kscarbel2

GM invests millions in Mexico as Ford absorbs Trump's blows Bloomberg / October 14, 2016 After more than a year of watching Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump bash Ford Motor Co. for moving jobs to Mexico, General Motors Co. has pushed ahead with its own expansion. It just hasn't said as much as Ford. GM is advancing on an $800 million investment for its global small-car lineup that includes a factory retooling in San Luis Potosi state. That plant and another factory in Mexico will also build the redesigned Chevy Equinox crossover next year, people familiar with the matter said. The automaker has only said that the next Equinox will be built in a factory in Canada and two other sites, keeping mum about Mexico and avoiding both attention from Trump and the chance that the news might have roiled labor talks in Canada last month, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private. Taking a lower profile has kept GM out of Trump's cross-hairs and helped the Detroit company reach an agreement with its Canadian union, even as the Republican candidate singled out Ford's latest Mexican factory plan as "an absolute disgrace." For Mexico, GM's tight-lipped approach hints at how U.S. companies might operate if Trump wins the election after campaigning against the North American Free Trade Agreement. "Big American companies are being cautious, they don't want to have issues with the presidential candidates," Mario Chacon, head of global business promotion at Mexico's foreign investment agency, said in an interview. "They're feeling repressed because anything they say can be used against them." GM has been clear about its investment in Mexico, starting with an announcement in late 2014 that it would spend $5 billion there. The automaker just hasn't said much about the details since then. Ford splash Ford made a splash in April when, in the heart of primary season, the company said it would invest $1.6 billion in Mexico to make small cars. Ford CEO Mark Fields then said in September that the company would move all small-car production there. Trump's attacks have forced a reaction from Ford Chairman Bill Ford, who is great-grandson of the company's founder. Ford said in late September that the company makes more cars in the U.S. than any other automaker and that, "we are everything that he should be celebrating about this country." GM's investment in its factory in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi was initially announced in November 2015, without specific plans or details. The plan came in addition to the $5 billion the company said it would invest in December 2014 to expand and retool existing plants in the country. GM says it isn't hiding its investment in Mexico. "For competitive reasons -- especially as it relates to future product -- the specific details behind the investments get rolled out as we deem appropriate," Pat Morrissey, a spokesman for the automaker, wrote in an e-mail. Morrissey also said GM has invested $20 billion in its U.S. operations since 2009 and employs 97,000 people in the U.S. and 15,000 in Mexico. In past years, GM has been vocal in promoting its new investments in Mexico. It held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new railway extension in San Luis Potosi in 2014, invited a governor to announce an expansion in Coahuila in 2010, and fired off press releases detailing even its smallest investments -- including an $87 million contribution to a stamping plant in March 2015. That same month it also announced a new model it would produce in Mexico: the new generation Chevrolet Cruze. Investing 'quietly' By contrast, GM has no press statements on its website about investments in Mexico this year. There has been no information about the Equinox in Mexico, nor on where all of the $800 million pledged in November would be spent. The automaker has confirmed it will build the Chevrolet Equinox at a plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. GM also said it would make the Equinox and its stablemate, the GMC Terrain, at two other unidentified factories. "Companies don't halt their investment decisions for political reasons, they simply do it quietly," Chacon said. "No company wants to have big announcements now because they could see a negative reaction from unions in other countries. So decisions aren't made out in the open but they continue. They can't stop." GM President Dan Ammann had little to say about the political controversy that has embroiled Ford during election season. "We're observing," Ammann said in an interview with Bloomberg. Mexican benefits Labor costs that are about a fifth of U.S. levels have lured most carmakers to set up shop or expand in Mexico in recent years. Since the beginning of 2010, Mexico has snared $25.8 billion in announced investments, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Kia Motors Corp. and Volkswagen AG's luxury Audi unit inaugurated billion-dollar plants last month. A joint venture of Daimler AG and Nissan Motor Co. is working on a factory that will assemble compact vehicles, while Toyota Motor Corp. plans to produce Corollas. BMW AG is also building a plant. In addition to lower labor costs, Mexico also offers a network of international trade deals and proximity to the U.S. car market. "Mexico's free trade agreements, geography and labor costs make it more attractive than Brazil," Horacio Chavez, Kia's Mexico country chief, said in an interview last month. "It allows us to reach many markets."

Automakers, dependent on Mexico, face a rougher road with Trump Reuters / November 9, 2016 The election of Republican Donald Trump as U.S. president put new pressure on automakers and other manufacturers that depend on open trade with Mexico. Shares fell for U.S. automakers and suppliers, which rely heavily on production in Mexico to feed their U.S. manufacturing and sales operations. General Motors shares dropped as much as 4 percent on Wednesday before recovering some of that decline in the late afternoon. The automaker said on Wednesday it was laying off 2,000 people and cutting a shift at a Lordstown, Ohio, factory that builds Chevrolet Cruze small cars and at a Lansing, Mich., plant that builds slow-selling Cadillac sedans and Chevrolet Camaro sports cars. Ford Motor Co. shares were up 1.2 percent in late afternoon trading after sliding earlier in the day. Electric luxury car maker Tesla Motors Inc. shed 3.3 percent. Tesla could be hurt if a Trump administration cuts federal support for electric cars. Shares of big automotive parts makers that have shifted operations to Mexico were hit hard. Delphi Automotive fell nearly 6 percent after rebounding from deeper losses. Canada's Magna International Inc., whose Mexican operations account for about 14 percent of sales, were down 3.7 percent. Trump made attacks on the outsourcing of American auto jobs to Mexico a recurrent theme in his campaign, a message that rallied blue-collar workers while threatening to upend the business assumptions behind billions of dollars in planned investment by the auto industry. Tension over Ford plants In announcing his campaign in June 2015, Trump vowed to block Ford from opening a new plant in Mexico and threatened to impose tariffs on cars it shipped back across the border. But those moves would force U.S. consumers to pay higher prices for vehicles, said Charles Chesbrough, senior economist at the Detroit-based Original Equipment Suppliers Association trade group. "(Trump's) trade policies could add $5,000 or more to the price of a small car from Mexico," Chesbrough said. U.S. vehicle manufacturers and many of their suppliers have based billions of dollars of investment on relatively open trade with Mexico, China and other countries. Ford in April announced plans to invest $1.6 billion to expand production of small cars in Mexico. Trump took aim at that move as well as GM's plans to invest $5 billion there. GM said in a statement on Wednesday that it "looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and the new Congress on policies that support a strong and competitive U.S. manufacturing base." Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said: "We agree with Mr. Trump that it is really important to unite the country, and we look forward to working together to support economic growth and jobs." In September, Ford said it would shift small-car production from U.S. plants to lower-cost Mexico, drawing another rebuke from Trump. "We shouldn't allow it to happen," Trump said. Ford said its decision to build new vehicles in Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford last month said he met with Trump to discuss criticism from the candidate but called the discussion "infuriating" and "frustrating." Ford said his company employed more people at its U.S. plants than any other automaker. Ford has not slowed investment outside the U.S. As ballots were cast in the United States on Tuesday, Bill Ford was in India to announce a $195 million investment in a new technical center near Chennai. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of auto factory jobs dropped by a third in the United States and rose almost fivefold in Mexico as lower-wage production boomed. Mexico now accounts for 20 percent of all vehicle production in North America and has attracted more than $24 billion in investment from the industry since 2010, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. Based on current investment plans, Mexico's auto production capacity will grow by another 50 percent over the next five years, said the [biased] center, which draws funding from the industry. "Dismantling NAFTA at this point would be pretty hard to do," said Kristin Dziczek, the center's director of industry, labor and economics.

Car & Driver / November 2016 Overview: The GMC Canyon was revived for a second generation in 2014 alongside its Chevrolet Colorado twin and immediately reinvigorated the moribund mid-size pickup market. Where once these trucks were left to languish for a decade or more without significant changes—or were killed outright—the fresh General Motors duo were quickly joined by an updated Toyota Tacoma and a redesigned Honda Ridgeline, while a new Nissan Frontier and a reborn Ford Ranger should be online within three years or so. The Canyon offers two cabs (extended and crew) and two bed lengths. Four-wheel drive can be found on most trim levels. Available engines include a 200-hp, 191-lb-ft 2.5-liter four-cylinder in lower trims that’s as slow as it is undesirable. If you can spring for a higher trim where the 308-hp V-6 is standard—or the roughly $1200 to upgrade where it’s not—do it. [Only] Crew-cab Canyons can be ordered with an optional diesel engine. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder costs $3730 more (except in the 2WD SLE short-bed crew cab, where it runs $4965) and delivers 181 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque, along with up to 7700 pounds of towing capacity. Although if you’re towing anywhere near 7000 pounds with a Canyon—never mind 7700—we suggest you step up to a half-ton truck like GMC’s Sierra 1500. While pricing for the most part is fairly close between the Chevy and the GMC—the gap widens slightly when moving to the upper trim levels, where the Canyon offers a few additional baubles—the main difference is that the GMC offers the Denali trim at the top of the range for those who desire the fanciest mid-size truck money can buy. The truck we drove for this review was a four-wheel-drive Denali crew cab equipped with the Duramax diesel, and it had all of the luxury and tech appointments one can get in GMC’s smallest pickup, including 4G LTE Wi-Fi connectivity, Apple CarPlay, lots of USB ports, heated and cooled front seats, a stitched dashtop, and more. What’s New: For 2017, the Canyon’s V-6 option was upgraded to GM’s latest 3.6-liter model, paired to a new eight-speed automatic. While the displacement remains the same as before, the six-cylinder is substantially revised and adds 3 horsepower and 6 lb-ft of torque over last year’s model. It’s more efficient, too, but only just: city and highway economy are unchanged, but the EPA combined rating has gone up by 1 mpg on both two- and four-wheel-drive models. Perhaps more important is that V-6 Canyons should be quicker; we recently tested a V-6 Colorado with the new hardware and it shaved more than a second off its zero-to-60-mph time. Two trims are new this year: the Denali and the All Terrain X. The former brings a brash chrome grille, more chrome exterior trim, 20-inch wheels, heated and ventilated front seats, nicer leather upholstery, and a heated steering wheel. The Denali also features the top-level 8.0-inch infotainment touchscreen, navigation, remote start, and automatic climate control. Oh, and a pile of Denali badges and logos for the door sills, front headrests, steering wheel, doors, tailgate, and floor mats. The Canyon’s All Terrain X package isn’t as badass as the one available for the Sierra 1500, but it does snag off-road tires, all-weather floor mats, side steps, hill-descent control, specific 17-inch wheels, and an off-road-tuned suspension. What We Like: If you want a diesel engine in a truck that’s somewhat easier to maneuver and park than a full-size rig, your list starts and ends with the Canyon and the Colorado. The diesel engine pulls smartly off the line thanks to its abundant torque, which helps enable the big-for-a-small(er)-truck tow rating. The diesel powertrain is relatively well-behaved in terms of noise, vibration, and harshness, thanks in part to the extra sound-deadening material it gets; while the Duramax isn’t exactly quiet, it never sounds unpleasant. The diesel returns impressive fuel economy, achieving 22 mpg overall in our testing and 28 mpg on our 200-mile highway loop. The Canyon is easy to wield around town, especially in short-wheelbase form, it’s relatively quiet while cruising, and its ride quality is good even with the larger wheel options. (Broken pavement can introduce a chopping motion at the rear when unladen, but, hey, it’s a leaf-sprung pickup.) The updated V-6 is smooth and powerful and the new eight-speed automatic shifts unobtrusively. The extended-cab versions have adequate rear-seat room, while rear passengers have access to two USB charging ports. Finally, interior ergonomics are solid, and the Canyon looks handsome inside and out. What We Don’t Like: The Denali has most of the features you’d expect at its price, but the interior appointments disappoint. Even in our approximately $44,000 example, the door panels are topped with hard, shiny plastic—and the pockets in those door panels are exceptionally undersize—while the “wood” trim is obviously plastic playing dress-up. All Canyons and Colorados, including the Denali, come up a bit short in features and amenities, however, including only a single-zone automatic climate control, no full-power seats, and no proximity key entry and push-button start. These faults can be forgiven in some of the lesser trims, but then you dance with the possibility of the four-cylinder engine, which feels wheezy and overtaxed even before you start to put the Canyon to work. Ingress can be a bit of a chore, requiring a hop up through somewhat small door apertures. The Canyon also can get quite expensive, approaching $50K when fully outfitted—at that point, we’re eyeing any of several excellent and well-equipped full-size pickups, including the $52,505 F-150 Raptor. The Canyon’s biggest problem, however, comes in the form of Honda’s Ridgeline, which offers enough capability for most day-to-day chores while delivering comfort, handling, stowage solutions, and refinement that the better-looking GMC can’t come close to matching. Verdict: A solid, stylish, and small(ish) truck with a Honda problem. Photo gallery - http://www.caranddriver.com/photo-gallery/2017-gmc-canyon-quick-take-review

Dana Press Release / October 17, 2016 . . .

One of the biggest surprises for me about the election is I lost some respect for Giuliani. Perhaps his age is showing. He used to choose his comments well. But the quality of his comments fell, I thought, towards the end of the election.

You speak of regen issues........... I want to take this opportunity to share something. The trucks in Europe, from DAF to Mercedes-Benz, are not having any of the problems that some U.S. operators are experiencing. Trucks can and do break, but generally they're not having these problems. Why? The US truck is priced cheaper than the European truck. There's typically a 4 year lag before the US market receives new technology from Europe. And when they do, here's the nutshell, they have to reinvent it in a cheaper (lower cost) form to match up with the cheaper U.S. truck price. In summary, the U.S. market truck price is lower than Europe. The cost of all parts/components has to be tallied with still some room for profit (margin), while remaining in the competitive range. Since the US truck sells for less, either leading edge global truck technology doesn't come to the US market at all, it is delayed 3-5 years, or it arrives in a lower cost form that isn't as reliable as the European market version.

It can be easily argued that Trump is not a "successful businessman". Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy no less than four times. There's an alarming pattern there, and few would argue it is the mark of a successful businessman. ------------------------------------------------- If Trump fulfills even half of his promises, that in itself will be interesting. Hundreds of times, he promised to build a wall on the US border with Mexico and deport all or many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. [And rightly so.] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration However, in a June 2012 CNBC interview, Trump said he didn't believe in deporting undocumented immigrants who "had done a great job." "You know my views on it and I'm not necessarily, I think I'm probably down the middle on that also,” said Trump. “Because I also understand how, as an example, you have people in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job, they've done wonderfully, they've gone to school [for free], they've gotten good marks, they're productive — now we're supposed to send them out of the country, I don't believe in that. I don't believe in a lot things that are being said." He completely flipped on his "illegal immigrant" position. If they've successfully evaded capture by the INS for 20 years, they can stay ! My wife is from Norway. I had to go through the whole immigrant process with her, from green card to U.S. citizenship. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed to cross our borders at night and stay? Why should I have gone through all the procedures for "legal" immigration, when these people can ignore our laws and receive amnesty to stay? Who's the fool? I want EVERY "illegal" immigrant deported........period. ------------------------------------------------- You should be scared. I am. Unlike the average American, I travel throughout the world. I can report to you that things are very, very bad. We particularly plunged downward from George W. Bush's tenure. America has massive issues before it, almost indescribable in scale. And, we face them without the significant edge (superiority) that we once enjoyed for decades.

Why the Elite Wanted Trump To Lose Daniel McCarthy, The National Interest / November 9, 2016 Elections pose a basic problem. Should the direction of a government be set by amateurs, by a majority or plurality mass of people who know nothing about policy detail, or should the best and brightest, the educated elite, make informed decisions for the good of everyone? Last night, the amateurs chose a new leader and a new direction for the country. Donald Trump is now president-elect. The elite thinkers of the media and policy realms are appalled. They spent months insisting that Trump was an ignorant bigot, a dangerously unstable fellow who could not be trusted with the kind of power that only they were fit to wield. The elite in both parties, among “conservative” journalists as well as “mainstream” ones, wanted Donald Trump to lose, and they confidently predicted he would. They were wrong. Trump does not have the conventional resume of a presidential aspirant. He has never held elected office. He has never served in the armed forces, either. Instead, he has been a high-profile businessman and television celebrity. His name is a brand. How does that prepare anyone to occupy the Oval Office? Trump is prone to making off-the-cuff remarks and articulating his policy themes in sometimes shockingly blunt language. This plain-spokenness and tendency toward hyperbole is perhaps as objectionable to educated elites as his policies: a good, well-educated technocrat, a polished politician, simply doesn’t use that kind of rhetoric. He has violated “norms,” and those norms—the etiquette of the elite—are sacrosanct. If this is as far as one’s analysis goes, it seems obvious that the voters are wrong to make Donald Trump president. But maybe some things are more important than credentials or elite norms: perhaps, it’s worth considering, policy results also matter—and matter rather more. Judged by the standard of her policies and their results, Hillary Clinton was evidently unfit to to be president. She voted for a Republican president’s unnecessary and wholly catastrophic war in Iraq. She urged a Democratic president to effect regime change in Libya. She has been a staunch friend to institutions of high finance that bear a large degree of responsibility for the financial crisis of 2007/8 and Great Recession. And she subscribes straight down the line to a progressive social agenda that Americans have never been willing to support when given a direct say in the matter. Gun control? Abortion? Clinton was considerably to the left on such questions. She has long been a peculiar mixture of centrist and leftist, combining many of the worst elements of each. Yet she had credentials. She followed the prescribed etiquette. And many of her screw-ups, however lethal they proved to be, were screw-ups in which other leaders in both parties shared responsibility. What Republican could criticize Clinton for her Iraq vote? How different was Clinton’s involvement with, say, Goldman Sachs from that of other politicians? Clinton’s policy faults were not faults at all in the eyes of her fellow educated elites. Indeed, as anyone who’s spent a bit of time in Washington, DC discovers, it’s professionally better to be wrong in a crowd than to be right by yourself. Clinton did not stick out. She did not make others of her class uncomfortable. George Will could have tea with her. America’s educated elite—in the academy, the media, government, and the para-governmental world of think tanks and pressure groups—has been systematically and collectively wrong about some of the biggest questions in foreign policy, economics, psychology, sociology, and culture. The best and brightest have assumed for twenty years that what every man and woman on earth most deeply desires is to become a liberal democrat. Steel workers in Pittsburgh and goat-herders in Afghanistan really in their heart of hearts yearn to be more like Washington Post op-ed columnists. What could be a higher human aspiration? The belief that comfortable, sexually satisfied consumerism, wedded to gauzy notions universal brotherhood (or sisterhood, or gender-nonspecific siblinghood), is all people want out of life has fueled the drive to integrate world markets, merge populations across borders, and dissolve the sovereignty of any state that falls short of the liberal-democratic ideal. Anyone who rejects this anthropology is irrational—much as Donald Trump is irrational—and requires education, if not medication. So bizarre and incompatible with historical humanity is this vision that all the wealth and prestige at liberalism’s disposal have not been enough to keep even Americans from demanding something else. The alternatives Trump offers are the nation-state and a vague idea of greatness—which, vague though it might be, is still rather more than what liberalism is selling. The voters who elected Trump don’t subscribe to the complex ideological formulae of Beltway apparatchiks. But they know how they feel, and they know what’s happening in their own lives. They know that being an American doesn’t seem to mean as much or promise as much as it once did. And so they want to make America great again, and Trump is the instrument at hand. They know from experience things that a Brookings scholar’s flowcharts can never reveal. A false anthropology undergirds the terrible errors that our educated leaders have made in foreign policy, economics, and governing in general. A different anthropology—hardly a completely correct one, but a more realistic one—is what informs the Trump vote, however inchoately. The amateurs know more than the experts. Donald Trump figured that out, and it’s won him the White House.

How Trump Replaced America's Globalist Consensus With A Nationalist Sensibility Robert W. Merry, The National Interest / November 9, 2016 Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites. The old order of American politics crumbled on Tuesday with an election that signaled an inflection point in the nation’s history. Donald Trump’s victory, almost universally considered impossible until it happened, shattered the globalist consensus of America’s governing elite and replaced it with a nationalist sensibility exemplified in the slogan, "America First." Never in the country’s history has it seen an anti-status quo, anti-establishment politician of such force and effectiveness. The globalist consensus contained a number of central tenets, all rejected by Trump. They included: — We live in a unipolar world, with America at its center as an "indispensable nation" with an imperative and mandate to dominate events and developments around the world; spread Western-style democratic capitalism; and salve the hurts and wounds of humanity in far-flung precincts of the globe. — The nation state is in decline and is being replaced by emergent multinational super-institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations and, presumably, Hillary Clinton’s proposed "hemispheric common market," with open trade and open borders. — The demands of constituent identity groups, based mostly on ethnicity and gender affiliations, are more important than any concept of national unity. — Borders have lost their significance as nationalist sentiments have receded, and while something probably needs to be done about illegal immigration, largely to assuage political pressures, there is nothing essentially wrong with mass immigration. — Free trade is an imperative in the post-Cold War era of globalization to lubricate global commerce and spur global prosperity. — Despite the advent of Islamist radicalism, fueled primarily by intense anti-Western fervor, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of Muslims can’t be assimilated into Western societies smoothly without detriment to those societies. This globalist consensus was embraced by American presidents from Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama and then to Clinton II. It was so entrenched within the top echelons of American society—the federal bureaucracy, the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks and charitable foundations—that hardly anyone could conceptualize any serious threat to it. Then Trump attacked it and marshalled a rowdy following of people bent on upending it. The globalist sensibility won’t go away, but it now is seriously challenged. The result is a new fault line in American politics. The Trump constituency rejects most of the central tenets of the post-Cold War consensus. Its beliefs include: — The American experiment in national building, with an attendant propensity for regime change, has been an utter failure, particularly in the Middle East, and needs to be replaced. America must be in the world but shouldn’t try to dominate it. — Nationalism is a hallowed sentiment, tied to old-fashioned patriotism, and shouldn’t be denigrated or rejected. — Identity group politics is eroding national cohesion and, through political correctness, is threatening free speech on the country’s college campuses; that threat will grow throughout society if not checked. — Borders matter; countries without clearly delineated and enforced borders soon cease to be countries. Immigration numbers should be calibrated to ensure smooth absorption and assimilation. — Free trade, as practiced in the post-Cold War era, is killing us, hollowing out the country’s industrial base and devastating its middle class. — Islamist radicalism represents a serious threat to homeland security, and it is merely prudent, therefore, to consider adjustments in immigration policy as one tool in seeking to lessen the threat. Clearly, a clash is inevitable between the post-Cold War elites and the Trump constituency. And its intensity was presaged by writer and thinker Shelby Steele in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. Steele traced the emergence over recent decades of the view that America was a "victimizing nation," tainted by its history, particularly slavery, its treatment of its native Indian populations, and its diminishment of women and minorities. This raised a perceived imperative, in the view of many, that the country must redeem itself from its oppressive past. This could be done, writes Steele, only through a kind of deference "toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization." But this call for deference assumed a moral high ground—and thus became a political weapon. From this moral position, the deference cadres could look down upon those who didn’t embrace the argument and stigmatize them as "regressive bigots." Writes Steele: "Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma." He cites Clinton’s famous "basket of deplorables," those Trump followers who don’t embrace her view of America as victimizing nation. They are stigmatized as "irredeemable," subject to her sense of political correctness. "And political correctness," says Steele, "functions like a despotic regime." Then along came Trump, a thoroughly non-deferential figure, "at odds with every code of decency," who "invoked every possible stigma" and rejected each with dismissive sneers. "He did much of the dirty work," writes Steele, "that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do." It didn’t take long for the writer’s stigmatization concept to manifest itself in the coverage of Trump’s victory. The New York Times lead story, by Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro, revealed the dismissive bias explored by Steele. Trump, wrote Flegenheimer and Barbaro, won the presidency through a campaign "that took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American democracy." The reporters predicted "convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold." Here we see the one-sided elitist view that the post-Cold War consensus and the imperatives of deference toward victimization, past and present, constituted the only proper outlook. Rejection of it, in this view, poses a threat to the very institutions and ideals of the republic. And certainly no concept of journalistic objectivity should get in the way of exposing such nefarious thinking. But Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites of both parties who presided over national decline and economic inertia, failed to secure the country’s borders, got America mired in unceasing Mideast wars, and pursued trade policies viewed as harmful to the country’s middle class. He galvanized white working class voters and rural folks throughout the nation, even in traditionally Democratic states in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. By 2:40 a.m. Eastern time, when Pennsylvania put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the Republican candidate had flipped five major states that had voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012—Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition, Michigan and New Hampshire, also Obama states in the two previous elections, teetered between the two candidates as votes were counted late into the night. Trump was particularly strong among whites without college degrees, expanding his margin of victory with this voter segment to nearly 40 percentage points from just 25 percentage points in 2004. Whites with college degrees remained with the GOP but by a much smaller margin than in previous years. Wealthy Americans shifted away from the Republican Party in significant numbers. All this suggested the possibility of a serious realignment in American politics, with more wealthy voters (educated suburbanites, Country Club types, urban dwellers) moving toward the Democrats and with working class Americans (once the bedrock of the Democrats’ old FDR coalition) shifting to the GOP. But the intensity of voter angst in this particular campaign year could be seen in some exit poll results. Responding to a question on what voters considered the most important issue, some 40 percent said they were animated primarily by a desire for change. Of those, 82 percent voted for Trump, compared to only 13 percent for Clinton. Two other question segments revealed a willingness on the part of many voters to overlook Trump’s personal shortcomings in the interest of getting the country on a new course. Among those who felt neither major candidate was qualified for the presidency, Trump garnered 69 percent. Among those who said neither had the temperament for the office, he collected 70 percent. In other words, when forced to choose between two unpalatable choices, a large majority considered Trump the least unpalatable.

My friend, we all enjoy hearing your opinions. What the gentleman actually wrote is: "There's also the problem of supplying Volvo "legacy" parts, as Volvo has corrupted Mack with their engines and more for over a decade now." Most folks agree there's a big difference between some people have a clean, constructive and intelligent conversation, .......and bashing. Please step back, take a deep breath and reread the posts. There's no Volvo bashing above, rather, just some thoughts related to a financially-challenged Volvo now selling off many assets. Mack could easily be next. If you are thrilled to death with your Mack-badged Volvo trucks, I think that's great. If you're happy, I'm happy. And if you're that pleased with Volvo engineering, i.e. the better choice as you put it, you can simply buy a Volvo the next time around. I don't care for Cummins myself, aside from the Cummins-Scania XPI common rail fuel injection. I don't care for Western Star's direction in the US market, but they sell a superb product in Australia and New Zealand. As many fleet managers will tell you, and our own Bullhusk (Ernie), the Detroit engines are arguably the best powerplants currently available in the North American market. I myself wouldn't touch a Volvo engine, one reason being the Delphi fuel injection and its related problems.

We'll never know what happened......................but something "did" happen. But it appears that when Comey announced the investigation of the emails on the Weiner computer 11 days before the election, Clinton lost her broad support from the aristocracy. Secret discussions were held.......negotiations took place. One obvious possibility is that knowing Hillary would have been plagued by investigations throughout her tenure made her election a non-option.

Trump's Road To Victory Jacob Heilbrunn, The National Interest / November 9, 2016 Trump’s accomplishment may be to reshape the Republican party into a populist one. Now that he has won the presidency, Donald Trump looks, to use one of his favorite phrases, like a political genius. For those of you who blanch at the notion, get real. He scoffed at the idea that he needed pollsters or a lot of advertising. He was patently bored by the notion of fundraising, and didn’t do much of it. He lashed into his detractors and political foes with relish, deploying a barrage of insults that would have made even Lenin, who contributed much to the lexicon of insults, proud. But most notably, Trump devised an electoral strategy based on the Rust Belt that propelled him to the presidency. It was Trump, and Trump alone, who set the course of his campaign, defied his advisers, destroyed both the House of Bush and Clinton and engineered his victory, which is invariably being labeled as “stunning.” Certainly it stunned the political establishment. During the campaign, it was his adversary Hillary Clinton who came across as a relic of the old order. Her campaign was the political equivalent of the Hindenburg disaster. It was always difficult for Clinton to reinvent herself. Her husband Bill, after all, was an original New Democrat—a centrist who broke with the left-wing of the party. Along with other members of the Democratic Leadership Council such as Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, he took a tough stand on foreign policy and social issues. That heritage was also ingrained in Hillary, though she tried to assuage the concerns of the followers of Bernie Sanders by tacking to the left on free trade. But somewhere along the way New Democrats became Old Democrats. Her recipe of jobs retraining and liberal social values didn’t offer much of sustenance to the white working-class that had once formed the base of the Democratic party. Democrats who try to blame the election results exclusively on FBI Director James Comey or on WikiLeaks are making a big mistake. These may have contributed to Trump’s victory, but they hardly formed its substance. Something much more fundamental is going on. Writers such as Michael Lind warned several decades ago about the rise of an America “overclass” that was indifferent to the economic fortunes of the rest of the country. Both the Democratic and Republican parties connived at this development. Now comes the revenge of the repressed who Trump appealed to with his incendiary rhetoric. Trump’s accomplishment may be to reshape the Republican party into a populist one. The Republican retention of the Senate and House of Representatives means that, at least for two years, gridlock should be a thing of the past. The burden for Trump and the GOP will be enormous. The prospect of Congress actually legislating brings to mind Lady Markby’s remark in Oscar Wilde’s play An Ideal Husband: “Really, now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.” Trump will be intent on repealing ObamaCare, but what will replace it? Disputes are certain to emerge about taxes and spending as well. To what extent will deficit hawks clash with supply-siders? Does Trump really want to spend double what Clinton proposed on infrastructure programs? How will he pay for a massive military buildup? How will Republicans like Paul Ryan deal with, or adapt to, Trump’s demands for renegotiating NAFTA? Will Trump really pursue a trade war with China, one that could trigger a recession, if not a global economic meltdown? When it comes to foreign policy, Trump also faces a litany of choices and difficulties. He has suggested that he might meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin before he takes office. He will have to assess American relations with NATO allies as well as the pivot to Asia that the Obama administration began to execute. Writing in the Washington Post, David Ignatius suggests that Trump “will bring an intense “realist” focus on U.S. national interests and a rejection of costly U.S. engagements abroad.” The key question he will have to answer is what actually constitutes realism. The next question, of course, is which advisers will help him define that. Not since Dwight Eisenhower has America had a president who never held prior political office—and in the military, Eisenhower was the politician par excellence. Above all, Trump will confront the inherent limitations of the presidency. He can’t simply issue ukases. Trump will collide with the uncomfortable truth Founding Fathers sought to keep the three branches of government in a kind of equipoise. Though it seems doubtful that Trump is familiar with it, Marx’s 18th of Brumaire contains more than a bit of wisdom: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” For now the GOP is Trump’s party. But if Trump really wants to show that he’s mastered the art of the deal, he will have to deal artfully with both his friends and foes. It's a tall order.

Two days ago, most of the mainstream media was still slamming Trump. Within the first six hours of Trump winning, the same mainstream media was being kind to him, hoping to get on his good side, with the White House Press Corps in mind. Now, 12 hours later, the mainstream media to predicting gloom. The sad thing is, many Americans are influenced one way or another by the mainstream media.

Allegedly, big business, the financial world and governments around the world were relatively confident that their girl would win, and will be shaken for a period of time by the uncertainty of Trump's win. Hedging their bets, I assume they held discrete discussions with him over the last 60 days. We'll have to see.......it could be interesting. If he holds to his promises, the next four years shouldn't be the least bit dull.

Trump had said multiple times that, if elected, "She [Hillary Clinton] has to go to jail". (Based on what we're told, I couldn't agree more) But today, Trump said in his victory speech, "We owe (Clinton) a very major debt of gratitude to her for her service to our country." If Ambassador Chris Stevens could speak down to us, I doubt he'd be so kind. It all implies that a backroom agreement was made within the last 30 days. My gut feeling is Trump has agreed not to have his attorney general appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, if she goes quietly.

Let's revisit this rumor again. "Comey let Clinton off the hook because he knows that Trump is going to win. Comey isn't charging Hillary, so that Obama can't pardon her."

Associated Press / November 9, 2016 Donald Trump was elected America's 45th president Tuesday, an astonishing victory for a celebrity businessman and political novice who capitalized on voters' economic anxieties, took advantage of racial tensions and overcame a string of sexual assault allegations on his way to the White House. His triumph over Hillary Clinton will end eight years of Democratic dominance of the White House and threatens to undo major achievements of President Barack Obama. Trump has pledged to quickly repeal Obama's landmark health care law, revoke the nuclear agreement with Iran and rewrite important trade deals with other countries, particularly Mexico and Canada. The Republican blasted through Democrats' longstanding firewall, carrying Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, states that hadn't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since the 1980s. He needed to win nearly all of the competitive battleground states, and he did just that, claiming Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and others. Global stock markets and U.S. stock futures plunged deeply, reflecting investor alarm over what a Trump presidency might mean for the economy and trade. A New York real estate developer who lives in a sparking Manhattan high-rise, Trump forged a striking connection with white, working class Americans who feel left behind in a changing economy and diversifying country. He cast immigration, both from Latin America and the Middle East, as the root of the problems plaguing many Americans and taped into fears of terrorism emanating at home and abroad. Trump will take office with Congress expected to be fully under Republican control. GOP Senate candidates fended off Democratic challengers in key states and appeared poised to maintain the majority. Republicans also maintained their grip on the House. Senate control means Trump will have great leeway in appointing Supreme Court justices, which could mean a major change to the right that would last for decades. Trump upended years of political convention on his way to the White House, leveling harshly personal insults on his rivals, deeming Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, and vowing to temporarily suspend Muslim immigration to the U.S. He never released his tax returns, breaking with decades of campaign tradition, and eschewed the kind of robust data and field efforts that helped Obama win two terms in the White House, relying instead on his large, free-wheeling rallies to energize supporters. His campaign was frequently in chaos, and he cycled through three campaign managers this year. The mood at Clinton's party grew bleak as the night wore out, with some supporters leaving, others crying and hugging each other. Top campaign aides stopped returning calls and texts, as Clinton and her family hunkered down in a luxury hotel watching the returns. Trump will inherit an anxious nation, deeply divided by economic and educational opportunities, race and culture. Exit polls underscored the fractures: Women nationwide supported Clinton by a double-digit margin, while men were significantly more likely to back Trump. More than half of white voters backed the Republican, while nearly 9 in 10 blacks and two-thirds of Hispanics voted for the Democrat. Doug Ratliff, a 67-year-old businessman from Richlands, Virginia, said Trump's election would be one of the happiest days of his life. "This county has had no hope," said Ratliff, who owns strip malls in the area badly beaten by the collapse of the coal industry. "You have no idea what it would mean for the people if Trump won. They'll have hope again. Things will change. I know he's not going to be perfect. But he's got a heart. And he gives people hope." Trump has pledged to usher in a series of sweeping changes to U.S. domestic and foreign policy: repealing Obama's signature health care law, though he has been vague on what he could replace it with; building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border; and suspending immigration from country's with terrorism ties. He's also praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and spoken of building a better relationship with Moscow, worrying some in his own party who fear he'll go easy on Putin's provocations. The Republican Party's tortured relationship with its nominee was evident right up to the end. Former President George W. Bush and wife Laura Bush declined to back Trump, instead selecting "none of the above" when they voted for president. Democrats, as well as some Republicans, expected Trump's unconventional candidacy would damage down-ballot races and even flip some reliably red states in the presidential race. But Trump held on to Republican territory, including in Georgia and Utah, where Clinton's campaign confidently invested resources. Clinton asked voters to keep the White House in her party's hands for a third straight term. She cast herself as heir to President Barack Obama's legacy and pledged to make good on his unfinished agenda, including passing immigration legislation, tightening restrictions on guns and tweaking his signature health care law. But she struggled throughout the race with persistent questions about her honesty and trustworthiness. Those troubles flared anew late in the race, when FBI Director James Comey announced a review of new emails from her tenure at the State Department. On Sunday, just two days before Election Day, Comey said there was nothing in the material to warrant criminal charges against Clinton.

Trump is now president elect.

Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2017 President’s Budget Submission February 2016 Department of the Army Truck, Dump, 20 ton The M917A3 22.5 ton Heavy Dump Truck (HDT) is a commercially based system used to load, transport, and dump payloads of sand and gravel aggregates, crushed rock, hot paving mixes, earth, clay, rubble, and large boulders at engineering and construction sites under worldwide climatic conditions in a military environment. The HDT integrated armor requirement is compliant with the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Long Term Armor Strategy (LTAS) Ballistic Specifications, v3.7, dated 19 Jan 06. The HDT is required to replace the F5070, M917 and M917A1 HDTs with the oldest fielded variants at 50 years of age. Heavy Dump Truck (HDT) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) build is to begin 3QFY18 followed by Product Verification Testing (PVT) in FY19. Concurrent armor development is to begin 2QFY18. Armored solution testing will run 2QFY20 through 2QFY21 and production will begin 1QFY22. Note: The Heavy Tactical Vehicle (HTV) Protection Kit program provides Armor Survivability Suite protection. HTV Protection Kits include B-Kits (with underbody protection), Fire Suppression, Fuel Tank Fire Suppression (FTFS) Blanket , Fuel Tank Self Sealant (FTSS), and Tank Armor Module (TAM) to enhance survivability. The Armor Survivability Suite components are mounted to an A-Kit Heavy Tactical Vehicle; which includes Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT), Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HET), Palletized Load System (PLS), Heavy Dump Truck (HDT), and Line Haul configurations to address numerous threats that the DoD has identified. The Armor Survivability Suite provides occupant protection through enhanced tactical vehicle ballistic protection.

Scania Group Press Release / November 8, 2016 .

Renault Trucks Press Release / November 8, 2016 .

MAN Truck & Bus Press Release / November 8, 2016 .