HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » louis c » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

louis c

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Boston
Member since: Fri May 14, 2004, 05:52 PM
Number of posts: 8,652

About Me


Journal Archives

Am I the Only One to Get it About Trump's Endorsements?

How is it that Trump endorsing GOP candidates for election or re-election is such a big deal? Isn't he supposed to do that? Isn't every major party candidate supposed to do that? How's this reading off a card in a mechanical way such a big deal? It looks like a "hostage statement" to me.

How is it a sign of unity that Trump goes to Pennsylvania and Toomey is mowing his lawn that day and can't appear with his party's nominee? How is it a sign of unity when Trump goes to Ohio and Kasich and Portman are both too busy grocery shopping to appear on stage with Trump? How is it unity when Trump goes to New Hampshire on the same exact day that Kelly Ayotte washes her hair? How is it unity when Trump goes to a well publicized event in Wisconsin and Governor Walker, Speaker Ryan and Senator Johnson just happen to have that date fall on their poker night?

This false bullshit story of party unity rings hollow when no Republican of any stature will be caught dead on the same stage as Benito Trump when he appears in their all important swing states. That includes people who aren't even up for re-election.

Stop with this nonsense, please. Pease stop talking to me like I'm a dope (message for the press).

Republican office holders eye the Trump exit ramp.............NY Times

As the election looks farther and farther out of reach for the Republican nominee for President, it is becoming apparent for the Republican office holders and Republican super pacs, that it's every man and woman for themselves.

<snip>After a disastrous week of feuds and plummeting poll numbers, Republican leaders have concluded that Donald J. Trump is a threat to the party’s fortunes and have begun discussing how soon their endangered candidates should explicitly distance themselves from the presidential nominee.

For Republicans in close races, top strategists say, the issue is no longer in doubt. One House Republican has already started airing an ad vowing to stand up to Mr. Trump if he is elected president, and others are expected to press similar themes in the weeks ahead.

In the world of Republican “super PACs,” strategists are going even farther: discussing advertisements that would treat Mr. Trump’s defeat as a given and urge voters to send Republicans to Congress as a check on a Hillary Clinton White House. The discussions were described by officials familiar with the deliberations, several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity about confidential planning.<snip>

Link to full story NYT:

Wages are Lower in Right to Work States

Let me explain "Right to Work". Don't be fooled by the name. It has no connection to the law. Think of the Democratic Republic of North Korea. Guess what? North Korea really isn't a Democracy, despite the name.

What "Right to Work" laws do is allow employees in a unionized group to opt out the union and opt out of paying dues. But, they still receive all the benefits, including the higher wages, the better benefits, seniority and union protection. The union, by force of federal law, must provide all the services afforded the dues paying union members to those who opt out. The only thing the "objector" can't do is vote in elections, attend meetings or ratify contracts. They still have the full force of grievance and arbitration (a very cosly process) for free. Any union officer is subject to fines and charges by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) if they fail to provide those services "to the best of his or her ability." It should be noted that in the modern era, only states that gained full control of all three branches of the government (house, senate and Governor) has this law passed. It can only be rescinded if pro-union Democrats gain control of all three branches.

In non-"RTW" states, employees can opt out, but must pay what's known as an agency fee. Usually an amount that ranges between 85% and 92% of their dues. This culls away any political cost associated with the union, and the payment is for what the NLRB decides is work-place services, including bargaining.

In RTW states, as you can imagine, workers decide they can get something for nothing. After they see dues money going to protect employees who are screw-ups, hate the union and don't pay dues, pretty soon nobody does. It was a great Right Wing ploy to use human nature to get individuals to screw themselves. Union membership is such states has plummeted.

To make the point of how sinister this law is, Labor Unions are the only organization to be forced, under the penalty of federal law, to provide a service for free. No place else. Not even hospitals that have to take emergency patients without insurance. Even they get to draw from a pool created for such cases by insurance companies or are paid by the government. Only unions are forced to proved services for free without reimbursement.

What has been the result? RTW states have fewer good jobs and the wages in the RTW states are dramatically lower. So, when our Repuke friends say that the economy looks good, but wages are stagnant, point them to this linked article.

As anecdotal evidence., I am a Business Agent negotiating and servicing 35 small to medium sized union contracts in Boston and their suburbs. For the 3 years that I've handled this new job, everyone has received a raise of between 2 and a half and 3 and half % per year, including higher benefits.

The reason wages have not kept up with the recovery, is that more than half the country (26 states) are RTW. Unions built the middle class in this country, so, as unions go, so goes the middle class.

Right to Work

<snip>Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through "right to work" laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. In fact, workers in states with these laws earn an average of $5,971 less a year than workers in other states. Because of the higher wages, working families in states without these laws also benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life. <snip>

States with Right to Work Laws Have:

Lower Wages and Incomes
The average worker in states with right to work laws makes $5,971 (12.2 percent) less annually than workers in states without right to when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.2
Median household income in states with these laws is $6,568 (11.8 percent) less than in other states ($49,220 vs. $55,788).3
In states with right to work laws, 25.9 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 18.0 percent of jobs in other states.<snip>


The Trump Candidacy. Now it's Personal.

Donald Trump came to my home region of New England Thursday to cast aspersions on my wife. He spoke in Portland Maine (I'm from Massachusetts). He not only condemned undocumented immigrants, but those who have come here legally. He singled out a number of countries that current legal immigrants came from for extra scrutiny including my wife's country of origin, the Philippines.

My 61 year old wife is from the Philippines and we've been married over 13 years (I'm 63). My wife is one of the most wonderful and smartest people I know. She is working as a Certified Nursing Assistant (and a member of SEIU).

My wife was protesting in the streets of the Philippines against their dictator, Ferdinand Marcos decades ago. She worked for and voted for Corazon Aquino and was proud to cast her vote for the first female President of the Philippines. My wife, Corazon is now a full citizen of the United States and will be voting in her first presidential election here. She will be among the very few Americans who cast her vote for the first woman President of the Philippines and her vote for the first woman President of the United States.

<snip>At a rally in Portland, Maine, on Thursday afternoon, Trump provided a lengthy explanation of why he thinks the United States needs to be skeptical of immigrants from many countries, even if they follow the legal process. Reading from notes, Trump listed nearly a dozen examples of immigrants, refugees or students who came to the United States legally -- often applying for and receiving citizenship -- and then plotted to kill Americans, sometimes successfully doing so. The countries that he referenced in these examples: Somalia, Morocco, Uzbekistan (he asked the crowd where it was located), Syria, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen (which he pronounced "yay-men". Trump's staff has yet to confirm if there are countries from which the nominee wants to limit immigration.<snip>

Me and my wife:

Link to WP story:

GOP to Trump "Please Donald, Can You Just Make Beleive You're not You for 3 Months"

This bullshit that I hear over and over from the Republican elected officials and conservative talking heads that want Trump to pretend to be civil, to act differently than he has for 70 years. "Fool Us, please. We'll make believe we trust you and tell everyone how well you're acting. We'll tell people that they don't have to be afraid of you. Just, please, pretend to be a good boy".

Are these assholes for real? We know the real Donald Trump and now, if he can pretend for 3 months, we're supposed to buy into that shit?

Are you kidding me? You're trying to do this phony transformation in full public view? Do you think we are stupid fucking assholes? Talk about taking the American people for dopes. Who came up with this plan? And, who would fall for it?

Hey, All You Trump Assholes, Reagan Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran

<snip>Still, as the masterful Office of Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters report, led by Lawrence Walsh, makes clear, Reagan hoped to secure the release of U.S. hostages being held in Lebanon in exchange for U.S. weapons.

The scandal stained the president’s reputation, after he went before the American people and proclaimed, “We did not—repeat—did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.” But four months later, he admitted that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs.”

The final outcome of the arms-for-hostages disaster was two U.S. citizens released (the Reverend Benjamin Weir and the Reverend Lawrence Jenco) and two new hostages taken (Frank Reed and Joseph Cicippio).

In exchange for no net gain in released U.S. citizens, Reagan authorized the delivery to Iran—from U.S.-supplied Israeli stockpiles—the following advanced weapons:

August 20, 1985: 96 TOW missiles

September 14, 1985: 408 TOW missiles

November 24, 1985: 18 HAWK missiles

February 18, 1986: 500 TOW missiles

February 27, 1986: 500 TOW missiles

May 25, 1986: HAWK spare parts

August 3, 1986: HAWK spare parts

October 28, 1986: 500 TOW missiles<snip>


This is how brilliant and simple this election has gotten

The Republican convention was dark and foreboding. Trump gave a disjointed speech. Their argument against Hillary was hatred and fear.

The Democrats presented an optimistic and uplifting convention and Hillary gave a speech which highlighted her knowledge and competence. The argument against Trump was that he was "bat shit crazy".

Following the Democratic convention, Donald Trump fed the narrative every single day that he's fucking nuts, and every voter knows it.

The election, from this point on, will be fought on the serious political ground of Donald's sanity. Nice terrain.

Crazy Donald

Donald Trump likes using insulting nicknames. How's "Crazy Donald" hit ya.

Anecdotally, all the soft Trump voters I know are no longer defending him. Some are switching. But I think "anecdotal" evidence only works in support of the empirical kind.

Look at this link to the latest McClatchy Marist poll, which has Hillary up 15 points. Look at the statements of those who are polled. Almost all of them refer to Trump as "scary" or "crazy" or "unstable".

That's the ticket to a blowout here. Crazy Donald.


Union Challenge

Let me give you some insight to what I say when I speak to union workers who are leaning or supporting Trump.

"Don't be fooled by his con game. What he says now is not what he's said or done over the last 25 years. I challenge anyone here to produce a authenticated, single public statement from Donald Trump against any trade deal prior to his announcement for President in June of 2015. If you can produce that proof, I will give you a check for $1,000. I'm confident you will not find that proof. In fact, all you'll find is Trump's exploitation of those trade deals by making things overseas. Ties in China, picture frames in India and suits in Mexico, those are just some of the products he's made outside this country. Come on, you folks get it. You're not that gullible. Anyone can tell you now that they're opposed to trade deals or he was against the war. Where was he when it counted? Let me put it this way, if I could find a bookie that would let me bet the Sunday football games on the following Monday, you wouldn't believe what a genius I'd look like. No bookie would let me get away with that and you shouldn't let this con man take advantage of you."

I shouldn't give Trump political advice on this site, but here goes


The only chance of you winning this election is to repeal the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments to the constitution. If you do that, your candidacy will be in play. You need to start that effort immediately, as it is complicated, difficult, expensive and time consuming.

A DUer with your best interests at heart.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »