HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » louis c » Journal
Page: 1 2 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

Trump "Saves" 1,000 Jobs at Carrier AC; Needs 1,499,000 More to Reach Obama Success

Donald Trump and Mike Pence will be touting what a great success it is that Trump "saved" 1,000 jobs at the Carrier Air Conditioner plant in Indiana. First off, 2,100 people lost their jobs, so what's up with the other 1,100? First indications are that huge tax breaks were given from the State of Indiana (thanks, Mike Pence) for this PR move.

A little reminder for my Trump loving friends. In 2009, one of the first acts by President Obama was saving the United States auto industry, and with it, 1,500,000 jobs. If everyone remembers correctly, the Republican Party and the Conservative talk show hosts vilified Barak for this "bail out". Actually, it was a loan, which has been paid back to the taxpayers, with interest.

I am happy for the 1,000 people who appear to be saving their jobs. But let's wait and see what the details are before we act as though Donald Trump is the next coming of Samuel Gompers.

<snip>Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.

The Bush and Obama administrations loaned the auto industry, including GM and Chrysler, which is now controlled by Italy's Fiat, $80 billion to avoid the collapse of the industry that they felt would result in the loss of millions of U.S. jobs.

Critics of the bailout at the time had argued the companies should be allowed to fail and the industry that resulted from the aftermath would be stronger. Treasury officials have repeatedly said the bailout was not an investment meant to turn a profit, but a move to save U.S. jobs.

The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, estimated in its study that the bailout saved a lot of jobs, even crediting for a rebound of the industry in 2010 after the initial fallout <snip>

Link to Auto Study article:

Deos Everyone Know the Difference Between "Not Accepting the Results" and a Recount?

A recount is part of the process. Every candidate has a right to request a recount of close results. In some states, they are automatic in cases when the election results are extremely close.

"Not accepting the results" is a different matter. That means you think the whole system is fixed.

Let me make a football analogy. There is a call on the field that a fumble was recovered by the defense. The offensive team believes that the call on the field was wrong. They go to the replay to overturn or confirm the call on the field. Asking for that review does not say that you think the game is fixed. It does not say that there was intentional wrong doing by the refs. It's part of the game. It's part of the process.

That's what a recount is. It's part of the process. It's every candidate's right. If, after the recount has settled the results, then everyone has to accept the outcome and respect the process.

Obnoxious Trump Asshole Supporter Disrupts Delta Flight, Allowed to Remain

In this video, which is about to go viral, a Trump Supporter insults everyone on the plane, uses foul language and makes all the passengers feel uncomfortable and scared.

I have been on flights in which passengers were tossed for far less.

I have already called my American Express Sky Miles Delta card and threatened to move my business ($75,000 a year) and not ever fly Delta again if Delta does not apologize to all of its passengers for the faulty action of the crew and bar this particular passenger from ever flying Delta again.

Link to video:

Just for the Record, Every Popular Vote, Electoral Vote Split has Fucked the Democrat

1824, Whig Party John Quincy Adams defeated Democrat Andrew Jackson.

1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel Tilden.

1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison defeated Democrat Grover Cleveland.

2000, Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore.

2016, Republican Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Why wouldn't every Democrat want to change that system?

Is There a Historical Comparision to This Election? Yes: The Association of German National Jews

As I read through the results of this election, I am astonished by some of the cross tabs.

More Muslims voted for Trump than for Mitt Romney. More Latinos voted for Trump than for Mitt Romney. Way more white union members voted for Trump than Mitt Romney. More Blacks voted for Trump than Mitt Romney. To be sure, there was not a majority of any of these groups for Donald Trump, but there was just enough to tip this election. What's up with that?

Here's what's up. In the 1930's there really, really was a group which was later described as "Jews for Hitler". It is not unusual for people to rationalize a position and not only vote against themselves, but take an active role in working to fuck themselves. Rational people will never understand that, and it's senseless to try.

<snip> Among the activities of this group was the fight against the Jewish boycott of German goods.[5] They also issued a manifesto that stated that the Jews were being fairly treated.

In 1934 the group made the following statement:[6]

"We have always held the well-being of the German people and the fatherland, to which we feel inextricably linked, above our own well-being. Thus we greeted the results of January, 1933, even though it has brought hardship for us personally."

A possible reason why some German Jews supported Hitler may have been that they thought that his antisemitism only was for the purpose of "stirring up the masses".[1]

The seemingly ironic fact that a Jewish association advocated loyalty to the Nazi programme gave rise to a contemporary joke about Naumann and his followers ending their meeting by giving the Nazi salute and shouting "Down With Us!".[7][8]

Despite their extreme patriotism, the German government did not accept their goal of assimilation. The Association of German National Jews was declared illegal and dissolved on 18 November 1935. Max Naumann, was arrested by the Gestapo the same day and imprisoned at the Columbia concentration camp. He was released after a few weeks, and died of cancer in May 1939. <snip>

Link to "Jews for Hitler":

The Polls Really Weren't That Far Off

The final polls had Hillary with about a 2 to 3 point lead in the national popular vote. the final result will probably be off less than a point from that number.

The 1% was just such strategically placed as to swing just enough electoral college votes as to hand Donald Trump the Presidency.

How can a Democracy hand three branches of government and give unanimous rule to a political party that lost all three legislative and executive branches. The cumulative vote total in the Senate demonstrates a Democratic win. The Presidency was a plurality of a million and a half votes. Yet, we are now shut out of government.

In 2012, the cumulative House vote favored Democrats, yet we lost by 35 seats


Majority rules? This type of systematic result will undoubtedly lead to a problem.


Unions May Be Among the First Casualties of the Republican Sweep

I spent the week Las Vegas with over 1,500 union leaders from all over the country as we assessed the outcome of the election. The meeting was set well in advance and we were there to discuss our strategy in a new administration. To our chagrin, what could have been a strategy for moving the working class into a stronger position in the work place, turned into a strategy for survival.

Most of the members we represent have no idea how important it is that Democrats stock the positions that deal with our issues. I am a Business Agent and Organizer. It really doesn't matter from the point of view of a union which Republican wins or which Democrat, the appointments to those boards, commissions and judgeships, do. What the rules are and how they are set by Congress does matter. Whether or not they can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law by the President does matter.

Let's take just a couple of rule changes that are already in the "hopper". Paul Ryan's "better way forward" or some other such bull shit slogan like that. Currently, if employees at a work site reach out to the union (or they respond to our overtures), they need to sign union cards for their intent to be represented by my union in order to move forward. 30% is the minimum that have to be signed. We usually don't enter an election without more than a majority of employees signing (50% to 60%). We submit the cards to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB consists of 5 members. 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and the fifth chosen by the President. of course, they are all chosen by the President. The President also chooses the General Council. The current General Council used to by the attorney for the Operating Engineers, so he is very union friendly. His term expires in November, 2018. The NLRB will then set an election date, usually within 28 days of the filing. If we win the election, the place is unionized and we are set to bargain a first contract. Currently, the rule is that a majority of the votes wins the election. The union loses ties. If there is a unit of 100 employees and 55 sign cards, and election is called. If the election ends up 42 yes and 29 no, the union wins. The Republicans have legislation that states that a majority of employees must vote yes, not a majority of voters. By way of example, if the same 100 employees voted the same way (42 to 29 yes), the union loses. We need 51 votes, regardless of the turnout. Employers could intimidate workers into just staying home. The secret ballot would be useless, because employees who opposed us would tell their fellow employees that the company would rather have them not vote at all, this way they are sure where you stand. Employees could tell the union friendly employees any excuse to stay home if they got cold feet.

Let's take the Friedrich's case for instance, which will surely be found against the public sector unions and make America a right to work country once Trump appoints the ninth vote on the Supreme Court. "Right to Work" makes dues voluntary, but union service to the employee mandatory. When you hear "right to work", remember that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is far from Democratic. The name is not descriptive. This law requires unions, as the only private entity in American history, to perform a service for free or face governmental fines and punishment. This law was designed to eradicate unions and has successfully done so, over time (see North Carolina).

These are just a couple of examples. The Davis Bacon act, which requires prevailing wages on federal projects, will probably be exempted in any construction bill that is passed by a Republican controlled Congress. Project Labor Agreements (PLA's) which sets construction standards for wages and benefits for the public good, will be eliminated when ever possible.

These major changes, which will depress wages and benefits for the middle class, would be put into affect whether the Republican President was Trump, Bush, Kasich, Romney, Pense, Cruz or anyone else for that side. None of these changes and, in fact, positive changes, would have be enacted if the Democratic President was Hillary, Bernie, Biden or anyone else.

We expect a tough 4 years. We need to stand and fight and hope that some of the most onerous laws and rule changes can be filibustered in the Senate.

What should have been 4 years of more forward movement for Organized Labor and the middle class is now trench warfae in a fight for survival.

Applying Common Sense to the Enthusiasm Gap

We keep hearing over and over again how the polls register an "enthusiasm gap" that favors Donald Trump. Let me first apply my theory and then see how it matches up against known facts.

My theory is that those voters who favor Hillary enthusiastically may be around 48%. Trump's may be around 57%, but the question is not asked correctly. I think that those voters for Trump who are voting that way because they dislike Clinton are answering the enthusiasm question differently than the other way around. There is a sizeable number of voters who are voting "enthusiastically AGAINST" Donald Trump, especially Latinos, who may not be enthusiastically for Hillary.

Now, let's put that theory to a test. Assuming all the polls are accurate, if Trump's "legion" of enthusiastic voters were actually that committed, shouldn't they be dwarfing the Clinton votes in early voting? If you are that "enthusiastic" for your candidate, then you can't wait to get to the polls, especially if you're a new voter (as Trump claims he has).

Instead, as early voting is coming to a close, vote smart estimates that Hillary Clinton has a 9% lead among this group, a figure gleaned from close to 40 million votes already cast. Talk about "likely" voters. Nothing is more likely, or more enthusiastic, than a vote already cast.

Nevada, for all intents and purposes, is already in the Clinton column, with 70% of the vote already in. Just 2 days ago, a poll had Trump up by 7 points. Votesmart (and others) have calculated that Hillary currently holds a 14 point lead among that 70%.

I think if you take the polls of each state and add 3 points for Clinton, that's the number you'll see on Tuesday night.

Link to Votesmart poll;

Latest Polls Actually Look Good for Hillary

When Comey's letter broke on Friday, October 28th, it appeared way worse than what it actually turned out to be. Now, it has settled in as at best a miscalculation and an appeasement to a radical faction of FBI agents stationed in New York, probably connected to Rudy Giuliani, who want to push false or misleading information to help Trump.

So, as we move away from Oct. 28th and weigh polls that are taken beginning on Nov. 1st and 2nd, they get better for Clinton each day. The ABC tracking poll bears this out. The poll went from a Trump one point lead to a Hillary 4 point lead in just four days. That's a 5 point swing in those four days. Fox News' poll falls closer to the Comey letter than ABC does, and has Clinton by 2 points, which mirrors ABC during that same time frame. The Battleground States, which appear close today, actually, in most cases, are polls that were in the field closer to Oct. 28th to Oct. 31st, therefore capturing the anti-Clinton narrative during that period. Generally speaking, State polls lag the national polls, especially if the national polls are daily tracking.

I have been following these polls as closely as anyone, living and dying with each change. What appears to me to be obvious is that with each revelation, real or concocted, about each candidate, the polls move to excess. They then move to the mean within days. From the very beginning, this is a Hillary win of about 6 points, in my opinion. That should translate to about 320 EV or so.

None of this really matters as much as the ground game and the GOTV efforts of every one of us. Whether you are part the organized effort, or you just make it easier for your family and friends to get out and vote for Hillary, by baby sitting or providing transportation to somebody without a car, the future of America is in our hands.

ABC News Poll: Clinton Lead contiues to Grow, Now 4 Points in Tracking Poll

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »