Exclusive: U.S. miners' union to endorse two more Democrats in coal country

[JANFU]

I’m going to tell you something that up until now, only my wife knows (so don’t tell anyone): if I thought that Trump actually had a chance of winning, I wouldn’t had written in, and I would have voted for Clinton. Hindsight and all that. Now that’s just between us two.

And the board. LMAO-
You should hear my wife when I agree with Trump, it ain't often but it does arise.

 

[Beaudreaux]

True, but, aren't miners part of the blue collar constituency that went for Trump in the hope that he'd save their industries even as time passes them by?

Coal, traditional manufacturing, etc.

The unions in the rust belt and coal country don’t have the control and sway they used to have. However, the blue roots in those areas run deep. It wasn’t that Trump won them over, IMHO, as much as the Democratic Party as a whole had forgotten about their needs and took them for granted as a union vote. Pushing the renewable energy agenda, green energy, relaxing tariffs on foreign steel, relaxing standards on other imports and not standing up to Asia as a whole (you may be surprised at the amount of recycled steal coming in from Southeast Asia to the US). That’s what, again IMHO, got those folks to vote Trump. The Democrats have done nothing to fix that, and the GOP isn’t capitalizing on it, and all those people are still in play. There’s no way to predict how they will come down in the midterms. IMHO that is.

 

[jet57]

Stimulated the economy over the last 6 years to create more jobs for union workers. But you'll never accept that, since it doesn't match what all your liberal friends told you was the truth.

Stimulated the economy under Obama's direction.

 

[faithful_servant]

Stimulated the economy under Obama's direction.

What were the unilateral things that Pres. Obama did that stimulated the economy??

 

[GDViking]

More unions trying to influence elections... But I'll bet that you would cry yourself to sleep over the idea of a corporation doing the same thing....

Unions were created and exist to balance power between the upper five percent of eletists and the working class. If unions did not exist neither would the middle class.

It is noted that you would rather live under a dictatorship than be part of a democracy...

 

[jet57]

What were the unilateral things that Pres. Obama did that stimulated the economy??

Obama's leadership and decision making were obviously enough.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So, what have the Republicans done FOR unions lately; anything?

Trump has been threatening a trade war lately, to the delight of American labor unions.

 

[jet57]

Trump has been threatening a trade war lately, to the delight of American labor unions.

Trump can threaten anything he wants; it's what happens that counts. The Republicans threw out American manufacturing 30 years ago in favor of higher profit margins.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I’m going to tell you something that up until now, only my wife knows (so don’t tell anyone): if I thought that Trump actually had a chance of winning, I wouldn’t had written in, and I would have voted for Clinton. Hindsight and all that. Now that’s just between us two.

To EVERYONE who has buyer's remorse and thoughts that Hillary was a relatively survivable event
(as I did) I wish to God more of you had read P.J. O'Rourke's two columns where he endorsed her.

WHO??
THIS GUY, that's who...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._O%27Rourke

P.J. O'Rourke hate-endorses Hillary Clinton on NPR quiz show
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954

"I’m voting for Hillary," he exclaimed.
O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises."

"It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place," he continued. "I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.”

P.J. O’Rourke: I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton, the Devil We Know
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pj-orourke-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton-the-devil-we-know

 

[Neomalthusian]

Trump can threaten anything he wants; it's what happens that counts. The Republicans threw out American manufacturing 30 years ago in favor of higher profit margins.

The point is this:

Partisan liberals hate Trump, who supports trade war posturing and protectionism, but they love unions, which support trade war posturing and protectionism.

 

[jet57]

The point is this:

Partisan liberals hate Trump, who supports trade war posturing and protectionism, but they love unions, which support trade war posturing and protectionism.

Everybody hates Trump: where've YOU been?

American manufacturing is not protectionism, it's should be a bigger part of this country GDP.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Everybody hates Trump: where've YOU been?

American manufacturing is not protectionism, it's should be a bigger part of this country GDP.

What is it you’re not grasping? Unions have been clamoring for protectionist policies like tariffs for decades.

Trump and unions either have to be both wrong about this, or both right about this. Which do you think it is?

 

[jet57]

What is it you’re not grasping? Unions have been clamoring for protectionist policies like tariffs for decades.

Trump and unions either have to be both wrong about this, or both right about this. Which do you think it is?

What is it that you're not getting about the fact that Republicans have bent over backwards to destroy the union movement in this country? THIS thing isn't going to show anybody any improvements. Unions may support tariffs, but they're not going to reap any benefits because nothing's going to happen. Wall Street will beat this thing down.

 

[Neomalthusian]

What is it that you're not getting about the fact that Republicans have bent over backwards to destroy the union movement in this country? THIS thing isn't going to show anybody any improvements. Unions may support tariffs, but they're not going to reap any benefits because nothing's going to happen. Wall Street will beat this thing down.

You're doing nothing but dodging the point. When it comes to Trump, unions, and protectionism, you are trapped, because you have to pick a side and say who's right and who's wrong. Unions can't be right while Trump is wrong when it comes to this. They're either both right or both wrong.

I say they're both wrong. What do you say?

 

[jet57]

You're doing nothing but dodging the point. When it comes to Trump, unions, and protectionism, you are trapped, because you have to pick a side and say who's right and who's wrong. Unions can't be right while Trump is wrong when it comes to this. They're either both right or both wrong.

I say they're both wrong. What do you say?

Not trapped at all, just showing how ridiculous your thinking is - once again. I said right form the beginning that I like the direction of the tariffs, as do unions, but it won't add up to anything because it won't fly. Free trade is too big to fail.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Not trapped at all, just showing how ridiculous your thinking is - once again. I said right form the beginning that I like the direction of the tariffs, as do unions

By siding with the unions on trade, you're siding with Trump on trade. You pro-Trump on this issue. I should buy you a red hat. Trump is the first President in a generation who has come anywhere close to actually advocating what unions advocate. You started out by asking "what have Republicans done for unions lately?" And my response was basically "Trump is giving them what they want on trade."

but it won't add up to anything because it won't fly. Free trade is too big to fail.

You're predictions don't absolve you of the responsibility for advocating self-destructive policies like protectionism. Trump, Bannon, and unions are wrong about this, and it will do damage to this country. You own that. The self-sabotaging fantasies unions have for this country via its trade policies are just one of the many reasons they should cease to exist.

 

[jet57]

By siding with the unions on trade, you're siding with Trump on trade. You pro-Trump on this issue. I should buy you a red hat. Trump is the first President in a generation who has come anywhere close to actually advocating what unions advocate. You started out by asking "what have Republicans done for unions lately?" And my response was basically "Trump is giving them what they want on trade."



You're predictions don't absolve you of the responsibility for advocating self-destructive policies like protectionism. Trump, Bannon, and unions are wrong about this, and it will do damage to this country. You own that. The self-sabotaging fantasies unions have for this country via its trade policies are just one of the many reasons they should cease to exist.

I see that you're still a bit confused here. On can be anti Trump and yet encourage a certain policy suggestion. Trump could have said; unions have he right to organize and have closed shops, and myself and unions would say that is a good thing to be thinking about. But like the NRA, Trump told Republicans that they were owned by the NRA and that he wasn't, and then he jumped right back in bed with him, that only shows that the anti Trump crowd is right about him. Same thing here. So I don't own anything other than what I dislike about Trump and he shows me everyday that I'm right.

Now, we can argue tariffs if you like.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I see that you're still a bit confused here. On can be anti Trump and yet encourage a certain policy suggestion. Trump could have said; unions have he right to organize and have closed shops

Which would make him incorrect, as closed shops are illegal under Taft Hartley. But that's not related to this topic.

This is about trade. Every credible mainstream economist from Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman back in the day to Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz today, as well as basically every mainstream Democrat and mainstream Republican virtually all agree protectionism is very self-sabotaging and will most definitely not "make America great again." You, Donald Trump, and unions feel otherwise. Who's right and who's wrong?

 

[jet57]

Which would make him incorrect, as closed shops are illegal under Taft Hartley. But that's not related to this topic.

This is about trade. Every credible mainstream economist from Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman back in the day to Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz today, as well as basically every mainstream Democrat and mainstream Republican virtually all agree protectionism is very self-sabotaging and will most definitely not "make America great again." You, Donald Trump, and unions feel otherwise. Who's right and who's wrong?

No, you're trying to weave some sort of silly trap here. There are companies all over this country wherein union membership is a requirement, so your not understanding what you're writing.

"Protectionism" is a political philosophy, nothing more. Tariffs have a long history in this country as a protection against financial subservience. Tariffs were never introduced to encourage a trade war, that is a threat brought on by countries whose product prices would be raised by effective taxation to stop predatory pricing that has lead to vast numbers of unemployed manufacturing jobs. Trump is placating in order to drive a wedge further into our economic policy in order to control the discourse. He has done nothing yet, and he will continue to do nothing as that would put his own financial interests in jeopardy.

Do we want more manufacturing in this country? yes. Is the buy American campaign still going? I can't see it. Will unions benefit from tariffs if implemented? I doubt it very seriously. Is it the right thing to do? That depends on what it is that's proposed as a solution instead of just talk.

 

[notquiteright]

Seriously? Why, in today's world, would the GOP do anything at all for unions, being that the Republican Party believes in the rights of the individual to decide for themselves without coercion or force being put upon them? (Idiotic reproductive, sexual, or religious issues aside - yes I know the irony that's there)

Ummm the OLD GOP perhaps, and mostly wanted people to hang separately rather than bargain as a group.

But this Union was the one the rabid right swore Obama and Hillary wanted to destroy by ending eastern coal mining. Trump promised them jerbs and reeled the suckers in.

Course 'idiotic' issues are as much part of the rabid right as union busting. And it isn't irony but hypocrisy... eace

 

[Neomalthusian]

No, you're trying to weave some sort of silly trap here. There are companies all over this country wherein union membership is a requirement, so your not understanding what you're writing.

I've explained to you explicitly and repeatedly how factually incorrect you are about the legality of closed shops.

"Protectionism" is a political philosophy, nothing more. Tariffs have a long history in this country as a protection against financial subservience. Tariffs were never introduced to encourage a trade war, that is a threat brought on by countries whose product prices would be raised by effective taxation to stop predatory pricing that has lead to vast numbers of unemployed manufacturing jobs. Trump is placating in order to drive a wedge further into our economic policy in order to control the discourse. He has done nothing yet, and he will continue to do nothing as that would put his own financial interests in jeopardy.

Do we want more manufacturing in this country? yes. Is the buy American campaign still going? I can't see it. Will unions benefit from tariffs if implemented? I doubt it very seriously. Is it the right thing to do? That depends on what it is that's proposed as a solution instead of just talk.

This is basically prattle. There is virtual consensus among economists, mainstream Democrats, and mainstream Republicans that protectionistic policies like tariffs are very bad policy. Who supports this very bad policy? The Democratic Party? No. The Republican Party? No. Corporations? No. Banks? No. State and local governments? No. Who supports protectionism, tariffs, etc.? Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and American labor unions. And you, evidently.

 

[jet57]

I've explained to you explicitly and repeatedly how factually incorrect you are about the legality of closed shops.



This is basically prattle. There is virtual consensus among economists, mainstream Democrats, and mainstream Republicans that protectionistic policies like tariffs are very bad policy. Who supports this very bad policy? The Democratic Party? No. The Republican Party? No. Corporations? No. Banks? No. State and local governments? No. Who supports protectionism, tariffs, etc.? Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and American labor unions. And you, evidently.

Dude: once again - I spent 30 years in the Teamsters union - NOBODY drove a truck at a Teamster barn who was not a member. NOBODY worked on a dock that was not a member. NOBODY even touched a hand truck that was not a member. Same thing with the Longshoremen; same thing with the Warehousemen. Print shops? same thing. Firehouses? ditto. Police stations? ditto.

Same thing - you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And there's no "prattle"; you can't handle the subject, nor can you credibly refute what I'm saying on the subject.

You can say it's bad policy, but you have no way of proving that is or was in the past.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Dude: once again - I spent 30 years in the Teamsters union - NOBODY drove a truck at a Teamster barn who was not a member. NOBODY worked on a dock that was not a member. NOBODY even touched a hand truck that was not a member. Same thing with the Longshoremen; same thing with the Warehousemen. Print shops? same thing. Firehouses? ditto. Police stations? ditto.

Same thing - you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It’s sad that in all those years you never actually learned what “closed shop” means. It means something. A closed shop is something that has explicitly been illegal since the 1940s. There is absolutely zero dispute over this. This is an absolute undeniable fact. So you are the one that has no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You shouldn’t use words that have meaning when you’re clueless as to that meaning.

 

[Roadvirus]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-more-democrats-in-coal-country-idUSKBN1GY1YM

(Reuters) - The main U.S. coal miners’ union is set to endorse two Democrats running for Congress in West Virginia, two sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday - a boost for Democrats trying to win over a constituency that voted heavily for Republican Donald Trump in 2016.

The United Mine Workers of America on Friday will endorse Richard Ojeda for U.S. Representative in the state’s third district, as well as incumbent Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat and former West Virginia governor, the sources said. They asked not to be named as they were discussing a confidential matter.
===========================================================
The odds of the Dems taking back both houses of Congress in November are looking better & better.

Union...as in Union leaders.

Union leaders are always licking the butts of Democrats.

 

[jet57]

It’s sad that in all those years you never actually learned what “closed shop” means. It means something. A closed shop is something that has explicitly been illegal since the 1940s. There is absolutely zero dispute over this. This is an absolute undeniable fact. So you are the one that has no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You shouldn’t use words that have meaning when you’re clueless as to that meaning.

closed shop
ˈklōzd ˈSHäp/Submit
noun
a place of work where membership in a union is a condition for being hired and for continued employment.
a system whereby a closed shop applies.