What's new

XPO | The Driver Shortages Continue

LTLIndentured said:
Thanks for the response. Much of what you refer to as fact is rumor or is unproven. I will say that I’ve never seen trump as a morally sound individual and really don’t like him tweeting; however to accuse him of all of the above without most it proven is an example of what’s wrong with our political system. It’s nit about substance it’s about what people can repeat often enough until many accept it as fact
Click to expand...
Would you go back to my last post and point out where I am not correct in any part of my statements . Most of what I posted were statements that came directly out of Trumps mouth example :the conversation he had with Billy Bush or at his rallies with sicking his supporters on to those that don't agree with him . I think what I posted is substantiated and documented such as Trump being entertained by women other than is wife while Melania just gave birth to Barron . Is this true or false? If anyone had his track record they would be considered of low morals and weak standards . My opinion is that if he would go behind his wife's back like he did he is not trust worthy to do whats right for our country . He is for himself . I do think he is not morally fit . What baffles me is how so many evangelicals can support any one with his nature .
 
shamrockhockey said:
If I am already innocent, or even presumed innocent, why would I say anything incriminating? No need to clear anything. The onus is on the authorities to prove a case against me, not for me to clear my already presumed innocence.
Click to expand...

Why not just answer the question. Would you try to stop the investigation or would you cooperate with the investigators?
 
sucker666 said:
You are entitled to your opinion but not to twist the facts.
Obama, quarterly growth did surpass 3 percent eight times during his presidency. The highest growth recorded was 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014.

If you going to use trumps campaign rally propaganda you should get your facts from more reliable source. Obama's ANNUAL GDP number never got above 2.9

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-inflates-gdp-growth/

http://fortune.com/2017/08/30/donald-trump-springfield-mo-3-gdp/

my guess its just "fake news"
Click to expand...
Quarterly, annually. I didn't consider it, but aside from all that one thing is true and you said it. the annual GDP during the Obama never exceeded 2.9% and that's pathetic in a country that has averaged a 3.2% annual GDP growth rate since 1948. You wanna have this conversation again when we get the GDP numbers for this year? What you pounced on in my post was an easy home run because I was unclear between annually and quarterly. You accused the right of being anti-worker and I called you out looking for something to back up that statement and I'm still waiting.
 
Hollywoodz said:
You may not have agreed with Obama's politics or policies, however, he was a Senior Faculty Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School. He graduated "Magna Cum Laude" from Harvard Law School and was Senior Editor and President of the Harvard Law Review. He was 35 years old and a natural born US citizen. He was well qualified to be the president of the United States.

Donald Trump was a businessman. How successful a businessman is unknown, as he won't release his tax returns. He was a reality show host. He holds no law degree. He was never elected to a state assembly or state senate seat. He was never a congressman or senator. He never held a diplomatic position of any kind. He has no experience in government. A CDL driver needs at least 2 years experience before any LTL company will hire him. Why is that? Would you hire an electrician to repair your roof? Why not? Because the electrician has no experience in roof repairs. The man is way over his head. The revolving door that has carried members of his administration in and out since inception is a clear indication that something is wrong. Either he wants to be surrounded only by people who agree with him or they don't want to be associated with the mess he is creating. Either way, we got a problem.
Click to expand...
Except Obama as president had one major character flaw. The man learned about the Constitution and then crapped on it every chance he got, even though he swore an oath to uphold and protect it. I haven't seen President Trump crap on the Constitution yet. I have seen a bunch of regressive, state-ist, federal judges crap on Trump's policies that are constitutional, the latest being the federal judge who claims that he cannot roll back Obama's unconstitutional DACA executive order.
 
sucker666 said:
The driver shortage is not having the effect it should in the industry that would benefit drivers
Click to expand...
Give it some time as rising wages tend to be a trailing indicator in a growing economy. As to our company, I think they are responding to the driver shortage with the $6500.00 sign on bonuses being offered to new drivers and on a local level, our TM is butting heads with his bosses by trying to bring in new drivers at a rate higher than the starting rate to credit them for their experience.
 
Hollywoodz said:
Just a thought...if your local police were investigating a crime and asked to interview you, would you refuse? If I were being investigated for any reason, AND I WAS INNOCENT of the charges, I would demand an investigation to clear my name. The only people afraid of investigations are the guilty ones.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what's going on with Trump and Mueller. In 2000, the DOJ provided guidance for itself regarding the indicting of a sitting president and concluded that it's a very bad idea to do so because the president, according to the Constitution, IS the executive branch and any such indictment could cripple the ability of the chief executive to do his job. Mueller is bound by law to operate within DOJ policy and procedure and subpeoning or indicting the President would fall outside of that guidance, IMO.
 
Hollywoodz said:
Only a guilty man worries. An honorable man never fears anything. There have been over 35 indictments so far. I don't think they need a magnifying glass, nor do they need to create anything. Trump has already provided all the ammunition they need.
Click to expand...
Trump hasn't provided a goddamned thing. Here is what I can tell you about indictments thus far. Regarding Flynn who has pled guilty to making a false statement. It was James Comey himself who believed Flynn was being truthful in his interview with FBI agents. Nine months later with Mueller at the helm, Flynn is charged with making a false statement. What the hell is that? Do you find it troubling? I do. As to the Russian nationals, one of the was Concord Management who decided to file a not guilty plea and challenge in court and if I remember correctly, the special counsel's office had to ask for more time to put it's case together, really? Why wasn't the special counsel ready to proceed? I mean if they had sufficient evidence to bring an indictment, one would think they wouldn't need more time. Also regarding the Russian nationals for Russian intelligence officers, do you think for a moment that Mueller really believed at the time that Putin would allow any of these parties to be extradited for trial in the United States? I doubt it. These indictments are more about fluff and as the article reads, "The charges in the Mueller probe include four former Trump campaign officials, though none has been charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election." You know why they haven't been charged? Because the special counsel could find nothing on which to bring charges. You're taking the bait that the special counsel has laid before you, that Trump must be guilty of something because of all the indictments. Have you ever heard the saying that when it comes to indictments, you can indict a ham sandwich. https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-indictments-timeline/?utm_term=.1b32826a594c
 
Continuing from my previous post, Hollywoodz. Do you know who Congressman Adam Schiff is? He's the ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee who is investigating the FBI spygate debacle. Congressman Schiff got caught red handed actually colluding with people he believe to be Russians connected with Putin who were telling him that Putin had naked pictures of Trump with hookers in the hotel room and that Trump was being blackmailed. You want to talk more about collusion? HRC and the DNC, through back channels, actually paid for information they thought was bonified to people connected with the Kremlin. Now it may have been legal since the payment was laundered through a law firm, who then sent it to the oppo researched firm Fusion GPS who paid disgraced British spy Michael Steele, an overt Trump hater, who then went to Kremlin operatives in order to help Fusion GPS generae a bunch of crap in a document known as the "Steele Dosier" which was used at least once to get a FISA warrant against low ranking Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page. I did that all off memory, but I think I'm pretty close. Back to shifty Adam Schiff. After listening to this guy panting over his newly found dirt on Trump, do you really think he is serious about getting to the truth regarding so called Trump/Russia collusion, still unproven at this point. Or is he just trying to create a diversion? I think the latter.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...D4F87C119E19BD9BE325D4F87C119E19BD9&FORM=VIRE
 
ScotchNeat said:
Quarterly, annually. I didn't consider it, but aside from all that one thing is true and you said it. the annual GDP during the Obama never exceeded 2.9% and that's pathetic in a country that has averaged a 3.2% annual GDP growth rate since 1948. You wanna have this conversation again when we get the GDP numbers for this year? What you pounced on in my post was an easy home run because I was unclear between annually and quarterly. You accused the right of being anti-worker and I called you out looking for something to back up that statement and I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

I was also unclear about quarterly/annually. As soon as Trump breaks his current annual pathetic record of 2.5% for 2017, we can renew this conversation. The following link will back up the statement that the right is anti worker. I had no idea how bad Trump is on labor issues until I read it. "Right to Work" IS anti-worker, as I'm sure you must be aware that "right to work" is a hallmark policy in Republican controlled state houses. The only purpose of "right to work" is to break unions.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/20/the-trump-administrations-war-on-workers/
 
ScotchNeat said:
I don't think you understand what's going on with Trump and Mueller. In 2000, the DOJ provided guidance for itself regarding the indicting of a sitting president and concluded that it's a very bad idea to do so because the president, according to the Constitution, IS the executive branch and any such indictment could cripple the ability of the chief executive to do his job. Mueller is bound by law to operate within DOJ policy and procedure and subpeoning or indicting the President would fall outside of that guidance, IMO.
Click to expand...

I understand what's going on here. Many of Trump's original administrative appointments had ties to Russia. This in indisputable. Mueller is doing what every law enforcement agency has done since the beginning of time. He is squeezing the little fish to see if the big fish stinks also. We will know soon enough. I'm not certain of your facts here, but the DOJ may consider indicting a sitting president a bad idea, but it is unclear whether or not it is actually legal to do so. Would you continue to support a sitting president if it could be proven that he committed a crime?
 
ScotchNeat said:
Trump hasn't provided a goddamned thing. Here is what I can tell you about indictments thus far. Regarding Flynn who has pled guilty to making a false statement. It was James Comey himself who believed Flynn was being truthful in his interview with FBI agents. Nine months later with Mueller at the helm, Flynn is charged with making a false statement. What the hell is that? Do you find it troubling? I do. As to the Russian nationals, one of the was Concord Management who decided to file a not guilty plea and challenge in court and if I remember correctly, the special counsel's office had to ask for more time to put it's case together, really? Why wasn't the special counsel ready to proceed? I mean if they had sufficient evidence to bring an indictment, one would think they wouldn't need more time. Also regarding the Russian nationals for Russian intelligence officers, do you think for a moment that Mueller really believed at the time that Putin would allow any of these parties to be extradited for trial in the United States? I doubt it. These indictments are more about fluff and as the article reads, "The charges in the Mueller probe include four former Trump campaign officials, though none has been charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election." You know why they haven't been charged? Because the special counsel could find nothing on which to bring charges. You're taking the bait that the special counsel has laid before you, that Trump must be guilty of something because of all the indictments. Have you ever heard the saying that when it comes to indictments, you can indict a ham sandwich. https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-indictments-timeline/?utm_term=.1b32826a594c
Click to expand...

I think Flynn pled guilty to making false statements. Correct? What's troubling about that? Are you saying his confession was coerced? You would have to be insane to believe that. He lied and now he confessed to save himself and his son.

They did NOT ask for more time to put the case together. They challenged the authority of the attorney to represent the company as the Russian Prosecutor General declined to accept the summons. Not one of the companies corporate representatives appeared in court. What were they afraid of?

You are correct in that indictments are NOT convictions. So, let the investigation proceed to conclusion. If Trump is cleared, so be it. If he's guilty, impeach him. How could anyone be opposed to a process that has been the backbone of our system of justice since the inception of this country? Investigation...Indictment...Trial, then let the chips fall where they may. It's the American way.
 
Hollywoodz said:
I think Flynn pled guilty to making false statements. Correct? What's troubling about that? Are you saying his confession was coerced? You would have to be insane to believe that. He lied and now he confessed to save himself and his son.

They did NOT ask for more time to put the case together. They challenged the authority of the attorney to represent the company as the Russian Prosecutor General declined to accept the summons. Not one of the companies corporate representatives appeared in court. What were they afraid of?

You are correct in that indictments are NOT convictions. So, let the investigation proceed to conclusion. If Trump is cleared, so be it. If he's guilty, impeach him. How could anyone be opposed to a process that has been the backbone of our system of justice since the inception of this country? Investigation...Indictment...Trial, then let the chips fall where they may. It's the American way.
Click to expand...
If Flynn didn't lie why did Comey think he was telling the truth? Maybe Comey was lying to cover for Flynn? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...idnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
And yes, Mueller did ask for the trial to be delayed by 90 days. http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/23/mueller-delay-russia-trial/
As to your last paragraph. There are limits on this investigation relative to the President. Trump is clear, in part because he's president. Mueller, if he is to operate under DOJ rules cannot indict Trump on anything according to DOJ's own guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. What Mueller is trying to do is trash the President public opinion in order to drive his approval numbers down in hopes that the Dems take the House so they can impeach him without a backlash from voters in 2020. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion...enability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
 
Hollywoodz said:
I understand what's going on here. Many of Trump's original administrative appointments had ties to Russia. This in indisputable. Mueller is doing what every law enforcement agency has done since the beginning of time. He is squeezing the little fish to see if the big fish stinks also. We will know soon enough. I'm not certain of your facts here, but the DOJ may consider indicting a sitting president a bad idea, but it is unclear whether or not it is actually legal to do so. Would you continue to support a sitting president if it could be proven that he committed a crime?
Click to expand...
Here are my facts. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf Now mind you, this was Clinton's OLC that wrote this guidance. If it was good for Clinton, it's good for Trump, it's good for any sitting president until such time as new guidance is issued. As to your question. I might or might not support a sitting president. My decision would be based on when the crimes were shown to be committed, before the election cycle, during the election cycle, or as a sitting president. Trump may of may not have grabbed women by their mommy parts. Had charges been filed and he was convicted, I probably wouldn't have supported him, but all we have like everything with Trump is allegations.
 
ScotchNeat said:
Quarterly, annually. I didn't consider it, but aside from all that one thing is true and you said it. the annual GDP during the Obama never exceeded 2.9% and that's pathetic in a country that has averaged a 3.2% annual GDP growth rate since 1948. You wanna have this conversation again when we get the GDP numbers for this year? What you pounced on in my post was an easy home run because I was unclear between annually and quarterly. You accused the right of being anti-worker and I called you out looking for something to back up that statement and I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...
Wasn't trying to make you look bad if it came across that way just wanted to get facts straight.
I believe "right to work " legislation is a direct shot at labor and the Republican Party is the key proponent of such legislation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ins-in-washington_us_5891fb30e4b0522c7d3e354d

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ve-workers-nothing-to-celebrate-on-labor-day/
https://federalnewsradio.com/workfo...-trump-to-rescind-workforce-executive-orders/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-republican-led-u-s-labor-board-idUSKBN1HI328


I can provide further backing evidence if you need it. Just let me know.
 
Last edited:
all you peeps are perfect i forgot
liars i would hate for anybody to make money in america
Pry never done drugs
never cursed
never lied
at least that's what you tell your children
let's all be real
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top