And working people voted for this?

[Puffnstuff]

Yes Mr. Trump blasts the Carrier union president after selling himself as a champion of the working class people. I tried to tell you boys and girls to put the Kool Aid down but nope you wouldn't have it. This is why working people should never vote Republican.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I hate to tell you this, but my experience in 2 different unions lets me know that Union Presidents don't really count as blue collar "working people".
and BTW
http://www.usw.org/blog/2016/clinton-receives-two-major-union-endorsements

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm still pondering this "phenomenon" in which rust-belt left-behinds worship a two-percenter who had a head-start more than 20 or 30 times bigger than Bill Gates' college-age trust-fund.

Just for "starters," I think it demonstrates how people are divorced from the value of "Public Goods" because of their collective nature. They may further devalue public goods because someone else pays as much for them, but what they see firsthand is their own tax bill.

Put all of this into the mix, add a sense of desperation or abandonment, top it off with a sort of clueless and naïve ability to distinguish fake-news from real news, and they gamble. They gamble by picking a big-time gambler like Trump.

Trump then picks a toxic two-percenter who never spent a day in a public school to oversee public education (and destroy it.) He picks another two-percenter to "lead" EPA whose primary intention before and after the appointment was to destroy the EPA.

It also shows a naïve understanding of how the political process could ideally work. If the issues arise pertaining to the plight of the discontent, either candidate should address them. So why pick the Loser who looks like a Winner when the only thing in his resume is money and a similarity to either DiNiro role in "Casino" or "Heist?"

Should I continue? It's sort of like saying "we're so desperate, let's go 'all in' and pick this toxic piece of s*** to lead us."

If that seems like an elitist pronouncement, it is still my pronouncement. I can't figure it any other way.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Who "worships" Trump? He's a typical piece of garbage, loud and obnoxious New Yorker. I have hopes he'll be a good President and I certainly like some of his early moves, but he's sure not worth worshipping.

 

[UglyCasanova]

He blasted a union president, something tells me a lot of union members would too. He needs to foster manufacturing, and maybe the union boss has positions that are hindering that.

 

[agent00f]

I'm still pondering this "phenomenon" in which rust-belt left-behinds worship a two-percenter who had a head-start more than 20 or 30 times bigger than Bill Gates' college-age trust-fund.

Just for "starters," I think it demonstrates how people are divorced from the value of "Public Goods" because of their collective nature. They may further devalue public goods because someone else pays as much for them, but what they see firsthand is their own tax bill.

Put all of this into the mix, add a sense of desperation or abandonment, top it off with a sort of clueless and naïve ability to distinguish fake-news from real news, and they gamble. They gamble by picking a big-time gambler like Trump.

Trump then picks a toxic two-percenter who never spent a day in a public school to oversee public education (and destroy it.) He picks another two-percenter to "lead" EPA whose primary intention before and after the appointment was to destroy the EPA.

It also shows a naïve understanding of how the political process could ideally work. If the issues arise pertaining to the plight of the discontent, either candidate should address them. So why pick the Loser who looks like a Winner when the only thing in his resume is money and a similarity to either DiNiro role in "Casino" or "Heist?"

Should I continue? It's sort of like saying "we're so desperate, let's go 'all in' and pick this toxic piece of s*** to lead us."

If that seems like an elitist pronouncement, it is still my pronouncement. I can't figure it any other way.

Not hard to understand if placed in proper context of fascist strongman and minions. Strongman takes the state's money (ie from blue areas) and gives it to loyal minions and they do his bidding.

In this case the minions Trump is counting are the rust belt nativists who can provide him and the party national victory for the forseeable future. Their allegiance to others (ie union) is detrimental to his power, so they have to go. The people he picks are loyal first, competence who give a shit.

Of course his servants here are just signaling this on command. Unions out, trump in. They're going to be looking for their kickback, and Trump is going to loot whatever it take to pay them.

---
btw, this is hardly speculation but the history of pretty much every fascist regime ever.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I hate to tell you this, but my experience in 2 different unions lets me know that Union Presidents don't really count as blue collar "working people".
and BTW
http://www.usw.org/blog/2016/clinton-receives-two-major-union-endorsements

I've known several who were exactly like me, who worked up through the ranks and completely understood what it mean to sweat and toil on the line working rotating shifts. When you get up to the corporate level offices then the lines become blurred and they tend to care less about bread and butter issues.

 

[boomerang]

More than likely Jones had a deal worked out with Carrier to allow the work to be moved to Mexico as long as his wallet got fattened up in a big way. That's how this shit works. Mountains can get moved if the payoff is big enough. Then Trump got involved and the deal got shit-canned. Hell hath no fury like a union boss scorned.

 

[theeedude]

I love the irony of your statement right above your signature.

More than likely Jones had a deal worked out with Carrier to allow the work to be moved to Mexico as long as his wallet got fattened up in a big way. That's how this shit works. Mountains can get moved if the payoff is big enough. Then Trump got involved and the deal got shit-canned. Hell hath no fury like a union boss scorned.

Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don’t like to have another point of view in the room that they don’t quash and the way they try to quash it is by character assassination and name calling.

 

[agent00f]

More than likely Jones had a deal worked out with Carrier to allow the work to be moved to Mexico as long as his wallet got fattened up in a big way. That's how this shit works. Mountains can get moved if the payoff is big enough. Then Trump got involved and the deal got shit-canned. Hell hath no fury like a union boss scorned.

Worked out the explanation for when he starts registering muslims, or rounding them up? By explanation I mean which building to burn down.

 

[fskimospy]

So now we have a president elect who is personally going after individual Americans because they had the temerity to point out that Trump was full of shit about the job numbers he claimed.

Does nobody recognize how insanely dangerous this is? This is the guy who is about to control the NSA and the CIA.

 

[agent00f]

So now we have a president elect who is personally going after individual Americans because they had the temerity to point out that Trump was full of shit about the job numbers he claimed.

Does nobody recognize how insanely dangerous this is? This is the guy who is about to control the NSA and the CIA.

Only naive liberals are surprised. His people voted for this.

 

[Puffnstuff]

More than likely Jones had a deal worked out with Carrier to allow the work to be moved to Mexico as long as his wallet got fattened up in a big way.

When a company makes a decision based upon competitive advantage they are not legally obligated to provide the union with any financial information at all. There are several labor acts that deal with corruption and company-union behaviors where facts are required in order to establish cases. Inane spew and gut ramblings are not acceptable sources of data when conducting a discovery process.

 

[PokerGuy]

So now we have a president elect who is personally going after individual Americans because they had the temerity to point out that Trump was full of shit about the job numbers he claimed.

Does nobody recognize how insanely dangerous this is? This is the guy who is about to control the NSA and the CIA.

This is horrible, next thing you know the IRS will be harassing his political opposition! Where will it end!

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes Mr. Trump blasts the Carrier union president after selling himself as a champion of the working class people. I tried to tell you boys and girls to put the Kool Aid down but nope you wouldn't have it. This is why working people should never vote Republican.

Blasting idiot union presidents IS championing the cause of the working class. Thanks Trump!

 

[fskimospy]

This is horrible, next thing you know the IRS will be harassing his political opposition! Where will it end!

This is actually a great example. If you consider the IRS action to be an abuse (which I think runs contrary to the facts but whatever) there is literally zero indication that Obama was involved. Imagine how much damage someone with scores to settle could do.

Also, Trump supporters have been threatening the union leader and that behavior has now become standard for anyone Trump calls out. He must be aware of this by this point and so he bears some responsibility for the outcome of what he says.

 

[fskimospy]

Only naive liberals are surprised. His people voted for this.

We definitely agree on that. I think if anything this election shows that small government conservatism was never really a thing. Conservatives were just mad that the government was working for the wrong people.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Blasting idiot union presidents IS championing the cause of the working class. Thanks Trump!

I might be hearing the ghost of Christmas past bellowing, or perhaps its the ghost of Scot Walker's Act 10 groaning in the hallway....hmmm? Either way, working people end up on the losing end of the deal.

Industrial Revolution 2.0 anybody?

 

[PokerGuy]

This is actually a great example. If you consider the IRS action to be an abuse (which I think runs contrary to the facts but whatever) there is literally zero indication that Obama was involved. Imagine how much damage someone with scores to settle could do.

That there was abuse is not a matter of debate, it's documented fact. How and why the abuse came about, how widespread it was and who is responsible are all things up for debate. I don't blame the president for that, he wasn't directly involved, but that doesn't matter -- the point is his supporters did those things to help their party. The bottom line is government power misused to punish, harass or otherwise discourage political opposition. That should be a very scary prospect for anyone.

Also, Trump supporters have been threatening the union leader and that behavior has now become standard for anyone Trump calls out.

In interesting turn of events, normally it's the union thugs and other lefties threatening people who disagree with them. Either way, threats of violence are wrong no matter who does it.

He must be aware of this by this point and so he bears some responsibility for the outcome of what he says.

Oh, kind of like when obummer says Trayvon could be his son? The president (and in this case, he's not even the president yet, he's not even officially the president elect as the electoral college has not voted yet) should understand that their words have consequences beyond those of other 'regular' people in society, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of people they don't control.

 

[PokerGuy]

We definitely agree on that. I think if anything this election shows that small government conservatism was never really a thing. Conservatives were just mad that the government was working for the wrong people.

Now flip that around and it's just as true. Big goverment libs didn't want big government to better society, they just want it to enforce their agenda. When that big government starts doing other things they want less government.

Personally I prefer smaller less intrusive government whenever possible -- in other words, real small government conservatism.

 

[agent00f]

Now flip that around and it's just as true. Big goverment libs didn't want big government to better society, they just want it to enforce their agenda. When that big government starts doing other things they want less government.

Personally I prefer smaller less intrusive government whenever possible -- in other words, real small government conservatism.

We both know you'll support whatever strongman trump tells you to. Denying the obvious only makes you dishonest in addition to a shill.

 

[JSt0rm]

Nothing a a10 warthog doing a couple runs over the union building can't solve.

 

[alien42]

He's a typical piece of garbage, loud and obnoxious New Yorker.

and this is what his voters think of him.

wow

 

[alien42]

less than a year ago - https://twitter.com/GovPenceIN/status/705098932557250564?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

"Appreciate the chance to meet w/ Chuck Jones & hardworking men of Local 1999 about our efforts to save Carrier jobs"

 

[ivwshane]

So when can we expect your post calling out trump on attacking individuals and the potential abuse of power you seem to care so much about? Because so far all we see from you is deflection and a rehash of debunked conspiracy theories.

That there was abuse is not a matter of debate, it's documented fact. How and why the abuse came about, how widespread it was and who is responsible are all things up for debate. I don't blame the president for that, he wasn't directly involved, but that doesn't matter -- the point is his supporters did those things to help their party. The bottom line is government power misused to punish, harass or otherwise discourage political opposition. That should be a very scary prospect for anyone.



In interesting turn of events, normally it's the union thugs and other lefties threatening people who disagree with them. Either way, threats of violence are wrong no matter who does it.



Oh, kind of like when obummer says Trayvon could be his son? The president (and in this case, he's not even the president yet, he's not even officially the president elect as the electoral college has not voted yet) should understand that their words have consequences beyond those of other 'regular' people in society, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of people they don't control.