Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Coldfeer234, Jul 21, 2016.
reports say otherswise
teamsters will be endorsing Trump
If they knew what was best for them they would, but I doubt it. They are too entrenched in the democrat politics of hate to make such a rational decision as to endorse Trump.
That would be dumb
Not necessarily. You see the union benefits when the economy is healthy. When more people buy stuff that means more teamster jobs to make, ship, and service those consumer goods.
Democrats know they own the Teamsters leadership and will always get the endorsement regardless of whether the candidate is the best one for union members. All that matters is the candidate have (D) by their name.
The republican party is in NO WAY, on the side of the union worker. With its support of right to work, its intentions towards Unions is very clear. Of course, for our older participants on this board, this has to be explained as if they were two year olds.
If the republican party supported UNIONS and Union workers, they wouldnt be trying to pass right to work laws in every state.
If the republican party supported Union workers, like police and firemen, they wouldnt be trying in every RED state to REDUCE the amount of money recieved in pensions.
The republicans complain that pension percentages of police and firemen are TOO HIGH, and need to be reduce to somewhere around 55% of their salaries, claiming that retired police and firemen are bankrupting cities.
Only an old out of touch person, or a dense bandwagoner would think that for ONE second, the Teamsters would support the republican party for any reason.
Do you not realize how much one certain party wants to rid the country of all unions...
And the other party wants to give large chunks of hard workers money to deadbeats. Everyones a loser.
Fred S and the Teamsters endorsing the same candidate?
I don't think so.
TOS.... it's not such a far out idea. Teamsters backed Nixon in 72... also backed Reagan and the first Bush. And our good buddy Reagan fired all the striking air traffic controllers. I just cannot understand a union member thinking any republican will ever do anything to protect your job. They will only be looking out for Big Brown
Yet, traditionally, the economy has fared better under Democrats.
Look it up.
Yet after nearly eight years of a democrat in office we have 14 million people fewer in the workforce, income per household is down, and everyone has to pay unbelievably high health insurance costs because of Obamacare. The economy sure could be doing better if we didn't have our current democrat President in office.
The controllers deserved their walking papers.
fair trade deals also helps the teamsters.
IF you are in some kind of delusion, believing that in current times, its anything like when reagan was in office, then you need some better meds.
Reagan was the begining of the end for the american worker. The exidus of industry BEGAN with Reagan, continued with BUSH1 and was slam dunked by Bush2.
It was during the Reagan administration and the republicans in congress that wrote NAFTA, but couldnt get it passed the democratic congress, and it was George HW Bush who signed the nafta agreement with Canada and Mexico, and left it on the desk of Bill Clinton. With the republicans scheduled to take control of both houses when Bush was ousted, the NAFTA agreement was good to go. With only a small level of modification, Clinton signed the agreement into law with the republicans controlling both houses and having a majority to override a veto.
Today, we see the devastating effects of NAFTA, but what is odd, is how DRUMPF is calling for it to be torn up , but you DONT HEAR that from ANY republican senator or congressman.
That isnt the position of the republican party, and DRUMPF is out on a limb on NAFTA. The republcians, if they maintain control of the hill, will NEVER undue NAFTA.
Better get your understanding correct.
After 8 years??
Did you forget the ginormous recession that GW BUSH caused, sending over 11 million people onto the unemployment lines in his last year of office?? How do you assign the job losses to OBAMA???
Bush was losing over 750,000 jobs a month in his last year of office, companies were going broke, companies were laying off and did so for almost two years after BUSH left office because of the disastrous policies in BUSH's 8 years.
How many times do you have to be reminded how much damage BUSH did to this country, and how long it was going to take to UNDUE that damage?
Why do you midwest experts think that the day BUSH left office, everything was okay?
AS has been told to YOU many times on this board, it was going to take almost two decades to UNDUE the damage caused to our economy by the 8 years of the BUSH administration.
But in your wisdom, you want to assign blame to OBAMA.
How many months of solid job growth do you have to see, before you understand a basic fundamental difference between Republican leadership and Democratic leadership?
Maybe if Obama TRIPLED the size of government, like Reagan did, would you then believe he was doing his job.
Here is the biggest difference between OBAMA and Reagan.
Separate names with a comma.