Trump's Tower Of Lies

[sealybobo]

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

 

[sealybobo]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

Show us one photo op of Trump down there helping out.

 

[sealybobo]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

Trump Revives Dodgy Claim He And His ‘Men’ Helped At Ground Zero On 9/11
The president once again told his dubious story that he and a team of employees helped at Ground Zero — an assertion nobody has been able to prove.

During a speech at the Pentagon on the 18th anniversary of the attacks, Trump again contended that he and a team of men went to the scene soon after witnessing the second plane crash into a World Trade Center tower.

The president has a long history of telling various unsupported and questionable accounts of his actions, whereabouts and responses on the day of the attacks ― many of which have been discredited by people who were on the ground.

A retired New York deputy fire chief, Richard Alles, who spent months working at the Ground Zero site, told the New York Times in July that as far as he was aware, Trump did not have a presence there in the aftermath of the attacks.

“I never witnessed him ... He was a private citizen at the time. I don’t know what kind of role he could have possibly played,” Alles said.

In an interview with a German TV station two days after the attack, Trump said he had more than 100 men on the ground.

“I have a lot of men down here right now,” he said. “We have over 100 and we have 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here.”

Alles said there would certainly be a record if Trump had sent a crew of that size.


Fact-checking website Snopes last year reviewed Trump’s claim the he had paid people to assist with the recovery, and was unable to prove it. The site added to its report on Wednesday:

President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019.

Trump’s statements were vague, so they didn’t provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he “paid for” their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015.

Snopes said it was unaware if anyone raised questions about Trump’s statements when he first made them in the aftermath of the attacks, but they have been called into question throughout his presidency as his record of falsehoods and misleading claims on an array of subjects mounts.

 

[edward37]

The AH said that it was fake news when he said he'd meet with Iran with NO pre conditions And then it was shown on TV he said it not once BUT twice. The man is a fn disaster a liar a mentally deficient turd brain.

 

[sealybobo]

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

Well that's easy for you to say. You make 6 figures in your retirement. Wasn't that true when Obama was president? So for you, America has always been great. So why didn't you love Obama? Maybe because he didn't give you that big fat tax break Trump gave you?

Fact is, you were doing great before Trump. So your opinion means shit.

And you didn't answer me. How do you make so much in retirement? Do you get a big fat pension? I find it interesting baby boomer conservatives say we can't afford pension, but meanwhile they all receive pensions. How did you amass such a fortune? And how does your story relate to people living on $15 hr?

I bet you worked for a unionized company too.

I don't know your story so you'll have to tell us all about yourself. I can't diagnose your hypocrisy or bullshit without knowing how you make 6 figures in your retirement.

Don't everybody look now but another loonie left moron has been triggered. LOL

The Working Families Party, a leading progressive organization with roots in organized labor, announced Monday that it is endorsing the presidential bid of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

“Senator Warren strikes fear into the hearts of the robber barons who rigged the system, and offers hope to millions of working people who have been shut out of our democracy and economy,”

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

Trump Revives Dodgy Claim He And His ‘Men’ Helped At Ground Zero On 9/11
The president once again told his dubious story that he and a team of employees helped at Ground Zero — an assertion nobody has been able to prove.

During a speech at the Pentagon on the 18th anniversary of the attacks, Trump again contended that he and a team of men went to the scene soon after witnessing the second plane crash into a World Trade Center tower.

The president has a long history of telling various unsupported and questionable accounts of his actions, whereabouts and responses on the day of the attacks ― many of which have been discredited by people who were on the ground.

A retired New York deputy fire chief, Richard Alles, who spent months working at the Ground Zero site, told the New York Times in July that as far as he was aware, Trump did not have a presence there in the aftermath of the attacks.

“I never witnessed him ... He was a private citizen at the time. I don’t know what kind of role he could have possibly played,” Alles said.

In an interview with a German TV station two days after the attack, Trump said he had more than 100 men on the ground.

“I have a lot of men down here right now,” he said. “We have over 100 and we have 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here.”

Alles said there would certainly be a record if Trump had sent a crew of that size.


Fact-checking website Snopes last year reviewed Trump’s claim the he had paid people to assist with the recovery, and was unable to prove it. The site added to its report on Wednesday:

President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019.

Trump’s statements were vague, so they didn’t provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he “paid for” their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015.

Snopes said it was unaware if anyone raised questions about Trump’s statements when he first made them in the aftermath of the attacks, but they have been called into question throughout his presidency as his record of falsehoods and misleading claims on an array of subjects mounts.

Democrats have a long history of lying about Trump. They create an ambiguity then fashion the lie out of that. Just the way you did here.

 

[sealybobo]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

Trump Revives Dodgy Claim He And His ‘Men’ Helped At Ground Zero On 9/11
The president once again told his dubious story that he and a team of employees helped at Ground Zero — an assertion nobody has been able to prove.

During a speech at the Pentagon on the 18th anniversary of the attacks, Trump again contended that he and a team of men went to the scene soon after witnessing the second plane crash into a World Trade Center tower.

The president has a long history of telling various unsupported and questionable accounts of his actions, whereabouts and responses on the day of the attacks ― many of which have been discredited by people who were on the ground.

A retired New York deputy fire chief, Richard Alles, who spent months working at the Ground Zero site, told the New York Times in July that as far as he was aware, Trump did not have a presence there in the aftermath of the attacks.

“I never witnessed him ... He was a private citizen at the time. I don’t know what kind of role he could have possibly played,” Alles said.

In an interview with a German TV station two days after the attack, Trump said he had more than 100 men on the ground.

“I have a lot of men down here right now,” he said. “We have over 100 and we have 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here.”

Alles said there would certainly be a record if Trump had sent a crew of that size.


Fact-checking website Snopes last year reviewed Trump’s claim the he had paid people to assist with the recovery, and was unable to prove it. The site added to its report on Wednesday:

President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019.

Trump’s statements were vague, so they didn’t provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he “paid for” their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015.

Snopes said it was unaware if anyone raised questions about Trump’s statements when he first made them in the aftermath of the attacks, but they have been called into question throughout his presidency as his record of falsehoods and misleading claims on an array of subjects mounts.

Democrats have a long history of lying about Trump. They create an ambiguity then fashion the lie out of that. Just the way you did here.

We didn't lie about Trump. Trump lied. Prove he was on the ground with hundreds of helpers after 9-11. No proof exists. It's a lie.

We "create an ambiguity"? What does that even mean.

uring the first 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the Huffington Post kept a tally of the lies that each candidate told in their responses to Lester Holt's questions. The final HuffPo tally? Donald Trump: 16; Hillary Clinton: 0.

Although the media have made much of Clinton's "trust problem," data even beyond this debate tally suggest that Trump has a solid pattern of lying pretty much all the time, about any situation, especially those that might cast him in what he perceives as a negative light.

When we encounter someone who tells a blatant lie--and insists on it even in the face of clear evidence that it is a lie--many of us likely wonder what makes a person like that tick. Why does one person care so little about falsehood, behave so shamelessly about insisting on their truth when others of us think it's a pretty big deal?

Digging around turns up more than a few explainers on the subject. I'll leave it to the reader to discern whether or not the descriptions fit the Trump modus operandi.

Everyday Health offers this MD-vetted explanation about pathological and compulsive lying, beginning with the observation that no one quite knows what drives the people who do it:

Experts don’t know for sure what drives the troublesome lying. They know impulsivity and a need to impress could be linked to the habit.

Psychology Today explains that pathological lying isn't an official diagnosis. Instead:

Intentional dissimulation...is associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. When it comes to compulsive liars, says Charles Ford, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama Birmingham, "words seem to flow out of their mouths without them thinking about it." Ford, the author of Lies! Lies!! Lies!!! The Psychology of Deceit, says that pathological liars may slide easily from the notion that something could have happened to the conviction that it did. When pressed, many will admit what they are saying isn't true.

According to Vox, Donald Trump has "buried America in lies." Vox writer Dara Lind notes that this avalanche of falsehoods contains many unique inventions:

Even more alarming, while Trump often repeats some of his lies from one day to the next, most of the lies Dale recorded were just told once. Over the nine days Dale’s recorded so far, Donald Trump has told a total of 64 unique lies.

That analysis concludes that we can't really understand why Trump lies like he does:

If you try to dive into the reasons Trump lies, you’ve already lost. It grants his lies the dignity of a strategy. The truth is that, by all appearances, Trump seems to lie whenever it suits him.

And LiveScience's take on pathological lying is consonant with this conclusion:

"Pathological liars have a pattern of frequent, repeated and excessive lies or lying behavior for which there is no apparent benefit or gain for the liar," said Charles Dike, clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale University and medical director of the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital.

But Psychology Today offers a general explanation that might be more satisfying or at least make some sense in this election cycle:

To understand the mind of a fake, [psychologist Robert] Reich [PhD] suggests considering what lying does for the liar. Deceit as a means to an end--like lying to get a job--is easy to comprehend. Much harder to spot, he says, is lying "for primary gains": deceptions that create a different sense of self without any immediate benefit. "It has to do with self-esteem," Reich says. "You want to be like someone else because you aren't very happy with yourself."

Every time Hillary Clinton poked at Donald Trump's self esteem in this debate, he took the bait. But he also seem to want to get a job--as president of the United States.

As I've already noted and this first debate makes clear, only one of the two candidates for presidency in the 2016 election is unfit for the presidency. That candidate is the one who has repeatedly--and very clearly in the first debate shown--that he cannot govern his own temperament or tendency to lie, which calls into serious question his ability to govern this nation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Some people don't care about the truth. We call them Trump supporters or false conservatives aka CONS. Politicians lie and that is a given. Politicians make false statements that may or may not be lies but when Trump makes false statements and his false statements are lies. Att CONS: a lie is when you say something that you know is untrue. Is there anything about that you don't understand CONS/Trump Supporters/Fools?

Trump has set records for lying. He's even beaten Romney and Lyin Paul Ryan at the game. 76% of what Trump says are lies. The worst thing about Trump's constant is that his supporters know he's a liar and they support him anyway. And while Trump supporters are stupid, it is not because they are stupid that they believe his lies. The simple fact remains; Trump supporters are just no damn good and most of them are even worse than Trump.

Trump's lies are so often and so many that there is now a growing repository for his lies. Visit Trump Tower Of Lies and post it here and everywhere. Maybe there are some Trump supporter who are only stupid and do care about the truth.

Here is a question tRump supporters lack the honesty to answer. It is a fact that Trump lies at least 76% of the time making him the biggest liar to ever run for POTUS.

Why do you CONS support Trump? I will ask again.. Why do you CONS support the biggest liar?

/——/ What lies? Post them with proof.

 

[sealybobo]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

Trump Revives Dodgy Claim He And His ‘Men’ Helped At Ground Zero On 9/11
The president once again told his dubious story that he and a team of employees helped at Ground Zero — an assertion nobody has been able to prove.

During a speech at the Pentagon on the 18th anniversary of the attacks, Trump again contended that he and a team of men went to the scene soon after witnessing the second plane crash into a World Trade Center tower.

The president has a long history of telling various unsupported and questionable accounts of his actions, whereabouts and responses on the day of the attacks ― many of which have been discredited by people who were on the ground.

A retired New York deputy fire chief, Richard Alles, who spent months working at the Ground Zero site, told the New York Times in July that as far as he was aware, Trump did not have a presence there in the aftermath of the attacks.

“I never witnessed him ... He was a private citizen at the time. I don’t know what kind of role he could have possibly played,” Alles said.

In an interview with a German TV station two days after the attack, Trump said he had more than 100 men on the ground.

“I have a lot of men down here right now,” he said. “We have over 100 and we have 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here.”

Alles said there would certainly be a record if Trump had sent a crew of that size.


Fact-checking website Snopes last year reviewed Trump’s claim the he had paid people to assist with the recovery, and was unable to prove it. The site added to its report on Wednesday:

President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019.

Trump’s statements were vague, so they didn’t provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he “paid for” their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015.

Snopes said it was unaware if anyone raised questions about Trump’s statements when he first made them in the aftermath of the attacks, but they have been called into question throughout his presidency as his record of falsehoods and misleading claims on an array of subjects mounts.

Democrats have a long history of lying about Trump. They create an ambiguity then fashion the lie out of that. Just the way you did here.

President Donald Trump hinted at Iran’s involvement in a series of tweets, but he mostly used the burgeoning crisis as another opportunity to attack the media for accurately reporting his past offer to meet with Iran’s leaders without preconditions. That isn’t the only time Trump has contradicted himself on Iran; here are three recent examples, beginning with his preconditions flip-flop:

Trump lies about promise to meet Iran’s leaders without preconditions

In June, days after Trump nearly ordered a strike on Iran for downing an unmanned Navy drone, he sat down with NBC’s Chuck Todd for an an interviewin which Todd asked if Iran would have to meet some preconditions before Trump would agree to talks.

“Not as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said. “No preconditions.”

Trump might pay Iran to remain in nuclear deal he once called “horrible”

Trump keeps contradicting himself on Iran.

 

[sealybobo]

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

The Real Reason General Motors Workers Are On Strike Nationwide
It’s not that complicated. GM has been highly profitable, and workers haven’t forgotten the sacrifices they made to prop up the company.

If GM workers weren't in unions, they'd have no say. And after 40 years of no raises being given, you cons would still be suggesting that the workers are paid what they are worth. Well, to the corporations, you are correct. There is never a good reason to raise wages other than you MUST. Without unions, it shouldn't be a surprise that American workers today are not even doing as well as they were in 1970. That's just about when corporations and Republicans started breaking unions and sending all those union jobs overseas. We can all remember in the 2000's on USMB the Republicans here were non stop bashing unions as George Bush sent all those good paying jobs overseas.

No one knows how long the largest auto strike in more than a decade will last. But workers like Kelly have dug in and don’t plan to bend. They look at how well GM has done in recent years ― the company pulled in roughly $11 billion in pre-tax profits in 2018, and about $35 billion over the last three years combined ― and wonder why they shouldn’t have a larger piece of the pie.

They also want to limit GM’s use of temporary workers. The company says about 7% of its U.S. workforce is temps, though the share can vary significantly from department to department and shift to shift. Some workers temp for two years or more before transitioning to full-time and gaining job security. GM may be pointing to foreign-owned transplants like Nissan, where temporary workers are more widespread, and asking for similar leeway.

“They have temps who come in and are next to people making twice what they make… A lot of them were scared to even walk out,” Baryo said. “We had to explain to them, ‘No, if you walk out with us, [the union is] going to fight for you.’”

Crain’s Detroit Business reported Monday that GM wants workers to bear a significantly larger share of the health care burden. The workers generally have excellent health coverage and are responsible for around 3% or 4% of the cost. According to Crain’s, GM’s initial offer would have hiked that share to 15%, a proposal the union rejected.

 

[sealybobo]

Some people don't care about the truth. We call them Trump supporters or false conservatives aka CONS. Politicians lie and that is a given. Politicians make false statements that may or may not be lies but when Trump makes false statements and his false statements are lies. Att CONS: a lie is when you say something that you know is untrue. Is there anything about that you don't understand CONS/Trump Supporters/Fools?

Trump has set records for lying. He's even beaten Romney and Lyin Paul Ryan at the game. 76% of what Trump says are lies. The worst thing about Trump's constant is that his supporters know he's a liar and they support him anyway. And while Trump supporters are stupid, it is not because they are stupid that they believe his lies. The simple fact remains; Trump supporters are just no damn good and most of them are even worse than Trump.

Trump's lies are so often and so many that there is now a growing repository for his lies. Visit Trump Tower Of Lies and post it here and everywhere. Maybe there are some Trump supporter who are only stupid and do care about the truth.

Here is a question tRump supporters lack the honesty to answer. It is a fact that Trump lies at least 76% of the time making him the biggest liar to ever run for POTUS.

Why do you CONS support Trump? I will ask again.. Why do you CONS support the biggest liar?

/——/ What lies? Post them with proof.
View attachment 279598

Republicans would never nominate or vote for a black person. Ben Carson had as much chance as Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul did of being nominated.

You want to lose red states? Nominate a black person.

And notice you didn't suggest nominating the black person? You would nominate Trump and then Trump would pick her as a token. Even still Republicans wouldn't vote for this ticket because a black person is on it.

And forget about them being both women. You think Republicans would vote for a woman? Ha! That would be a first.

 

[sealybobo]

So .. what you're saying is
Trump lies 76% of the time
Clinton lies 29% of the time

Who in their right mind would vote for EITHER of these bald faced liars?

Both Crime Family-D and Crime Family-R partisan lemmings are fucking insane.

"Why choose the lesser evil anyway, when the greater evil is usually higher quality and will last longer before it breaks?" -- Scott Perkins

What politician do you like?

Pence?

Mitch?

Rubio?

Ted Cruz?

Hillary is more honest than all of them.

 

[NightFox]

So .. what you're saying is
Trump lies 76% of the time
Clinton lies 29% of the time

Who in their right mind would vote for EITHER of these bald faced liars?

Both Crime Family-D and Crime Family-R partisan lemmings are fucking insane.

"Why choose the lesser evil anyway, when the greater evil is usually higher quality and will last longer before it breaks?" -- Scott Perkins

What politician do you like?

Pence?
View attachment 279712

Mitch?
View attachment 279713
Rubio?
View attachment 279714
Ted Cruz?
View attachment 279715

Hillary is more honest than all of them.

NONE OF THE ABOVE, they're all partisan goons.

 

[Dick Foster]

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

 

[sealybobo]

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

 

[Dick Foster]

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

And besides being completely full of crap, you are a troll. One more word and I report you as such.

 

[sealybobo]

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

And besides being completely full of crap, you are a troll. One more word and I report you as such.

Ewww I'm scared. Trump's a liar and you're a bitch.

 

[Dick Foster]

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

And besides being completely full of crap, you are a troll. One more word and I report you as such.

Ewww I'm scared. Trump's a liar and you're a bitch.

Like I said before, get a life looser.

 

[sealybobo]

They paid you more than they pay a guy doing what you did back then today. No?

You're being awfully vague. I sense you are lying or full of shit. Please explain. How did you earn so much money? What did you do? I don't know enough to tell you exactly how you are full of shit but I'm sensing enough from your lame come backs that you are completely full of shit. I've been on here for years. No newby right wing nut job liar is going to fool me.

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

And besides being completely full of crap, you are a troll. One more word and I report you as such.

Ewww I'm scared. Trump's a liar and you're a bitch.

Like I said before, get a life looser.

Last night I took this 20 something year old woman out on my boat and we had a great time. This is my 2nd 20 something year old girlfriend now. I have a life. Yours is almost over. LOL

 

[Dick Foster]

I don't owe you a damned thing, asshole and you don't make the rules for anyone, so piss off already. It's enough for you to know that I can likly buy and sell your worthless ass without feeling a pinch and I earned every dime. I owe no one, least of all commie assholes like you, shitstain.

Liar. And if you aren't lying, then stop telling middle class Americans we should be voting for the Republican party who obviously favors the rich. That's why a rich guy like you argues for them so adamantly.

I've been doing this a long time. You're a newby. You are so obviously full of shit. It's easy to spot based on your reactions and replies. Commie. LOL. Were you an adult during the McCarthy era? Geez!

No it's not enough to know that you can likely buy and sell me. I would need to know how. Like, are you a silver spooner? Did you inherit a lot of money? Did you go to college? Did daddy hand you your own business? No sir it's not enough to know you and Trump can buy and sell me. We need to know how you got that money? Did you earn it a shady way like Trump did?

Me thinks you are lying actually. I need to know more in order to call you out for being full of shit. I can tell when someone is fos. You sir, are fos.

And besides being completely full of crap, you are a troll. One more word and I report you as such.

Ewww I'm scared. Trump's a liar and you're a bitch.

Like I said before, get a life looser.

Last night I took this 20 something year old woman out on my boat and we had a great time. This is my 2nd 20 something year old girlfriend now. I have a life. Yours is almost over. LOL

Yeah in your wet dream.