By on October 18, 2016

Caterpillar truck, Image: Caterpillar

So, there’s an election on, and a certain candidate has made some high-profile, sometimes inflammatory comments about American manufacturing and jobs being sent south of the Rio Grande. That person’s name is Donald T. No, perhaps that’s too obvious. D. Trump.

The Republican nominee recently found himself in a cage match with Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields after accusing the automaker of sending its jobs to Mexico. But one manufacturer that Trump does favor, one that he invests heavily in and whose products he plans to use to build a certain wall, also has a “Mexican problem.”

Back in September, Trump put Ford on the defensive. The automaker had announced that it was sending its remaining small car production — the Focus and C-Max — to a Mexican assembly plant.

Moving low-profit car volume to lower cost jurisdictions to free up U.S. plant space for high-profit trucks and SUVs has become a norm in the industry. Want to cut costs and boost profits? Send the little ones down to Mexico. Or, if you’re Sergio Marchionne, plead for other manufacturers to send you some little ones made in Mexico.

That angered Trump, who accused Ford of sending its workforce to Mexico, despite the fact that the departed Focus plant will see new product and the same number of workers, if not more. A UAW representative later blabbed that the Ranger and Bronco are headed to the Michigan Assembly Plant.

“Ford has been in the United States for more than 100 years. Our home is here. We will be here forever,” spokeswoman Christine Baker told CNN Money. As of last year’s annual report, Ford employed 96,000 people in North America, 53,000 of them American UAW members. Those union workers represent 99 percent of Ford’s U.S. workforce. In 2014, Ford workers numbered 90,000 in North America. The Blue Oval bolstered its U.S. ranks with another 3,000 hires in 2013.

Still, Ford remains a target. Trump claims he’d tariff the hell out of Ford’s Mexican products, despite North American Free Trade Agreement rules. Trump is, however, very keen on Caterpillar, that global, Illinois-based manufacturer of heavy equipment.

According to the Peoria Journal Star, Trump told coal miners in West Virginia, “I’ve always been fascinated by the mines. I don’t know why. I love construction. I love the whole thing. I can tell you more about Caterpillar tractors than the people that work there.”

Mines are indeed interesting, though the Caterpillar claim is open for debate. When describing the proposed border wall, he mentioned his favorite company again, saying the construction should involve Caterpillar. “I only want to use Caterpillar, if you wanna know the truth,” he told the audience during a Super Tuesday victory speech.

The man likes Caterpillar, and he puts his money where his mouth is. The company ranks 13th in a list of Trump’s top 14 stock holdings, Fortune claims. While Trump saw fit to invest somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 in Caterpillar, the company itself saw no problem with sending Illinois manufacturing to Mexico.

230 jobs will be lost at Caterpillar’s Joliet, Illinois facility as the company sends production of gear and engine oil pumps and valves to its Monterrey, Mexico plant. That plant makes parts for bulldozers and earth moving equipment, some of which would no doubt be used in the construction of that wall. The transition is taking place right about now, which is awkward timing.

This past summer, Caterpillar announced further cost-cutting, which could lead to more jobs leaving the U.S. for Mexico. Last month, 300 employees lost their jobs in Mossville, Illinois. Yet in the past, Trump has either praised Caterpillar or used it as an example of the struggles faced by the domestic manufacturing industry.

Caterpillar’s Illinois jobs aren’t coming back, so why single out Ford?

Sure, the Tempo was no great shakes, but unless Trump got a raw deal on a used sedan once, or has a personal beef with Mark Fields, the only thing that separates the two issues is money. Money invested in one company, and not the other.

[Image: Caterpillar]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

108 Comments on “Why Is Trump Bashing Ford, Praising Caterpillar as Both Send Jobs to Mexico?...”


  • avatar
    Speed3

    Because he is a sociopathic troll.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Speed3 – actually no. Sociopaths don’t do well socially. Trump would not have been able to be in reality TV or run a business as a sociopath.

      Psychopath on the other hand…………

      Psychopaths like sociopaths don’t have feelings for others by are adept at mimicking human emotion and manipulating others.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        reality TV *is* a business.

      • 0 avatar
        dartman

        WRONG! http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        Actually Donald Trump is the definition of a narcissistic sociopath. As per definition he fits it perfectly. A narcissistic sociopath is someone with a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and definitive behavioral signs of sociopathy. People with narcissism are characterized by their excessive and persistent need for others’ admiration and positive reinforcement.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Well, on second thought. Trump does fit the pattern.
          “Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage.”

          The caveat is this “They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long.”

          Trump being born into money could be seen as the factor that negates one’s ability to get along socially.

          If Trump then is a Sociopath then that would unfortunately leave the definition of Psychopath to Hillary.

          “Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

          When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and “con artists” due to their calm and charismatic natures.’

          https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          “definitive behavioral signs of sociopathy.”

          I’ll just leave this here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        I’ve read and been told for ages that psychopath is just an older term for what is commonly known as a sociopath in psychology today? But, it is still estimated 1 in 5 executives are sociopaths of some degree, and I believe the number is a lot higher as high functioning sociopaths are very good at controlling their surroundings and hiding their motives. In my opinion though, I’d say Hillary is much more high functioning than Trump, for better or worse. Without his dads money and bank guarantees Trump would have been a low-life streetbased con-artist at best, and Hillary has actually done a damn better job at rising from her starting point, mostly by building up Bills career first. (behind every strong man etc.)
        No matter how good her intentions may have been in the first place, rising as far as she has takes some elbows, and making the right deals at the right time. Trump is just a hack, and he knows it, and he makes no attempt at hiding it now that he understands that his followers actually respect him for ‘daring to say’ whatever pop into his mind at any given time.
        Even if Trump could be right twice a day (like any broken clock), and would mean a different kind of wrong compared to the current obviously (and not even remotely secretly) corrupt politics, I think Hillary is a way way more skilled leader of what is still one of the three most powerful nations in the world.
        But, I think the presidential election steals way to much attention from the people who are actually going to be in charge of the US, but that’s none of my business.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Zykotec – the term sociopath and psychopath are used interchangeably which is incorrect. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines them separately.

          Well said and it actually is your business since politics affects us all.

          • 0 avatar
            VW16v

            Lou did you memorize the latest James O’Keefe video? Hilarious stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            VW16v – why would I need to memorize the screed produced by a right wing nut-job who alters his videos for political effect?

            Does saying something negative about Hillary automatically put me on the right side of the political spectrum?

            I’d vote “Green” since “Comb Over” and “Sweep under” are your 2 main political choices.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        I would peg him as a cerebral narcissist. Look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The affliction is also known as delusions of grandeur. Most people with NPD don’t go that far in the world, but most didn’t inherit millions.

    • 0 avatar
      zip94513

      – Speed3 …… Agreed

  • avatar
    RS

    He’s inconsistent at best, but at least he’s making some effort against shipping out US jobs (many of them union jobs). Hillary, the globalist cheerleader, isn’t making any effort that way, but she has union support – at least the support of those who decide where union dollars go in politics.

    It’s a crazy world.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      RS – you point out the obvious reason for the confusion, anger and hate for the political body in the USA.
      On one hand you have a businessman who is a protectionist self-titled Republican favouring the white Christian working man and on the other a neo-liberal Democrat favouring the business elites.

      The cognitive dissonance is incredible.

      It does not bode well for the USA but not because of who may get elected but due to the mess that is USA politics.

      Trump is just a symptom of the disease that is destroying the Republicans and in many respects Hillary represents the disease that is damaging the Democrats. The Dems will weather Hillary but I doubt that the Repubs will ever be the same “grand old party”.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      He is not making any such “effort.” He is very much making an effort to rile people up with the issue, but he’s not actually proposing anything that would lead to more industrial jobs in the US.

      Counterintuitively, the best way to get those jobs in the US is through trade agreements with low-cost countries. Boost both compliance expenses and standards of living in the low-cost countries, and the US becomes more competitive. And as people get richer in poor countries the US is competing in a bigger market.

      But the catch is that the trade agreements have to have real teeth on the compliance side. The best thing Bernie did for US workers was to force Hillary to take the position that trade agreements need real environmental and worker protections with real consequences for failure to comply (which is how she justified her flip on TPP).

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        dal20402 – good points. A neo-liberal like Clinton has to pay attention to her political roots. The best way to improve things in the USA is to improve things in other countries (as counter-intuitive as that sounds).

        Trump is just stroking the fires of dissent in the USA to his advantage. A poor voter turnout favours him. His “fans’ will follow him into hell regardless of what he says or does. In that respect, he has nothing to loose by his outrageous comments.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        dal that line about “no it’ll actually help once they get wealthy and start buying our stuff!” was trotted out by Bill Clinton when signing NAFTA, we’ve yet to see it happen.

        In the mean time, Indianapolis just lost another 300 manufacturing jobs with Rexnord bearings announcing their relocation to Monterrey Mexico next year. Add that the the Carrier and UTEC loses this year.

        All the paperwork and teeth gnashing in the world won’t stop the Chinese from simply ignoring theses added worker protections, etc. They certainly don’t respect our intellectual property, why change now? There’s been over two decades of jobs being moved south of the border, but Mexico still strikes me as a fairly poor country with very low wages and massive crime/corruption problems. How many more decades of US job losses will it take before it’s all equilibrated and Mexicans are making enough to make selling US-made cars to them economically viable?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @gtemnykh
          Crazy economic theories like the trickle down effect. FTA’s create level playing fields etc

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “FTA’s create level playing fields etc”

            I can think of one really good example where a country got called out and complied, and that was Japan with their currency manipulation through the 70s/80s. They finally relented, it it burst their bubble big time and precipitated the “lost decade” over there. But China is not Japan, I simply can’t see them complying with anything regardless of what they sign, just going off their previous actions. There are a number of factors such as value added tax and government subsidies that make “free trade” not quite so in many cases.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          “We’ve yet to see it happen.”

          We are exporting more and more stuff to China and Vietnam by the day. And the growth of China’s exports to us has been flattening out. This is a direct result of the tighter labor market and increased environmental protections (which are actually coming into force, very very slowly) in China.

          Also, Mexico is another good example. They are still deeply poor. But they’ve climbed out of the worst of the cartel reign of terror, net outmigration to the US has stopped, and some northern areas are getting more prosperous and buying more stuff across our border. Free trade with the US is the only reason any of that has happened.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            There’s still a vast chasm in terms of trade imbalance, and the way the Chinese operate, it won’t be going away any time soon (read:ever)

            My question remains: how many more decades of American de-industrialization will it take before we reach this Utopian equilibrium?

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    He also left out how big the Caterpillar is in China. I am sure their contracts there are one of the reasons Caterpillar does not want sanctions against China.
    Be that as it may, IMO tariffing the Cmax and other small, low profit cars would only have Ford to stop selling them in the USA at all. They would still make them but only sell them abroad.
    If Trump wins I wonder if the Republican status quo would go for some of the things he is suggesting.

    • 0 avatar
      namesakeone

      If he did that, Ford would pay heavy CAFE fines. They need to sell those C-Maxes, Fiestas and Focii in order to sell the Expeditions, Explorers, Navigators and F-Series that really bring in the profit.

  • avatar
    Jagboi

    Trump never let the truth get in the way of his stories.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    GOOD, GOOD, let the hate flow through you.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I can pin a Star Wars character on Hillary rather easily but Trump?

      Oh, yes Trump would be Darth Jar Jar.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        “Meesa not yous daddy!”

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        That’s two characters.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          @28-cars-later. There are some well-researched theories about Jar Jar that suggests you may be wrong. Part of the reason the theories make sense is that the prequels don’t, but they make a good point still. (could be well founded as rumours say Lucas wanted a sort of ‘anti-Yoda’ for the prequels , but he changes his mind like most of us change underwear, so who knows)

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @28 – isn’t “Darth” just a rank or title?

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            It is, but wasn’t in 1977. In the first film, “Darth Vader” was just a name, hence Obi-Wan calling him “Darth” during their duel. Before Lucas came up with the father twist in the second draft of “Star Wars II” (what later became The Empire Strikes Back), Darth Vader and Luke’s unnamed father (not given the name “Anakin” until Return of the Jedi) were two different people. When Obi-Wan originally said that Vader had betrayed and murdered Luke’s father, he was telling the absolute truth, at least, until early 1978.

            Darth didn’t become a title for all Sith until the release of The Phantom Menace in 1999, with both Darth Maul and Darth Sidious.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lou

            I believe so, at least as of the “prequels”. Previously I believe it was taken to be Vader’s first name.

            EDIT: Dr Z was on it.

  • avatar
    jf1979

    A minor issue, coming from Dearborn MI, in no way is 99% of Ford’s US workforce represented by the UAW, 99% of line workers sure, but there are tens of thousands of workers in Dearborn alone that are not represented by the UAW.

    • 0 avatar
      WRohrl

      This part of this article is poorly written at best, and basically wrong. I have the annual report in front of me.

      To wit:

      There are 96000 North American Workers in total. (It does not spell out US/Canada/Mexico so presumably all 3 combined)

      Then it says that of the Unionized hourly-wage employees IN THE US approx 99% are part of the UAW. The other 1% presumably belongs to a different union.

      Then it says that 53,000 employees are covered by the UAW in the US..

      So about 53000 UAW in the US, 500 or so other unions in the US and the balance of approx 42500 are either non-union in the US and Mexico and/or presumably Unifor in Canada.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Simple, because that’s what his supporters want to hear. Trump likes to double down on what he said for the same reason.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      It’s become clear that Trump isn’t sure what he’s going to say from one moment to the next, but feels obligated to go to the mat defending what he says regardless of how crazy or outlandish it is.

  • avatar
    FOG

    On November 9, 2016, the sun will come up in the U.S.A. people will either be b!tching about their candidate losing and how the world is ending or praising their candidate as the answer to all the problems in the world. Personally, I will toast the winner, console the loser and then move on. BECAUSE NEITHER CANDIDATE WILL PUT FOOD ON MY TABLE OR MAKE MY LIFE BETTER. I is my responsibility to pursue happiness not the government’s privilege to provide it. I can either adapt, adjust or complain and combust.

    In the end, as bad as this place is supposed to be, we have more people trying to get in than want out so there are plenty worse places to live and not many better.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’m more interested than what the smart money is doing vs the dumb money.

    • 0 avatar
      Tandoor

      +1 to this.
      Besides, who expected honesty out of a candidate for office in this country (or any other)?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Normally I’d agree, but this election is different. It boils down to this:

      If Clinton is elected, I have confidence that there will be another presidential election in 2020 and that the result of that presidential election will be respected, no matter who wins.

      If Trump is elected, I don’t have that confidence. He hasn’t shown one whit of respect for our institutions and process, and his role model is a leader who made a joke of his country’s democracy. That is why I’m much more scared of Trump than I was of Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or any other past candidate who didn’t share my views.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Yep, I’m wondering if the “rigged election” gambit wasn’t Plan A all along. There’s got to be *someone* in that campaign with a brain who’d know that under normal circumstances Trump is unelectable.

        Trump has all the violent white dummies behind him and most of the gentler ones out of economic desperation and peer pressure. But that shouldn’t numerically be enough hence Plan A from the get-go.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Interesting perspective.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        There were nitwits that said Bush wouldn’t hold an election in 2008 too. Bush was actually accused of everything that Obama would go on to do, which makes one wonder what happens if all the dead and illegal voters can’t carry the electoral college for a pathological lying felon.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I don’t think I can pop enough popcorn to eat while watching this thread blow up. It is a rare moment where I am going to miss CJ’s special kind of crazy – maybe BT will come here with a few quality rants?

    One can only hope.

    crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch.

    Hillary is going to make a fantastic President.

    crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch.

    What? Sometimes yelling fire in a crowded room is fun to watch.

    Hillary………………

    crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    Trump is just bizarre. Since when was cozying up to a Russian authoritarian a good way to get elected?

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Since ‘Any Publicity is good publicity’ turned from some old silly PR saying to an actual fact regarding the followers of a certain presidential candidate.
      It seems sometimes like the worse he acts, the more his followers respect him, for just ‘daring to be different’.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Better to butt heads and play Cuban Missile Crisis, 21st Century edition?

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        28 days, exactly.

        What do you suggest FF, a no-fly zone in Syria? Or the Carly Fiorina “I’m a tough pouty girl” approach of just cutting off contact and not talking?

        It’s sad how far relations have fallen since the beginning of W’s presidency. Russia was willing to help in Afghanistan, dealing with Iran, any and all questions of counter-terrorism. Instead they got a bunch of NATO bases built up, a missile defense shield to negate the delicate balance of MAD. They had stopped flying surveillance missions and probing US air space for the better part of two decades. But we just kept on doing it to them. Why is it such a surprise when they restart their surveillance flights in kind, and take the necessary steps to make sure that MAD remains in place, and make moves to prevent further eastward NATO base expansion?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          They’re MADmen. But hey there’s a new Kardashians on so don’t worry.

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          All I was proposing was for US presidential candidates not to cozy up to Putin, but since you asked, for Syria I suggest handing it over to Putin in its entirely. It’s a traditional Russian ally and is not of strategic importance to us. No reason we should be involved in what’s turning out to be a sectarian proxy war among the Gulf states. Yes, Assad is a brutal dictator and it would be nice to be rid of him, but we stupidly tried that in Iraq and it didn’t work out too well, did it?

          As far as the NATO expansion went, why do you think those countries were interested in NATO membership? Do you suppose anyone in Georgia or the Ukraine could answer that?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            NATO expansion is a chicken or the egg sort of a scenario as far as I’m concerned. Baltics and Poland were occupied by the Soviets and wanted to safeguard against a repeat by any means necessary. But them being NATO members and stationing troops in their countries only serves to antagonize Russia into being more stand-offish. Can you imagine the reaction in the US if China and Mexico were holding joint drills within 100 miles of our border? Color revolutions in ’03-’04 brought US-oriented leadership to Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan by way of heavy State Department support. After Georgia’s ill-advised attempt to retake breakaway South Ossetia, leadership changed back to Russian-friendly (disgraced Saakashvili made his way over to the Ukraine to serve as governor of Odessa oblast in a sick twist of fate). Ukraine democratically elected Russian-friendly Yanukovich (corrupt oligarch, just like every Ukrainian president before him). When the Euro-alignment deal was derailed by Putin bribes of cheap gas and threats of cutting trade, the US State Department once again seized the initiative and we end up with US-friendly, equally corrupt Poroshenko. Russia annexing Crimea and the simmering fighting in the Southeast basically precludes NATO membership for Ukraine for the foreseeable future (a condition of membership is not having active territorial disputes). Likewise as long as Georgia wants Abkhazia and South Ossetia, NATO membership is effectively blocked.

            I think that Finland played it the smartest. They’ve figured out a way to toe the line with being adjacent to Russia and have normal relations (for the most part), and Russia recognizes/appreciates their straying from NATO membership and I don’t think has any sort of ‘beef’ with them.

            Just some geopolitical rambling, I’m open to being corrected.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @gtemnykh

            This is basically correct as I recall, but most don’t take the time to look at the history of Russia to know these things (no one takes the time to look WHO are the players in Ukraine and Georgia who they are connected to and why). Its all been about Empire since Gorbachev, a uni-polar Western empire that is now cracking from the seems because empires always do – far too expensive to maintain. They did not learn the lesson of the Soviet Union and instead repeated it in Europe and to a lesser extent, the USA. Now if I could choose an outcome to the presidential selection, I would prefer a cool headed Biden provided *all* the warmongering psychopaths were quietly suicided over a year (Clinton/Bush family and inner circle).

            On Finland I would look into the Winter War, Marshal Mannerheim, and post war on how Finland gets a “pass” from Moscow so to speak.

            Oh and nobody seems to get Crimea was in part a response to posturing over the old naval base at Tartus, Syria. The Black Seas Fleet was due to lose its lease in Crimea in I believe 2017 until Yanukovych signed a new one in 2010. Prior to the resigned lease, the fleet was potentially going to be moved to Tartus, Syria. After the CIA backed coup its long term presence was threatened, and Moscow acted in seizing the peninsula which was mostly Russian population in any event. Betcha the DC f*ckers didn’t see that coming. The wars they started in Libya and Syria are about many things, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a secondary goal was denying the use of Tartus.

            Chess, not checkers you fools!

            http://www.ibtimes.com/what-black-sea-fleet-5-interesting-facts-history-russias-crimea-naval-patrol-1558751

            http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2006/1087/print/

            http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/putins-game-of-battleship-the-black-sea-fleet-and-why-1537656215

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            28 days, I hadn’t considered the connection between the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea and the naval base in Syria, that’s very interesting.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Great discussion. Who says you can’t discuss politics logically?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks guys, obscure knowledge and ADD come in handy every so often.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I think it’s hilarious that Trump keeps bringing up Ford and Mexico while GM floats along importing the Envision.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I saw a Buick Envision in person the other day. It was actually very nice looking — the designers nailed it. Its a big improvement over the Enclave, which is just slightly odd somehow.

      I also noticed that the prices for the Varano and Encore look pretty similar the Cruz and Trax. Prices for those are around $21k for the base model, and about $24k for what I’d expect to actually see on the lot.

      Maybe Buick has decided to fix their “it’s just an expensive Chevy” problem?

      Suddenly I’m looking at Buick more favorably. With good Design and Chevy-like prices (on the models I’d consider), they might have a reason to exist!

      Alas, they’re still lagging behind Honda and Toyota in tech. My wife is looking for a cheap/efficient car with radar cruise control for her 100-mile per day, and GM’s got nothin’. So, we’re likely to get a Civic w/ Honda Sensing, which would cost about the same as a nicely optioned Varano.

      This little part of my world is upside down!

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    When autos are clearly profitable, let alone *obscenely profitable* (Silverado/Sierra/Ram), carmakers should be shamed into USA assembly, vs CAFE forced autos. F-series are now completely USA assembled, all the way up to F-750s.

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      Are there no Ford plants producing F series in Canada?

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        No. Ontario Truck used to be in Oakville/Mississauga, but is now Oakville Assembly Complex. I don’t know if it was just re-tooled or significantly rebuilt.

        F-Series is currently built:

        F-150: Dearborn and Kansas City.
        F-250-550: Louisville (Kentucky Truck Plant)
        F-350-550 Chassis-Cab: Avon Lake (Ohio Assembly)
        F-650-750: Avon Lake (Ohio Assembly.)

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      What makes something obscenely profitable?

      To me, high end speaker wire and the iPhone meets that definition – I suppose the new Google phone does as well. None of those are made in the US. Should Apple and Monster be shamed into making things stateside? Would you forgo buying a new computer or phone or another product because it’s not made here?

      It seems that many people care enough to get upset about it, but not enough to do something about it.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Autos are big ticket items, and cell/smart phones relatively cheap or free with a contract . We’ve come to expect them to be made in 3rd world places, along with laptops. They’ve always been.

        Except Detroit, Big 3 autos and trucks were traditionally US made. We can put a face on displaced autoworkers.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Mike for what it’s worth, my 3 year old Motorola Moto X was made right here in the USA in Ft. Worth TX. Sadly they shut that down towards the end of 2014. Mine’s holding up like a champ so I see no reason to upgrade any time soon. When I do, I’ll do my damndest to get another American made phone (if that is possible).

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Worth sharing, since the MSM seems strangely silent:

    DNC voter fraud:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

    DNC supporting PACs organizing professional provocateurs at Trump rallies:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    Between that and the slew of Wikileaks stuff showing Qatar giving the Clinton Foundation $1 million dollars for Bill’s birthday, insane collusion between the DNC and the press (forwarding debate questions, editing articles with their input) I don’t see how anyone can vote to sustain this epic racket.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      “I don’t see how anyone can vote to sustain this epic racket.”

      Fear of Trump.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I’ll take a braggart with a personal ego problem and tacky taste over someone with a rap sheet like hers, and a propensity to support any and all armed conflicts that we can get ourselves into. But hey that’s just me.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          I’ll take neither, thanks.

          One or the other will probably win the election, but they’ll do it without my help or my vote.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “One or the other will probably win the election, but they’ll do it without my help or my vote.”

            +1. I ain’t voting for sh*t. Apathy with a large dash of nihilism FTW.

        • 0 avatar
          Jagboi

          Kind of sad that those 2 choices are the best that could be put forward? I suspect you’d get a better president just by randomly drawing a citizen’s name, sort of like jury duty.

          It could be like those old Publishers Clearing House guys who came to your door and told you you’d won something. “Congratulations, you’re the new President…”

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            I don’t understand the people who are going along with it and just holding their nose and voting for whichever one they see as the slightly less horrible option.

            If you’re truly sold on one or the other then fine, give them your vote.

            But if you’re just picking the least worst option you’re only encouraging more bad options in the future and are therefore part of the problem.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Its a vicious cycle.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28 – “Its a vicious cycle.” Great reply to a guy called “bikesgoesbaa”. LOL

            bikegoesbaa – Everyone who doesn’t want to vote for Trump or Clinton should vote for Jill Stein or any of the 3rd party candidates.

            It is a sad sad day when one votes for who they hate less or thinks will f^ck up the country least.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I see one as a normal politician that is appealing in some ways and unappealing in others. I see the other as a potentially republic-threatening catastrophe. So I hold my nose.

            Also, both of the third-party candidates are complete fruitcakes. Gary Johnson smoked all the knowledge and common sense out of his head in 2003 after retiring from the governorship. Jill Stein believes earnestly in unicorns and fairy dust, but has a harder time with actual facts.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Sounds like the TV show Designated Survivor. The Capitol gets bombed during the State of the Union and the Secretary of HUD becomes President.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Have a look at Clinton’s and Trump’s statements on armed conflicts and see who is supporting more of them. Hint: it’s the one who loudly threatens invasion every time someone insults him.

          Also, she doesn’t have a rap sheet (just a lot of ill-defined suspicion), and he actually does.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “see who is supporting more of them”

            Care to provide some proof of that?

            Hillary supported bombing Kosovo as first Lady, Iraq, Libya, is goosestepping with the neocons on Syria.

            She’s the one cackling away about knocking Ghadaffi off and spiraling that country into anarchy, not Trump.

            Lower-ranking govt officials have been fired for much less than what Hillary and her people did with the email server (and cover-up). The fact that she considers herself above the law (and so far has gotten away with it) will not do the country any good if she’s elected. That’s third world-tier corruption.

            You really don’t mind that some rather odious characters (govts of Qatar, Saudi Arabia who both coincidentally have concrete ties to funding ISIS) shovel millions into the Clinton Foundation? That Chelsea was being investigated internally within the Foundation itself for taking money for her own for-profit business purposes? That over half the people Hillary met with as Sec. State. donated money to the Clinton Foundation ($156 million total)?

            The worst people have come up with Trump basically boils down to “he offends me, I think he’s mean” Has he said some reprehensible things both on the campaign trail and before that? Sure. But the guy doesn’t have blood on his hands, and doesn’t have a track record of war-mongering the world over, or raking in money hand over fist while in a political post.

            I’m not a frothing-at-the-mouth conservative/Republican (although I sure sound like it), but rather an independent, and a first generation immigrant to this country who’s aghast at the sort of corrupt criminal we might be on the verge of electing.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “Lower-ranking govt officials have been fired for much less than what Hillary and her people did with the email server (and cover-up).”

            This is a common talking point on the right, but I have yet to see proof of it. The examples always cited, when you dig into them, involve worse conduct than Clinton’s (usually because it’s knowing). Was what she did a good idea? Certainly not. It was bad judgment. But there’s a reason the FBI recommended against prosecution. It would have been very hard to show she meant to violate the law, and you have to show that.

            “You really don’t mind that some rather odious characters (govts of Qatar, Saudi Arabia who both coincidentally have concrete ties to funding ISIS) shovel millions into the Clinton Foundation?” No, because it’s not in the least illegal, and the evidence from her emails has tended to show that she *didn’t* do them any favors. There’s a consistent pattern of Doug Band asking for stuff and Huma Abedin ignoring him. This is close to my area of law and provided that the donors have no terrorist connections I’m not the least bit uncomfortable with it.

            “That Chelsea was being investigated internally within the Foundation itself for taking money for her own for-profit business purposes?” That’s a total misreading of the emails involved by political activists who know nothing about how organizations work. How much to pay insiders who perform services for the foundation is one of the central issues of foundation governance, and if anything the emails tend to show the foundation was being very cautious on the point. She was getting paid for real work she was doing (which is OK under the law), not taking money (which isn’t), and the question was how much it was legally OK to pay her. The foundation pushed back on the amount she requested using evidence, which is exactly how it’s supposed to work.

            “That over half the people Hillary met with as Sec. State. donated money to the Clinton Foundation?” This is only true if you ignore the vast majority of her meetings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/16/mike-pence/pence-wrongly-says-more-half-hillary-clintons-meet/

            “The worst people have come up with Trump basically boils down to “he offends me, I think he’s mean” Far from it. For starters, he (unlike Clinton) actually stole money from his foundation. What’s worse, he has a long track record of legal trouble, from the discrimination case against him in the ’70s, through fraudulent transfers during his bankruptcies, all the way up to the Trump University investigations in the present. The way to make Hillary Clinton look like a saint is to compare her record to his.

            “But the guy doesn’t have blood on his hands, and doesn’t have a track record of war-mongering the world over, or raking in money hand over fist while in a political post.”

            The *only* reason that is true is that he hasn’t held a political post.

            Trump has proposed taking Iraqi oil by force; bombing Iran, parts of Syria, parts of Libya, and even Palestinian territory; using nuclear weapons in several different places; and, short of military force, starting reckless trade wars with several of our closest and most essential allies. Clinton is more hawkish than I would prefer, but she’s a cooing dove next to Trump.

            “who’s aghast at the sort of corrupt criminal we might be on the verge of electing.”

            You’ve identified the wrong candidate as the corrupt criminal. She’s a little shady. He’s a confirmed thief and swindler.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “She’s a little shady.”

            Hmmm.

            No one will convince a Hillary or Trump supporter to change their vote, but the least we can all do is be honest about who these charlatans are.

            Trump is a self absorbed, misogynist bigot and Clinton is a law dodging, war mongering, unindicted criminal. Hillary is a great liar and Trump is great at manipulating the media. Great leadership qualities, eh?

            Magnifying the bad in one while minimizing it in the other is pretty dishonest.

            Neither is worth a vote.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            dal, the scramble by Clinton staffers to delete/destroy evidence (smashing phones, bleachbit, etc) and as evidenced by some of the wikileaks coming out shows just to what lengths they went to cover their tracks. Outside of Comey himself, there are many many people inside the FBI that saw the gross negligence and following cover-up as grounds to charge her. So she managed to slither out of this and that somehow clears her in your mind?

            Again, for you to simply brush off the coziness and donations from governments that I think could be very fairly called ‘deplorable’ is pretty eye opening IMO. No favors? She lobbied on their behalf to start air strikes in Syria, thankfully Obama was level headed enough and listened to the American people to abstain from action (to the jeers from lunatic neocons like McCain and co).

            Regarding meetings with donors. Again, you deflect on a technicality in wording. Okay so over half of her meetings with people outside the government donated to her foundation (85/154) for a total of $156 million. It still sounds really bad. Trying to defend that sounds really bad as well. How about the new number for donations from people in media favoring Clinton 96%, or her Wall Street pals backing her up with millions while Trump has almost no backers in big finance? Again, nothing illegal, but it raises a lot of questions about who Hillary is truly working for. This is precisely the kind of collusion that Bernie was fighting against, and we all know how that ended for him with disgraced Debbie Wasserman Schultz running the DNC show (she was immediately hired by Clinton’s campaign btw).

            Trump definitely has his history of legal dealings, but to me the key difference is that it was at a business/civil level, not at the level of running a country and people dying.

            “The *only* reason that is true is that he hasn’t held a political post.”

            At this point I’m willing to take a gamble at an unknown versus someone with an unprecedented record of supporting every single military action possible. Clinton has never seen a war she didn’t like. She also used her position of power to enrich herself quite handily. I can only hope/assume that Trump’s motivation to run are a mix of altruism and ego, given that he is already fantastically wealthy to begin with.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            dal I appreciate the discussion, and I wanted to mention in advance that I hope I did not say something that offends you personally, or comes across as a personal attack in any way. Regardless of political outlooks, I think we have a lot of common interests (namely used Japanese luxury cars it seems LOL) and I definitely would not want this particular difference in opinion to affect our mutual opinions of each other.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “thankfully Obama was level headed enough and listened to the American people to abstain from action”

            Good discussion.

            I must add that despite the superficial rhetoric of Obama’s camp in relation to things like Guantanamo, the war on terror,and human rights violations they actually carried right on with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld’s concentration of power within the Executive branch as well as finding ways to circumvent international law and to bypass the USA constitution.

            The “war on Terror” was shifted more upon the Military’s Special ops community due to less oversight. Also one could hide actions by the military under the doctrine of “preparing the battlefield”. Clandestine operation conceal the operation to protect the boots on the ground. The CIA tend to partake in Covert Ops where concealment of the sponsor is key.

            The USA has policy in place declaring “the world is the battlefield”.
            One can argue the benefits of violating Pakistani territory to get Bin laden or using a Predator drone to kill USA citizens e.g. Anwar al Awlaki suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

            Hillary Clinton is a player in much of that. But then again anyone in the position of Secretary of State would be.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Simple. Ford is a terrible company.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    I don’t trust Trump’s words but at least he says something on trade I like to hear. The other side was forced to change their position because of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And Hillary has been trained by that same person who is responsible for the disaster that is NAFTA.

    When was the last time US signed a trade agreement with a third world country that helped USA? Answer: NEVER. Reason being other side which doesn’t have same standard of living won’t play by the same rules. US will comply to rules of trade agreement, the other side keeps cheating. And while in no way, form or shape, I trust Trump’s words, on issue of trade, he talks closer to truth.

    If Hillary had selected Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as her VP, I believe her changed words and position on trade. As is, she picked someone who is just as mainstream as she is. It is really a no win situation

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      ” US will comply to rules of trade agreement, the other side keeps cheating.”

      Perhaps you should google the various softwood lumber disputes with Canada. Canada has won (multiple times) when the disputes were brought before the WTO (the agreed forum for dispute resolution) and the US simply ignores the decision when it goes against the US.

      The US certainly does not have a highly polished halo when it comes to complying with agreements it has signed.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “When was the last time US signed a trade agreement with a third world country that helped USA?”

    Never?

    Incorrect.

    It benefits someone.

    3rd world?
    Most people think any impoverished backwater is a 3rd world country but by definition it a post WWII term for any country not aligned with the USA or Communist Russia.
    Calling Mexico 3rd world would be correct but for the wrong reasons.

  • avatar
    carguy

    I can’t wait for this damn election to be over.

    The nastiness and negativity is just corrosive.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t know. Maybe it is good for us to occasionally acknowledge how much we all hate each other?

      It seems that every election gets just a little bit worse though.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        ajla – I am sure that there are some here that “hate” solely based upon ideology. There does need to be discussion of these issues. We can’t find common ground if we don’t try. One can argue that this is not the place but this is a politically motivated news story.

    • 0 avatar
      April S

      I liken it to a trash dumpster full of burning tires rolling down a steep hill into a minefield.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Meh… at least your dumpster analogy would have an endpoint.

        Our political situation can only grow worse as population pressures from all the wrong sources force economic and political disparity ever higher. See: South Asia.

        Enjoy the bloodless enmity (unless you’re an ambushed cop) while it lasts .

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I think the fact that we can have vigorous political discussions (and that there is something to even vigorously debate) is pretty awesome, personally. As long as people stay away from personal attacks when having said discussions, it’s all good. Now, whether TTAC is the place for all of these discussions is another question. I’d say having a specifically-political article such as this is an okay place to do so, as long as it doesn’t spill over into any other non-political articles, and as long as people don’t get nasty.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Agreed. An article like this one in a political climate like the present blatantly signals “Let ‘er rip, clicks are clicks.”

            I, too, prefer seeing comments that can make their point without literal personal attack; I’m a big fan of oblique, ironic and droll.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            ” I’m a big fan of oblique, ironic and droll.”

            A dish best served cold…

            Stay frosty ;)

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          The fridge is wise beyond his model years.

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    Wow, this site is getting way to political for my tastes.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: LOL. That’s why I prefer motorcycles.
  • Lou_BC: @el scotto – well said. Germany clued in post WW2 that any Nazi symbolism was bad and rendered illegal....
  • JimC31: Good grief, the hysteria from the automotive luddites here is embarrassing. Every single airliner in use...
  • Lou_BC: @mcs – agreed. Moving Mexico and it’s populace up the socioeconomic ladder would be just as...
  • Lou_BC: @stuki – Yes. USA is definitely NOT a meritocracy.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber