2024 Presidential Race

[lawgator1]

lol no one is buying this “he’s soft on Russia!” attack

Find a new angle

Then he should have no problem answering that question.

 

[McDad]

Questions I hope Trump is asked and forced to answer directly:

1) what would you do if Russia attacks Poland?

If he is asked and forced to answer (how do you force someone to answer?) And he answers the way you want, are you then voting for him?

 

[lawgator1]

If he is asked and forced to answer (how do you force someone to answer?) And he answers the way you want, are you then voting for him?

I'd need to hear the answer and see his demeanor

 

[McDad]

I'd need to hear the answer and see his demeanor

Fair.

If he answers in a manner which you find correct will you believe him?

 

[lawgator1]

Fair.

If he answers in a manner which you find correct will you believe him?

To know that we'd have to see the question asked and answered wouldn't we ?

 

[Majors]

And you know they are actually female.

As defined by being a woman.

Trust science

 

[McDad]

To know that we'd have to see the question asked and answered wouldn't we ?

No sir. You can imagine him answering in a manner and with context which you find agreeable, correct?

So if he does, do you believe him?

Btw, I'm not setting you up for a gotcha. I have a couple more Qs after this one. Then a statement (if you'll play along)

 

[jmacvols1]

Are you against the middle class and blue collar workers making more money?

Are you in favor of executives of companies making 300 times as much as their average employees?

I worked at UPS while in college and never joined the union. And while I don't think a union is necessary any longer to fight poor/unsafe working conditions, it does seem they may serve a valid purpose to help protect wages... especially compared to executive compensation.

business is the backbone of a strong economy, not labor unions. Higher wages are gained by unions by use of threats not as a result of better productivity. And these higher wages become like a huge tax burden placed upon business. Higher labor costs are passed on to consumers who have to pay much more. New cars are ridiculous expensive because of unions. Car makers moved to TN to get away from unions in Detroit rust belt.

"Unions argue that they can raise their members' wages, but few Americans understand the economic theory explaining how they do this. Unions are labor cartels. Cartels work by restricting the supply of what they produce so that consumers will have to pay higher prices for it. OPEC, the best-known cartel, attempts to raise the price of oil by cutting oil production. As labor cartels, unions attempt to monopolize the labor supplied to a company or an industry in order to force employers to pay higher wages.[4] In this respect, they function like any other cartel and have the same effects on the economy. Cartels benefit their members in the short run and harm the overall economy.

Imagine that General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler jointly agreed to raise the price of the cars they sold by $2,000: Their profits would rise as every American who bought a car paid more. Some Americans would no longer be able to afford a car at the higher price, so the automakers would manufacture and sell fewer vehicles. Then they would need--and hire--fewer workers. The Detroit automakers' stock prices would rise, but the overall economy would suffer. That is why federal anti-trust laws prohibit cartels and the automakers cannot collude to raise prices.

Now consider how the United Auto Workers (UAW)--the union representing the autoworkers in Detroit--functions. Before the current downturn, the UAW routinely went on strike unless the Detroit automakers paid what they demanded-- until recently, $70 an hour in wages and benefits. Gold-plated UAW health benefits for retirees and active workers added $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle that GM produced in 2007.[5] Other benefits, such as full retirement after 30 years of employment and the recently eliminated JOBS bank (which paid workers for not working), added more.

Some of these costs come out of profits, and some get passed to consumers through higher prices. UAW members earn higher wages, but every American who buys a car pays more, stock owners' wealth falls, and some Americans can no longer afford to buy a new car. The automakers also hire fewer workers because they now make and sell fewer cars.

Unions raise the wages of their members both by forcing consumers to pay more for what they buy or do without and by costing some workers their jobs. They have the same harmful effect on the economy as other cartels, despite benefiting some workers instead of stock owners. That is why the federal anti-trust laws exempt labor unions; otherwise, anti-monopoly statutes would also prohibit union activity.

Unions' role as monopoly cartels explains their opposition to trade and competition. A cartel can charge higher prices only as long as it remains a monopoly. If consumers can buy elsewhere, a company must cut its prices or go out of business.

This has happened to the UAW. Non-union workers at Honda and Toyota plants now produce high-quality cars at lower prices than are possible in Detroit. As consumers have voted with their feet, the Detroit automakers have been brought to the brink of bankruptcy. The UAW has now agreed to significant concessions that will eliminate a sizeable portion of the gap between UAW and non-union wages. With competition, the union cartel breaks down, and unions cannot force consumers to pay higher prices or capture higher wages for their members."

Unions make companies less competitive, make it difficult to get rid of lazy, unproductive workers, make new investments and new technology more difficult for whereby impeding growth for busninesses....

"Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive."

"Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains. As a result, union contracts typically base pay and promotions on seniority or detailed union job classifications. Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability.[7]

Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies.[8] But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees."

What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy

What do unions do? The AFL-CIO argues that unions offer a pathway to higher wages and prosperity for the middle class. Critics point to the collapse of many highly unionized domestic industries and argue that unions harm the economy. To whom should policymakers listen? What unions do has been...

www.heritage.org

 

[lawgator1]

No sir. You can imagine him answering in a manner and with context which you find agreeable, correct?

So if he does, do you believe him?

Btw, I'm bot setting you up for a gotcha. I have a couple more Qs after this one. Then a statement (if you'll play along)

No, I'm not willing to imagine an answer.

It's not a theoretical, imaginary exercise.

 

[McDad]

No, I'm not willing to imagine an answer.

It's not a theoretical, imaginary exercise.

To be clear, you can but choose not to.

If Trump answered in a manner and context you found disagreeable, would you believe him?

 

[McDad]

No, I'm not willing to imagine an answer.

It's not a theoretical, imaginary exercise.

Just in case you get back to this later, I'll post my next Qs:
If you believe/disbelieve Trump when you find his answers and demeanor disagreeable/agreeable what does wanting the Q asked and answered gain you?

 

[McDad]

No, I'm not willing to imagine an answer.

It's not a theoretical, imaginary exercise.

Since it has been repeated many times that politicians lie but Trump lies more and more severely, how do you (we) accept any politician's answere with belief given the commonality of untruth?

Personally, there is no Q & A i could watch from Joe, Don, Kam, or JD which would activate my belief in their answers. And, this extends to all politicians.

As I approach my mid 50s, I have to admit I've been heard more partisan platitudes than I have serious substance.

 

[BreatheUT]

I was told the end of the Republican Party was after Bush had the housing crisis and Obama was elected. I was told it was the end of the Republican Party when Trump was the nominee in 2016. I was told it was the end of the Republican Party when the dems swept 2020.

I was told it was then end of the dem party when bush won in 2000. Again when Bush had his "mandate" in 2004. Again when Trump won in 2016. Again prior to 2022 midterms.

Only idiots keep thinking it's the end of the other party. We are a two party system unfortunately. Your only a **** hand being dealt, while in power, to have your party tossed out on its ass.

Speaking of idiots....

 

[Volbucky]

Questions I hope Trump is asked and forced to answer directly:

1) what would you do if Russia attacks Poland?

They should in return ask Biden to show us Russia on a map.

 

[LSU-SIU]

They should in return ask Biden to show us Russia on a map.

You have a better chance if the prize is an ice cream cone.

 

[McDad]

They should in return ask Biden to show us Russia on a map.

The country Zelensky is leading.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Since it has been repeated many times that politicians lie but Trump lies more and more severely, how do you (we) accept any politician's answere with belief given the commonality of untruth?

Personally, there is no Q & A i could watch from Joe, Don, Kam, or JD which would activate my belief in their answers. And, this extends to all politicians.

As I approach my mid 50s, I have to admit I've been heard more partisan platitudes than I have serious substance.

I’ll add this.

There is not anything Joe could say or do short of major shifts in his policy positions that could cause me to vote for him.

They could give Joe some innovative medicine that turns back the clock 40 years, mentally and physically. This medicine could contain a truth serum which would result in him ultimately being the ONLY politician out there telling us the truth.

The problem is, Joe and I are so far apart on my top 5 (and beyond) policy positions, I simply could not support his candidacy. Either I would have to change my views on these policies, or he would.

Btw. LG knows deep down he would NEVER support Trump. He just likes to throw the Putin stuff out there because he’s a ridiculous person.

 

[McDad]

I’ll add this.

There is not anything Joe could say or do short of major shifts in his policy positions that could cause me to vote for him.

They could give Joe some innovative medicine that turns back the clock 40 years, mentally and physically. This medicine could contain a truth serum which would result in him ultimately being the ONLY politician out there telling us the truth.

The problem is, Joe and I are so far apart on my top 5 (and beyond) policy positions, I simply could not support his candidacy. Either I would have to change my views on these policies, or he would.

Btw. LG knows deep down he would NEVER support Trump. He just likes to throw the Putin stuff out there because he’s a ridiculous person.

It is a catch 22 in a way. Tell the truth alienate people on policy. Pander and gain their support only to disappoint them later.

Myself, I would love to see policy I support from a person who has integrity. Which is why ive basically given up on national politics.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The country Zelensky is leading.

The only thing he seems to remember are his catch phrases.

Look. Let me be clear. This is the bottom line. Folks. Here's the Deal. Anyway.

As soon as you hear those, he lost the ability to formulate what he was going to say or even remember what the discussion or question was.

 

[McDad]

The only thing he seems to remember are his catch phrases.

Look. Let me be clear. This is the bottom line. Folks. Here's the Deal. Anyway.

As soon as you hear those, he lost the ability to formulate what he was going to say or even remember what the discussion or question was.

There's a name for those automatic default phrases we all use but I cannot remember it.

You're old enough to remember Biden before his presidency. I dont believe he was ever considered a "thinker".

 

[BreatheUT]

 

[Zues1]

Questions I hope Trump is asked and forced to answer directly:

1) what would you do if Russia attacks Poland?

Biden show be asked and " forced" to answer directly:
Do you still worry about your family living in a racial jungle?
Are you still getting coffee from the guy with a topi running the 7/11?

 

[VOLS INC.]

It is a catch 22 in a way. Tell the truth alienate people on policy. Pander and gain their support only to disappoint them later.

Myself, I would love to see policy I support from a person who has integrity. Which is why basically given up on national politics.

Unfortunately, these are few and far between. Still some out there for sure. They just tend to stay away from DC.

 

[McDad]

Unfortunately, these are few and far between. Still some out there for sure. They just tend to stay away from DC.

Hats off and respect to good, decent people who go into politics. I don't like inauthenticity and I don't like bureaucracy. It would crush my spirit.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Hats off and respect to good, decent people who go into politics. I don't like inauthenticity and I don't like bureaucracy. It would crush my spirit.

Amen.

I told my wife that last night. JD and I are the same age. I made the comment “This guy is gonna be the VP at 39. I’m 39. What am I doing with my life!!!”

I was being sarcastic obviously. But we did discuss how there is absolutely zero possibility she would ever want me going into politics. I have no desire either. Just kinda funny that she was so passionate about her husband staying away from that life.