Want to get into the fray with a cogent comment? Or just continue to toss out juvenile insults from the peanut gallery like most idiots who are incapable of reasonable discussion?
Want to get into the fray with a cogent comment? Or just continue to toss out juvenile insults from the peanut gallery like most idiots who are incapable of reasonable discussion?Haha, this would be child abuse if we considered DSF's mental capacity.
Notice what he's saying here? It was what was offered that wasn't "generally available" that was the problem. Now the mere fact that Trump was involved is the issue.If you think this company was not offered anything in addition to what is generally available you're a moron.
Unbelievable. So exactly what is the problem with Trump helping to secure these jobs if he did so without giving anything beyond assurances of a better business climate in the future? You previously indicated that other businesses would line up looking to get the same deal from Trump...and I'm sure he'd be more than happy to assure them as well. Beyond that, they'll need to talk to their governors. Apparently, this is where the disconnect lies. You apparently think that he's giving Carrier some kind of preferential treatment when there is zero evidence to support this.
You keep saying that you don't care what I think about you personally. That's OK with me. However, if this is indeed true, you really don't need to constantly repeat yourself regarding this subject as it lends one to believe otherwise.
Ends justify means if you are conservative, or just pitching in to help them out.On what planet is keeping 1000 jobs in this country a bad thing?
Quite frankly i think this is just an attempt to rob incoming President Trump of the "Bully Pulpit" that time honored ability of a President to speak out on the issues. The left/Democrats really want him to be filtered through the mainstream media.Want to get into the fray with a cogent comment? Or just continue to toss out juvenile insults from the peanut gallery like most idiots who are incapable of reasonable discussion?
Forever a victim.Quite frankly i think this is just an attempt to rob incoming President Trump of the "Bully Pulpit" that time honored ability of a President to speak out on the issues. The left/Democrats really want him to be filtered through the mainstream media.
Want to get into the fray with a cogent comment? Or just continue to toss out juvenile insults from the peanut gallery like most idiots who are incapable of reasonable discussion?
Trump gives every appearance of being serious about improving the economy by keeping and growing decent jobs for middle class America (ala Ford, Apple, Carrier). People are hurting and need someone who will fight for them and nobody gives a rat's ass about your imagined improprieties here. 1000 people got to keep their jobs in the end...and for most people...that's a good thing. And this is just the beginning. All the bitching and moaning over your trite and unsupported accusations of favoritism is just more of the same kind of echo chamber mentality that brought your beloved Party to this very place in time...and in case you haven't realized it yet, your house is burning down and nobody gives a shit.I know, this sort of thing really is unbelievable in how stupid it was to do.
I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand: if Trump is intervening in the negotiations between a state and a private business he's doing so for a reason and he clearly sees a business moving to Mexico as something he wants to prevent. Now you can think that he's either intervening to threaten that business (possible crime) or to better facilitate the requests of that business (duh). That means the business is likely getting a better deal from the state than it was able to secure otherwise, because otherwise it wouldn't have been leaving. Even if somehow it's not getting a better deal everyone will assume it has. The mere fact that the president is personally entering negotiations with a business is by definition preferential treatment and other businesses are sure to see it as such.
If Trump wanted to promise a better business climate in general he didn't have to enter into any negotiations with them, he could just make a general announcement to that effect. He didn't do that. The idea that he would insert himself in negotiations just to pass on a general promise of better business is absurd. Hell, if he did that it's even worse because that means he was willing to risk all the negatives from this without actually providing any meaningful difference. That's utter incompetence.
I was just pointing out the obvious. Friends help friends.Hey buddy, I'm just trying to save you time, energy, and care. It's pretty obvious that you get personally caught up in this stuff and I'm just telling you that it's a waste of effort as you're never going to see any returns on it. Friends help friends.
All this aside, I know what I would be doing right now if I were a big company: threaten to move my jobs to Mexico. When you do that the president and the state comes by and gives you stuff.
Brilliant move, Trump!
Tell us exactly what was offered to have this company stay or shut your hole.
Go eat a banana instead of flinging poo.Cogent? Like what I said wasn't cogent? Did you get that word at the fucking dime store or something?
I imagine that it certainly looks that way to you. And if you don't mind my saying, it seems that you're about as stupid as they come. For your sake, I hope you prove me wrong.Cogent? Like what I said wasn't cogent? Did you get that word at the fucking dime store or something?
You know nothing except for your fabricated assumptions and then proceed to wildly extrapolate from there. Wake the fuck up, you're embarrassing yourself.
Give me an example of government investment that was not selective
Let's talk about dishonesty. You seem to have inside knowledge here...please elaborate on what "corporate welfare" was given in order to keep these jobs here or at least be honest enough to admit that your just making up this shit as you go along. Let's look closely as to who's being the dishonest one here.
you have no idea what "Deal" was reached.
I dare you to go to a few of those Carrier workers and tell them they suck the company sucks and trump sucks because they get to keep their jobs.
He's not the one criticizing the "deal". He doesn't need to know the details.
There you go again. Provide proof that Trump gave them something other than the promise of a business friendly administration or admit that you're just making up shit.
The question still stands. He states that there was something selective about Carrier. Find me one example of government intervention that was not motivated by some level of selective criteria. What ultimately guides the hand of the government is almost always motivated by selectiveness, whether it be pork barrel spending or influenced by lobbyists.Behaving like buckshot and doc savage is not how you want to be remembered by everyone.
The highway system.The question still stands. He states that there was something selective about Carrier. Find me one example of government intervention that was not motivated by some level of selective criteria. What ultimately guides the hand of the government is almost always motivated by selectiveness, whether it be pork barrel spending or influenced by lobbyists.
The question still stands. He states that there was something selective about Carrier. Find me one example of government intervention that was not motivated by some level of selective criteria. What ultimately guides the hand of the government is almost always motivated by selectiveness, whether it be pork barrel spending or influenced by lobbyists.
I am still waiting on someone, anyone, to exhibit or represent some level of fiscal responsibility. Republicans claim fiscal responsibility but have never demonstrated it in my lifetime save for a few GOP governors of blue statesThe DOE program for example was open application to all with clear selection criteria, with long term goals in mind. Carrier was where Trump was campaigning earlier (ie photo op), and the deals looks to be worked by his running mate using state resources for just that reason. People can tell that "some level of selective criteria" is just weasel rhetoric attempting to conflate two substantially differing approaches, and I'd like to think you can be better than this.
Let's also step back away from the dumbshit politicking and consider broader spending policy. If you've ever been to any budget meeting, recall the goal is determining how best to spend finite resources, to avoid bullshit like funding someone's personal/pet project, and certainly not hurr durr spending iz gud/ iz bad. It's pretty obvious what's going on with red state budgeting with resources wasted on subsidies with no future (only to be reimbursed federally, lol those generous liberals), and the literal fascists are coming to crank it up to 11.
It's not too late to stick to some fiscal conservative principles and demonstrate some integrity.
I am still waiting on someone, anyone, to exhibit or represent some level of fiscal responsibility. Republicans claim fiscal responsibility but have never demonstrated it in my lifetime save for a few GOP governors of blue states
Which the automobile industry lobbied heavily for and is the primary reason why rail travel, so ubiquitous in Europe and parts of Asia, is sorely lacking in the USThe highway system.
Why did Solyndra fail?Recall from those meetings that sometimes you have to spend some to make some. I do wonder whether energy tech or premium subsidies for manual labor is the wiser investment.