoever can ship raw materials overseas, produce a product and ship that product to the U.S. cheaper than building it domestically. The politicians on both sides have provided lip service on the issue for 40 years, and the voters continue to fall for it. But does anything ever change? The special interest groups control the situation, politicians, no matter what they say, are powerless to make any changes. Taxation and union labor have American corporations in a stranglehold. They cannot compete with overseas production. I agree that our standard of living may be compromised, but if you can't compete and the jobs go away completely then who really wins?

Politicians on the Democrat side consistently rail against " the rich man" and " giant corporations ", but ultimately who provides the jobs for the so-called 99%? Most of the politicians are of the 1% ( although they would like you to believe otherwise). I personally hold no animosity towards the " rich man" who provides jobs for many millions like myself. A reduction in corporate taxes would do wonders to spur the economy in the United States, and allow us to compete globally. If a corporation pays less in taxes, they are more likely to expand, add jobs, and increase payroll. And I include Obummer care as being a giant tax on corporations, especially small businesses.

You're right about that, it's kind of the same situation with truck driving jobs and what we're paid . Sure, as gearhead grrl said, we should get payed more, or would like to get paid more, but it's a catch-22 situation- I work for a small company too, and if they had to pay everybody by the hour for every hour they worked and extra for everything they did like tarping a load, dropping trailers, mechanical work, and so on, they would probably have to close the doors because they just couldn't afford to stay in business, then there would be that many more people out of work.

Union workers can't work if a light bulb needs changing, then they have to call a union electrician to come change the light bulb while they just wait and do nothing, all the while probably making as much in a day as I do in a week, and never doing anything "over and above" exactly whatever their job description says they have to do. No wonder why some companies look overseas for cheaper labor.

[Underdog]

I will put my paycheck up against any teamster car hauler. They do get accessorial pay over and above what I get, but at the end of the week, I move twice as many cars and that is how shit gets done and my boss and I both make money.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[kscarbel2]

American democracy’s gravest trial

Edward Luce, The Financial Times  /  November 6, 2016

The system is teetering whatever the outcome of the US election

Fair enough, there was the US civil war. Amid all the carnage the Yankees still went ahead with the 1862 and 1864 elections on schedule. Other than then, there is little in US history to compare with what is at stake on Tuesday.

Donald Trump, one of the possible next presidents, forecasts that the vote will be rigged. A Trump victory could still happen, which makes it so odd that he plays the sore loser before actually losing.

Hillary Clinton believes the US system is working fine except for the threat posed by Mr Trump. In its way, Mrs Clinton’s outlook is almost as deluded as her opponent’s. America’s system of democracy is teetering, whether or not Mr Trump wins on Tuesday.

Imagine two kinds of threat: one where a bear breaks into your cabin, the other where termites eat it from within. Mr Trump is the bear. The upside to a Trump victory is that he would be unable to claim the election was stolen. Far from it. The 2016 vote count would be the cleanest in world history. America would be great again! That aside, it would be a disaster.

Many serenely predict US democracy would emerge intact from a Trump presidency. Their reassurance comes in two parts. The first is that Mr Trump would surround himself with experienced advisers who would curb his worst instincts. The second is that even if Mr Trump’s team were crackpots, the US constitution would correct any over-reach.

They are too complacent. Most of those advising Mr Trump are as unsettling as he is. First among these is Mr Trump. “My primary foreign policy adviser is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff,” he says. Bear in mind he has questioned the point of nuclear weapons unless they are used. He has also recommended China’s neighbours acquire their own. [Officially] The decision to play the nuclear card is the president’s alone. The Pentagon can only advise. Virtually every Republican with national security experience signed a letter in August warning that Mr Trump would be “the most reckless president in history”.

Then there is his political team. We need go no further than Stephen Bannon, his campaign chief, who is former head of the hard right website, Breitbart News. Anyone who cherishes America’s first amendment rights should be very afraid. Mr Bannon would be in line to become Mr Trump’s White House’s ideological director.

Second, America’s system of checks and balances relies on those upholding it. Leaving aside his character, Mr Trump has no respect for constitutional boundaries. The last president to breach their limits was Richard Nixon. He was forced from office in 1974 for covering up his administration’s complicity in the burglary of the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The system worked, but it took two years.

Nixon had an expansive view of the president’s powers. “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,” Nixon said. That is also Mr Trump’s view.

But Nixon’s secret lawbreaking pales against what Mr Trump openly vows to do. He has publicly urged Russia to burgle Democratic databases. He has also threatened to jail Mrs Clinton, reinstate torture, cancel treaties and start a global trade war. Some of this is illegal. Some of it is legal.

Much of what Mr Trump promises lies in between. Either way, it could take the US courts months or years to rule on his actions. By then, much of the damage would be done.

How could a Clinton victory possibly compare? If she won by a landslide — and the Democrats regained control of Congress — all bets would be off. But that is not going to happen. No poll has put her close to 50 per cent since the election began. The dangers of a Clinton presidency are no less troubling for their subtlety.

Before Mrs Clinton is elected, Republicans are vowing to block whatever she tries. John McCain, her closest Republican friend, says he will oppose any Supreme Court nominee she submits. Others have threatened impeachment hearings.

The Republican party is hopelessly divided. It spans pro-globalisation multiculturalists and nativist protectionists. In most other democracies, it would have split into different parties. The one glue keeping Republicans together is abhorrence of Mrs Clinton.

This is without mentioning Mr Trump’s threat to cry foul if he loses. Either way, Republicans aim to make a desert of Mrs Clinton’s presidency and call it democracy. They have the means to do so. Four more years of gridlock would only deepen America’s popular frustration.

The good thing about a bear is that you can see it coming. Termites are invisible. It is hard to pinpoint when they began to eat away at the foundations. When and why did Americans lose faith in their system? There is no consensus on this either. Some point to rising inequality. Others blame the growth of government. It does not mean Americans cannot regain the trust they have lost.

But for the time being, the US is becoming steadily harder to govern. As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. Though he faced far deadlier challenges, Lincoln’s observation is as true today as when he said it. The basis of US democracy is co-operation. Whatever happens after Tuesday is unlikely to fit that description.

[41chevy]

" Four more years of gridlock would only deepen America’s popular frustration."

From all I've heard and seen in the past few days  both in the streets and on BBC, MSNBC, FOX and CNN we are on the fine edge of a physical shooting revolt, with a few of HRC's promises put into law.  BBC, Polsat and China Today are all saying the U.S. is going to plunge into a  second bloody revolution in a few short weeks. A bit scary the the Europeans and Asians see that cloud forming.  Paul

Edited November 7, 2016 by 41chevy

[gearhead204]

it will be interesting for sure! as I live in a blue state thanks to the greater Seattle area. As I have travelled around the state in past months I have only seen a hand full of Hillary signs in an ocean of Trump/Pence  signs, but in the people I have talked to I cant find more than about 20-25% support for her here. So it might be a while before we join the national revolution,  my state may have its own to deal with!   

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]

.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]

If you believe the elections show is real, if you believe that it's more than a stage play allowing Americans to think that they actually choose their leaders and thus their future (for the next 4 years), then how can such a system put forth two choices that most "voters" generally dislike?

Alleged polls indicate that most Americans are not enamored with Clinton or Trump. Okay........then why are Americans forced to choose between.......them?

In effect, the American people have NOT been professionally presented with any reasonable choice for president. How can that possibly be, if we have what at one time was argued to be the best governmental system in the world ?

Realistically speaking. American voters can't make a prudent and rational choice in these "elections".

That one candidate should be in prison rather than the White House, based on what we're told, and certainly with the Wikileaks revelations in mind, speaks volumes.

 

[kscarbel2]

CNN Money  /  November 8, 2016

George W. Bush and Laura Bush did not vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the former president said Tuesday.

Instead, the Bushes left that section blank and only voted for Republican candidates in down ballot races.

[kscarbel2]

 

[kscarbel2]