Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Post-Election Mischief

I was talking about major party candidates. Being an old Georgia boy, it's hard to over look Wallace. Wallace did receive 13.5% of the total vote, but he was basically a regional candidate. Perot received 18.9% in 1992. Wallace did get 46 electoral votes, all in the south, Perot, none.

Now my disdain for both both major party candidates in 2016 caused me to vote third party, against both. I actually never heard of Trump until he announced for the presidency in 2015. I'm no fan of reality TV. I watch my baseball games, the History, Science, Discovery and a few other channels now and then.

It didn't take me long to dislike Trump, Trump basically accusing McCain of being a bad military man because he got caught, that was the end for him as far as my vote went. I've been a military man all my adult life. 21 years active duty, 26 years working for the army as a department of the army civilian.

So I tend to look at a lot of things different than civilians. Now I was uncomfortable with McGovern because of his politics, not the man. I respected George McGovern, he was a WWII bomber pilot. I just couldn't accept running up the white flag. Little did I know then that Nixon would basically do the same thing in the form of the Paris Peace Accords. With Trump, it was the man himself I was uncomfortable with. No respect for him.

Tat, Pero is a single issue voter...his entire ideology is based on his perceived treatment of the military by politicians. He imagines that Madam Clinton was rude to the boys in uniform as Bill Clinton's first lady, thus disqualifying herself for the office of President.

I spent a lifetime in residential construction, I base my opinions about politicos entirely on how they treat workers, are they pro union? Education? Healthcare? Living wages? Safe workplaces?

Or are they just hoping to make your boss richer?

Ol' Joe has hired a pro-Union guy for SecLabor. Shhhh...don't tell Chunky - let this progressiveness be a surprise!

Most union guys are Republican's these days. Unions are just another level of corruption. Unions poured money into Trump's campaign.

Chunks might be a labor unionist but I'm not. Living wages need to be legislated, not "bargained for" with billionaires. There should be, in this day and age, no need for unions. Their time has passed.

Hillary was a Hawk!


Robert Gates thought she was an upfront serious hawk, but what did he know about military culture anyway? I was worried at the time, like many, that she was too hawkish for our taste.
Retrospectively it seems she was about right, and was very tight with the military when she was Secretary of State. (see attached long Article). It's curious that this was not more widely appreciated in military culture.

In fact, many attribute Putin's preference for Rump, was that he knew Hillary would be tough on Russia and give him a hard time. He was also correct in predicting that he could freely manipulate Rump, which actually sounds a bit kinky!

Clinton knew how to be tough without resorting to violence.

Was she a hawk? I don't think so. Was she afraid to use the military as it was intended...? Not a bit.

The problem with those "bargains" these days is that they just represent more division between the "Haves" and the "Don't Haves". A few people make out and the others pay more for whatever the Unionists produce.

But that's only the compensation angle... there are still workplace issues that unions can help to solve.

For the few, mostly Republican, union members, yes. For the rest...? No solutions.

Legislation and regulation can solve workplace issues for everyone.

Greger may have worked in construction for a long time, but he ended up running a construction business in Florida: Thus little enthusiasm for trade unions. But I do agree with him. Unions benefitted workers by increasing their incomes and security. But there are multiple strata of people below that level in our society. Unions did nothing for them, and made upward mobility more difficult.

Sure, a poor young man could go to trade school and then apprentice into a union. But he had to survive during that training program, and then wait in line behind all the legacies. Being a son of a union member was a great "in".

The $15 minimum wage could actually help those people a lot more.

I think the $15 minimum wage would be a good thing but I don't think its gonna make it. I do think there will be an increase though. I have had problems with business and unions for a very long time. One of the problem with unions is the same problem that politics has - both tend to go too damned far. I remember, for instance, when the auto workers pulled their members out because General Motors refused to pay for magazine subscriptions for the bathrooms. They lost a lot of memberships when union management just went too far. I de-certified two unions at a time when it was almost impossible but it was also a time when union members figured out that their dues were just waaaay too much.

I am not sure that just about everybody, at one time or another, tend to go waaay to far. That is true of individuals as well as groups and businesses. The simple fact, I think, is that going too far is something that everybody should watch out for because, in the end, it tends to really put those involved into the exit line. Gods need worshippers and unions need happy members. When they lose those they also lose (some to extinction).