Forum Post: Trucker President in 2012
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 11:13 p.m. EST by Trucker4Prez
(51)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How would you feel about a trucker for President in '12 on the #Occupy ticket? Would you support an average, ordinary, everyday man/woman like a trucker for the position of America;s Servant? The Peoples' Servant??
I'm a trucker and most truckers I know wouldn't want to be the prez. I'm also a Teamster and I wouldn't want Hoffa for President, either. Hard enough to get rid of him as it is.
Like it or not, very few drivers had the education required to be a well rounded candidate and I can't think of any that I know that would support OWS, but they do work.
It is hard being an owner operator though, and that's just running one truck for the most part. The guys that can do it and stay on the road with a couple trucks running everywhere (while driving themselves) eared my respect a long time ago.
agreed. Plenty of truckers out here are just simple men, living simple lives and like it that way. A lot of them are also getting their minds poisoned by FOX NEWS on the tube at the truck stops. But we're also watching our industry spiraling down the crapper and feeling helpless to stop it.
I'm an owner operator. I don't much like Hoffa either, but I'm down with the unions. I just think the hierarchy above the local reps are short-changing ya Truckers tend to fall back on traditional values and don't like change. This #OWS is a new-fangled thing that's all about change.. And they're just workin so hard that they don't have time to sitdown and figure out if this is beneficial or detrimental change. But I suspect that there's a significant number of silent supporters. They supported shutting down the Oakland port. The same is coming up at the L.A. port.
I think that OWS is just sittin on the fuel island, tankin up for that long haul.
NO their is a reason that you will never be elected:
things change in presidency-Obama went in and changed his promises because of the information we realizes
Not enough support- Occupy is a small group!
I agree with your initial premise but disagree with the supporting evidence.
Obama failed because he went in and tried too hard to be EVERYBODY'S President. He handled the scandal surrounding himself very admirably. However, scandal surrounding others around him, he bombed and wound up alienating a lot of his base. You don't fire someone via Blackberry based upon heresay! You support your people until the evidence proves otherwise. He violated, "Innocent until proven guilty!"
Occupy has a lot of silent support. It's an ever growing movement. And has already influenced/altered the public discourse. It will continue to do so and, I think, will increase it's following and support.
In manufacturing, machinery is often expensive. Breakdowns are doubly so, due to lost production. Therefore, expecting machinery output at 100%-110% capacity as a norm is unwise and impractical. Early and catastrophic failure is bound to occur. So the equipment is often operated at 70%-80% of capacity, with regular maintenance, to ensure a long and stable production life. Afterall, consistency is as important as volume. Therefore, shouldn't companies treat their employees, minimally, as well as they treat their equipment? Last I heard. Treating reliable and consistent employees fairly was far cheaper than constantly recruiting and training new employees.
Besides, people whom are happy in their jobs and feel they're compensation/benefits are fair have no use/need for unions.
I believe in unions and support them, to some extent. Unions form in shit companies and industries, then try to improve conditions for the people. However, somewhere along the line, the hierarchy gets sidetracked and becomes near or more parasitical to the situation. I do not believe in eliminating unions, but I do think they need to re-vamped and modernized.
It depends on what the trucker stands for, but I am not opposed to not seeing a trust fund baby or lawyer, in the White House, if that is any help.
I've worked the fast food chains. I've changed the oil in your cars, for a living. I've called you about the delivery and installation of your Sears/Kenmore appliances. I've even delivered your pizzas. Now I deliver the stuff that makes your day possible.
I believe in a progressive tax on ALL income, across the board. Social Services benefit the WHOLE Society. So everyone should be on the hook for it.
I think most people would find that I'm moderate on social issues, meaning that I allow for reasonable exceptions.
if he had a high iq and had other qualities like empathy, selflessness, a sense of social justice, then definitely : )
Well, I don't wanna brag. But this kid is pretty fricken smart! And modest to boot.
then you got my vote, as long as you genuinely care about people. i think thats the thing that politicians lie about most...
Well, I know what it's like to not have anyone give a shit about you. And I've also experienced the pleasure from helping folks that genuinely needed it.
I would if I was really going to be the Peoples' Servant, but to be president and end up lie to my brothers while kissing the corporacracy's rear...NO Thank You! Unfortunately even if you get anybody with integrity, honesty and guts to really do the right thing, they meet the big wall of congress. And I don't think it is news to any of you of how deep the vain of the oligarchy runs through the walls of Capitol Hill...
That is no doubt true. But there is a system of checks and balances in place. El Presidente has a lot of options available that he don't use. But the Tea Party had the right idea by getting their own people in Congress. You need to get amenable people in ALL branches of gov't. willing to work for the people or the people kick their ass to the curb!
I don't doubt that the Tea Party is looking for a change...but I wonder if they just want to replace the individuals with their own people and have them ware the same greedy huts... Yes, the Tea Party wants to reduce the government and have the so call 'free' market run everything. What they don't seem to have an opinion about is the tremendous damage that the 'free' market is causing to humanity because they run their business with a high level of immorality and greed. I have only see and heard opinions about this greed from one Tea party candidate: Ron P-a-u-l. Perhaps the best conservative candidate suited to attempt a change at the Federal level without dismantling the Federation. Other than that I have not heard from any conservative Tea partyer any arguments or disagreements about how greed seems to dominate and direct that so call 'free' market.
The Great Depression and The Recession have both demonstrated the penchant of Large Banks and Wall Street towards corruption. Therefore, I think an independent watchdog agency should be endowed with regulatory power, alongside Federal agencies, and include conflict of interest clauses on employment.
So far as I know, every other industrialized nation provides affordable healthcare to it's entire citizenry. U.S. citizens should enjoy EVERY benefit that citizens of other countries enjoy. If we can't agree to have government administer it. Than I think we should create non-profits for the task. Social Security could potentially be transferred to that realm as well. I don't trust profiteers in these areas.
I believe that being passionate about what you do and hard work are fine. But I also don't think people should be slaves to their jobs just to survive. Quality of life is as important as Quantity of life.
I believe in Free Trade, so long as it does not trump Fair Trade.
Political office in the U.S. was meant to be a SACRIFICE, not an ENTITLEMENT! The President is supposed to be the Chief SERVANT of civilians (ie; civil servant)
yep
Why not? George W Bush failed companies and he became president.
right. But he came from wealth and got an elitist education. Not to mention daddy's connections!
I thought he just did cocaine in college and had secret handshake meetings? Elitism is the new caste system.
He was a master debater before he became Governor of Texas. I think he played dumb a lot because that was what he was told to do by the puppet-masters. Other times....speak for themself.
It would be an interesting idea to see someone with no particular background in business and no real connections to the white-collar world take a stab at the presidency, and I wish you luck with your bid. I would also like to see the platform on which you're going to run; I tend to vote more for policies I'm fond of than for particular people, so if I can agree with most of what you propose then you'll most likely get my vote.
I have a colorful enough background that a number of people wouldn't like me, specifically. However, my POV, is that it lends to real world/1st hand experience.I like to say that I've pretty much been everything but female and wealthy. I'm radical in my moderate thought. I have a lot of ideas and a worldview. But I'm also a realist and very reasonable.
Even so, on a broader perspective, I'd to see the discourse include the potential and possibility of someone, like a truck driver, to be seriously considered for Presidential and Congressional roles. I think THEN you'd see serious and positive change in Washington.
wouldn't that put someone in charge of the occupy movement, which is exactly what you are trying to not do?
no. notable people rise up out of movements all of the time, as limited representatives of such. The movement/the people control the representative. Not the other way around. Or, at least, it's not supposed to be that way. We need to change the way we see the WH and Congress. When we see these as EXECUTIVE positions, we fill the slots with elitists! These positions should be filled with SERVANTS of the people because the CITIZENS are the executives!
I like straight talkers. No side-stepping questions.
more likely to be humble
I would but the leftist elite crave Harvard educated lawyers like obama.
How's that working' out?
I'd be more concerned about getting funded to get the message out. If you can get the message out, I think the blue collar masses would swarm the polls, in support of "one of their own".
No offense, but a lack of understanding finance, and a global economy would be a serious concern. It's why I'd never vote for Palin either.
It all depends; not all truckers are ignorant or untrained. If, on the other hand, you have someone with a degree in economics and political science and a JD in constitutional law, but no political connections or experience, would you vote for that person?
Yeah, not generalizing truckers. I have met a few over the years that are very business savvy. If said trucker has a significant amount of qualifications, I'd be down. As for your candidate: yes. I think the number one problem with politics today is they are long term politicians. Fresh blood without all the back scratching would be a welcome change.
I think that one of the goals of this whole thing should be to find candidates like the one you and I just described: trained, qualified, honest, but not really a part of any given political party, machine, or regime. They do exist, although they may well be hard to find and even harder to persuade to run, and I feel like the consensus we've developed around OWS is a great platform for an endeavor of that nature. After all, why bother voting the bums out if the replacements you've got lined up are still bums?
personally, I think one of the problems, is that most policy makers are lawyers, writing EXCLUSIVE policy that nobody but attorneys understand. I think if laymen and women were writing the policy, it'd be a lot simpler and more INCLUSIVE.
Here's the thing: policy needs to be as open as possible so that everyone has an understanding of exactly what the laws are and where the government stands. The legalese thing is obnoxious, and it's a fairly common complaint. I'd prefer shorter and simpler legislation, too; the problem is that when you talk about making any significant policy change you need to be incredibly specific and incredibly clear as to what exactly you're trying to do. As annoying as legalese is, it does provide a highly precise technical linguistic framework that allows for a great deal of precision in lawmaking.
That said, I do believe that deliberately overusing legalese to try to obfuscate the meaning of what you're doing is in fact fraud, and there needs to be a staff of independently paid, publicly funded attorneys whose job is to translate legislation into ordinary English insofar as that is possible; doing so will go a long way toward achieving full transparency and will definitely help restore the faith of the people in their government.
kinda like a policy watchdog group that filters out legislation before it gets signed into law and provides clarity to the courts in order reduce "interpretations"? I think that's an excellent idea. It's kinda like allowing end user access to computers w/o the necessity of knowing the programming languages.
Exactly, and the analogy is perfect.
don't you just love it when you find people, basically, on the same page as you?
I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy now. Can we sing, "Kum bah yah"???
The voting mainstream is too stupid. They get caught up in propaganda, and mud slnging. These are the same voting masses that didn't understand their sub prime mortgage, had to have the federal government force them to wear seat belts, and voted for a president because he was black. I'm glad the 1% exert so much control in some regards, the other 99% are way too dangerous if left to their own devices.
I thought the voting mainstream were highly educated folk, living in the cushiness of suburbia while the masses were apathetic and felt disenfranchised because the elephants and donkeys don't represent their realities or interests. I'm thinking of a candidate that talks WITH the people, not AT them.Where blue collar America identifies him/her as one of their own, like they do with soldiers and they feel empowered. I hear what you're saying and I experience it all too often out on the road. People racing up alongside and passing a big rig, changing lanes in front of him, then slamming on the brakes so they don't miss their exit. We're dealing with a rushed and impatient "me 1st" mentality these days. We're just looking out for #1 w/o any regard or courtesy for others..
Really? Your username is YuckFouHippies? Sir, I hate to imply you have way too much time on your hands... so I'll just suggest that you get another job. You are part of the ignorance that you mentioned.
I have a couple of jobs already. And I have at times in my youth, been part of the ignorance. How does my name imply anything other than a sentiment. I did not invest significant mental cycles choosing it. I just feel that way.
I'm pretty sure if you weren't so meticulously inclined toward such an imperatively irate consensus, then you wouldn't look so foolish.
I won't lose sleep over your opinion. You probably shouldn't over mine.
I've actually haven't been able to sleep for months because of your ignorant perspective of people speaking out against corruption in government and this fraudulent system that has hijacked our capitalistic society.
Capitalism is profiting from making the best products in the benefit of society. Capitalism is not knowingly selling tainted goods that kill 14 people and paying off law suits because it's cheaper than not selling the product. The list goes on.
So speak out about it. Your voice is nothing to anyone besides your mommy. Vote with your wallet or your actual vote, otherwise STFU. Companies pay off lawsuits because litigation helps nobody but the lawyers, and I've got to tell you, you are significantly more likely to die in a plane crash than a LCC shipped product that was knowingly hazardous. I work in this world, you don't have a clue.
Not being likely to die from tainted foods doesn't mean they aren't killing people in pursuit of profits. Capitalism has been hijacked by fraud and our government is corrupt. Obviously not all are corrupt and not every company is killing people. but this does not make the few okay. Money aint shit in a fist fight and Money shouldn't matter in "democracy" where the people vote. And if your voice only matters to your mommy, tell her to STFU
Later TROLL Have fun wasting all of your free time hating on people. Go get laid or masturbate or something. You obviously have some built up teenage angst
I am slightly curious as to how that name came about, though. Honestly, when I saw it I expected poor grammar and near-nonexistent logic of the sort that I got all too used to seeing in the main forum area. Instead you've been an intelligent commenter (here, at least) and quite articulate and friendly. Which leads me back to my original question: why choose a name that implies ignorance, intolerance, and trolldom when what I've seen from you here reflects the opposite?
I don't think it denotes ignorance, intolerance perhaps, and trolldom for sure. I picked the name because I spent a few hours on this website, and various other occupy news/Facebook sites and the overwhelming takeaway I've associated with this movement are people with a victim mentality, calling for wealth redistribution because I have more than them. Hating folks that earn decent money, calling us all crooks, etc. I take these comments particularly personal, as I came from a disadvantaged upbringing; decided I did not want to live that way and worked my ass off to get to a comfortable lifestyle. Now I am in the highest tax bracket, and when I look back, I am proud of how you truly can do anything in the US. The notion that some lazy, bongo playing, nose ring wearing, unemployable types are the face of a movement complaining that life isn't fair, is deeply, deeply insulting to us who are self made.
Here's the thing; I'm probably on the same track as you are; I came from a working poor family in the Bronx and through the support of my family and my community I made it to MIT. On a personal level I don't have much patience for people who want to be rewarded for screwing around, smoking weed, and expecting a week's wages without doing a week's work. On that I'm pretty sure we agree.
That said, the people I described above tend to be the canaries in the coal mine; generally when they start protesting there actually is something wrong. The first thing that got me when I went down to Zuccotti was the number of people there who weren't the stereotypical stinky hippies. Many were unemployed teachers, nurses, blue-collar workers, etc. who lost their jobs due to outsourcing and other such corrosive action by big business. That for me was what lends OWS its legitimacy.
Why? Because I look at people like that and I look at what's happened to our economy and our middle class and our manufacturing sector and my first thought was "That could have been me." My whole family, myself included, worked our asses off to get my sister and I ahead (I'm at MIT, she's an honors student at Bronx Science), and even then there were discrete factors outside of our hard work that made our ascent possible.
First off, my father was lucky enough to still have a union job, and this meant that we all had the option of living off the one income, as tough as that was, so that my mom could homeschool us. If his union had been broken much earlier than it was, my sister and I would have wound up in an inner-city school where neither of us would have had much of a shot. When the plant he worked at finally did close, a combination of private help from the community and government aid in the form of Food Stamps gave us enough money to cover the rent and keep my sister and I at Bronx Science.
Looking back at that, what strikes me is that many of the policies that OWS is protesting are policies that cost people like you and I vital opportunities to move up. Yes, we made it up anyway, but depending on where America goes from here stories like ours may get rarer and rarer. By attacking bastions of the working class and working poor like unions, government aid, and the minimum wage, many of the corporate policies OWS is protesting actually make it harder for the children of these groups to become self-made men. These policies also weaken and corrode entire communities, meaning that the safety net we so desperately needed for those few months when things were bad may not be there for the next guy. Like I said, I do what I do based on policy rather than people; if what the people in Zuccotti are fighting is bad policy I don't care what they smoke or how often they do or don't wash; they and I have a common goal and I'll stand with them until that goal is achieved.
We agree on the work aspect, and my story was similar albeit military and public schools. I struggle to sympathize for the teachers, as it like nursing is a job that likely cannot be outsourced to a LCC (not yet, I am in fact working on it though). The unions are probably the biggest limiter in terms of Teachers, witness union mandated "rubber rooms" for non working teachers still on the payroll. Nurses and teachers can also always move, as there are always jobs for them somewhere.
As for the other blue collar work (manufacturing) it's spilled milk already. Policies enacted during the Clinton administration and further back made it easy for us to offshore the work 15 years ago. The American consumer drives this, not corporations. Americans quite simply will not pay the high price point of US Union labor made products. The only manufacturing we have left is domestic defense, so we end the wars, and there goes a whole host of the remaining blue collar jobs that are left.
The safety nets in place are not going away, in recent years they have gotten better. If you are an unemployed parent, bottom line: your kid gets better medical treatment than my kid gets for the 5k a year I pay. Not to mention you will bring home the equivalent of 30k$ in unemployment/food stamps.
My biggest single concern though, is if you eat the rich, where will our next generations innovators and disruptors go? If my daughter doesn't have incentive to succeed because the 99% hate successful people, what have we taught our kids?
I think we need to re-diversify the industry in the U.S. I see the reliance on domestic defense as the only manufacturing we have left as a problem. Think, Detroit and the Auto Industry on a national scale. I see people getting tired of paying the lowest price, but quality is crap, so they end up paying more in the long run. I had a personal experience where six pairs of Walmart-bought Levi's didn't last 6 months! Think I was pissed? I haven't seen any #s yet. But I think people are slowly becoming more aware of what they buy and where it comes from. I certainly pay closer attention to manufacturing and production labels.
And I too believe in hard work. But, without even considering race card, I've seen plenty of people disadvantaged out the gate, to realize that "Equal Opportunity" is a hoax.
The American Dream, is what most people enjoy until they wake up and come back to the realization that they were just dreaming.
BTW, I know that there will always be rich people and that's not a bad thing. I do, however, think that we need to invest more on America's interior than on her exterior. Take some education cues from Japan and Germany models. Invest in our people as well technologies.
I think America, as a society, could be doing far greater things. Innovating and advance the world a hundred-fold to what we're doing now.
But I think too many people are short-sighted and just doing a snatch n grab for a quick buck.
Incidentally, my sympathy for teachers' unions comes from a very interesting place; the principal at Bronx Science was incompetent, tyrannical, and not a little bit racist. This isn't just hearsay or personal opinion; there's actual documented proof that she suggested a perfectly capable geometry teacher would be better off working as a school aide simply because she was black. The woman systematically dismantled the engineering and tech programs at a science and technology high school, and a number of brilliant, dedicated, amazing teachers either quit in fear and frustration or were forced out. This was with the teachers' union; now imagine what would have happened had the union not been there.
The blue collar work doesn't necessarily have to be spilled milk; there are a number of policy options that would begin the process of putting these people back to work again, beginning with a fairly large series of publicly monitored shovel-ready infrastructure projects as a stopgap measure and then a return to protectionism to remove the financial incentive to buy Chinese or Japanese.
Yes, the safety nets are still there now, but if you listen to the rhetoric and follow whole sets of popular opinions they may not be for long. Whole groups of people have had their benefits run out because they were unable to find jobs before the time limit was up due to the recession; now they and their kids are screwed. At the same time, whole groups of people are looking to make the safety nets as difficult to access and as skimpy as possible. Eisenhower once said that the 2010 brand of Republican would be laughed off the national stage (and booed off if they took too long to get the message) long before they could affect policy, and yet here we are. Forgive me if I don't take anything for granted right now.
I understand your philosophical worries, but I believe there is an answer. If we treat it as a matter of punishing people for how much they have then I agree that we've gone wrong somewhere. However, if we make it a matter of corporate and personal responsibility to lend a hand to the guy that doesn't have as much as you do then it becomes quite a positive lesson. The idea needs to be that you work as hard as you can to climb up the ladder, and then once you've reached the top you throw the next guy a line, and I think most people would have no problem teaching that to their kids.
Honestly, that's part of the reason I'm considering going into politics after I finish at MIT; I've already formed a set of fairly strong political opinions, and through some of my political science and economics classes I've started being able to look long and hard at implementation strategies that would hopefully benefit the country a great deal. I do believe that the platform is more important than the candidate, and so far I haven't been involved in anything that could be used as grounds to sling mud (and I intend to keep it that way). I want to see this country pull itself together and begin to fix itself, and I want to be part of the healing process if possible. Besides, I don't think anyone runs for the presidency for the salary or for the good life; there's a reason pretty much everyone who takes that job leaves several shades grayer than they came in.
I like a lil mud. It shows experience and perseverance. But the person must be honest and straight-forward about it. That was probably one of the best things, I think Obama did. Shutdown all the scandals by laying your cards on the table.
A little mud is fine, just make sure what goes in your pants stays in your pants...
LMAO!!! I've found my soulmate and totally contented in that area. Just waiting for the opportunity to make it permanent. (It's hard to get married when you're always truckin)
I think you could get my vote. You speak the truth.
Best of luck, politics could use fresh blood.
Thanks; I'll do my best.
Isn't that the whole point of advisers?
You cannot be an expert in everything. That's why you need advisors. But you must be armed sufficiently enough to make objective decisions based on fact at hand. Not to say you do not, I don't know you.
Personally, I respect a person that admits his short-comings and/or can say, "I don't know. Can I consult with my advisers and get back to you on that?" I hate these long and elaborate non-answers.
I don't know it all and I won't purport to know it all. However, I'm all for consulting with experts AND the PEOPLE. I think it's important for the citizenry to tell the prez and congress what is good for the citizenry! Enough with the dictatorial, trickle-down, "I know what's best for you" rationale. Government needs to SERVE the People, not RULE the People!
Well then, sounds like you are ready. Be advised, you need a degree though to get the job. I'd probably vote for you.
to what extent? Is that a legal requirement now?
I'm a U.S. born citizen of at least 35 years of age
True, but here's the catch: when an outsider runs for president the first and most persistent complaint you're going to hear from groups that oppose you is that you're not qualified to hold the job. The ideal way to refute that would be through degrees in political science, economics, and constitutional law and a fair amount of time spent running a nonprofit to provide the necessary executive experience without political connections. Acting as an owner-operator could be spun to provide the experience part, but the lack of a degree means that your opponents would have the chance to play the "uneducated equals stupid" card, and while that's far from the truth a lot of people might well buy into it.
That is in no way a reflection of my opinion of your qualifications; given what you've said earlier I'd probably be more willing to vote for you for president than most if not all of the current crop of hopefuls. I'm only looking at this from the perspective of a campaign strategist who has to worry about what stuff opponents and detractors might throw at you. I'm honestly considering getting a JD and an MBA after my undergraduate career and going into a career in politics with the engineering degree as a fallback if things don't work out.
Well, I didn't complete my undergrad. Had tons of fun with the courses in my Philosophy and Religion majors. But then I started thinking practically and didn't wanna become a preacher or teacher. So I went to the local tech college until the money ran out.