Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe. I'm sure there are plenty of opinions in Beijing right about now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 What the hell, people? Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them. But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now. Stand for principle, wouldcha? The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this? Hamilton. Flag-burning. Squirrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this? Hamilton. Flag-burning. Squirrel. You forgot the word "allegedly" in that first sentence. There has been zero evidence offered to prove Russia was Assange's source. None. Zero. Isn't it best to know exactly who the enemy is, and have definitive evidence of their guilt, before you light the pitchforks? Especially when said enemy has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 How Trump Turned the National Media Into Impotent Hecklers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 You forgot the word "allegedly" in that first sentence. There has been zero evidence offered to prove Russia was Assange's source. None. Zero. Isn't it best to know exactly who the enemy is, and have definitive evidence of their guilt, before you light the pitchforks? Especially when said enemy has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? Correct, allegedly. You could argue the idea that Russian government had zero to do with it as the conspiring media and dem leaders were all heard pushing the russian hacker story within hours or less of each other which supports the DC Tom theory that the AP or some other "source" put that crap out there and they all just ran with it. A lazy convenient excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Correct, allegedly. You could argue the idea that Russian government had zero to do with it as the conspiring media and dem leaders were all heard pushing the russian hacker story within hours or less of each other which supports the DC Tom theory that the AP or some other "source" put that crap out there and they all just ran with it. A lazy convenient excuse. Yeh it all hurt HRC, but in reality her lack of economic message to the midwest killed her. Also, they never came back with anymore dirt on Trump after the fingering issue. Another dropped ball... Blame campaign staff for all of this... whether you believe him or not... in the midwest it was the economy stupid again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Yeh it all hurt HRC, but in reality her lack of economic message to the midwest killed her. Also, they never came back with anymore dirt on Trump after the fingering issue. Another dropped ball... Blame campaign staff for all of this... whether you believe him or not... in the midwest it was the economy stupid again. Hillary was a terrible candidate with probably the most baggage of any candidate that ever won a major party nomination. She had poor policy positions on most issues, was surrounded by evidence of dishonesty and corruption, had no meaningful accomplishments in elected office and is not likeable. Any number of the other Republican candidates would have mopped the floor with her IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Hillary was a terrible candidate with probably the most baggage of any candidate that ever won a major party nomination. She had poor policy positions on most issues, was surrounded by evidence of dishonesty and corruption, had no meaningful accomplishments in elected office and is not likeable. Any number of the other Republican candidates would have mopped the floor with her IMO. Oh I disagree on the corruption stuff, but she was successfully painted that way and never effectively countered it. The rumor and innuendo campaign was successful and again, she was a bad candidate that I'll agree on because she was a bad campaigner. Her policy positions were ok, but scattered, no unifying theme and no message for everyone. She less polarizing than Trump, but she misunderstood again the depth of the economic angst out there especially in the midwest. Trump figured this out in the campaign, not so sure the Indiana bailout will be a long term success 1,0000 job loss is still a 1000 job loss even if it cost 7million to keep another 1000 for how long?. The rest of the Republican field was too ideological imo in someways the same as HRC. She never pivoted effectively from going up against Bernie and just wasn't a good public speaker. Again her economic message or philosophy was not coherent, except to help out women and minorities? Leaving out men by insinuation, which is why she lost the midwest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 That's because, as we both know, politicians are more interested in optics than realities; and while the "saved jobs" at Carrier are very visible, the corresponding job losses with their competitors will be in the shadows. So you believe that there are a finite amount of jobs, and by saving one, another company has to lose one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Then this logic is no different than Obama declaring a victory by renewables over fossil fuels. He's picking the winners, just like Trump is picking Carrier furnaces over competitors' furnaces. Kennedy hamstrung the railroads by taking away the needed revenues for upgrades, while at the same time using federal dollars to subsidize the automotive & truck industries. And many, especially in the Northeast are still paying for that executive decision. If you thought that Obama was wrong in favoring his pet commercial projects, Trump is equally wrong. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, since both are attention seeking thin skinned populists. Sorry, I don't get it. Eight of their competitors already moved their manufacturing plants to Mexico. You expect Trump to enter a time machine and go back and try to convince them to stay in America because when he becomes POTUS he'll lower their corporate tax rate, and if they do he'll place a tariff on their goods when imported into the US? I don't see this as him picking and choosing a winner/loser. I see him as genuinely concerned about stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs due to an unfair trade agreement that incentivizes companies to bail on their US base because there are no consequences for them doing so. It's radical, I grant you. But not as radical as suborning 200 years of US Bankruptcy laws, or having government loans siphoned through a corporation and put back into the campaign coffers of ones cronies. THAT's what the GM "bailout" and scams like Solyndra were. There is a yuge difference. Could hardly agree more on the bolded part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this? Hamilton. Flag-burning. Squirrel. Repeating something over and over whether it has a factual basis or not, is not going to make it true. You might fool the gullible though, Harry Reid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this? Hamilton. Flag-burning. Squirrel. You must be simply beside yourself upon hearing that Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from Tsai Ing-wen. Granted it wasn't a trip to Cuba to bow before and kiss the ring of Fidel, but it's provocatory nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Obama’s pathetic ‘Blame Fox’ excuse by Joe Simonson Original Article It’s been a rough few weeks for President Obama. Voters in so-called “Blue Wall” states seemingly rejected the vast majority of the president’s legacy. Whether it was ObamaCare, lax immigration enforcement or the Trans Pacific Partnership, millions of voters (many of whom voted for him in 2008 and 2012) decided they didn’t want to hand the White House keys over to someone who campaigned almost entirely on the status quo. Voters told Obama and the Democratic Party that they were out of touch with their concerns. So how did the president respond? Essentially: It’s all Fox News’ fault. As he put it in a recent interview with Rolling Stone, the reason Democrats can’t attract voters beyond the East and West coasts isn’t their policies but the fact that “Fox News [is] in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.” Sure, Mr. President, millions of Americans across the country leave their jobs and homes at the end of the day, go to their neighborhood eatery or watering hole, watch “The O’Reilly Factor” and have their brains washed. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 (edited) So you believe that there are a finite amount of jobs, and by saving one, another company has to lose one?... Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial heating and cooling systems to be? Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed? Edited December 3, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe. Wait, weren’t we just in the middle of a big “pivot to Asia” to try to unite Pacific countries to deter Chinese aggression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 ... Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial hearing and cooling systems to be? Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed? One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico. You didn't answer the questions. You posted a bumper sticker slogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 (edited) What the hell, people? Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them. But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now. Stand for principle, wouldcha? Principle???? Really??? When has there ever been principles in government? Anyways, Having two jobs lost to Mexico, all I can say is, I'm happy for the people who didn't lose there jobs. I'm all for morals and principles, but in the end , it doesn't pay your bills. Edited December 3, 2016 by westside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 You didn't answer the questions. You posted a bumper sticker slogan. Neither did you. ... Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial heating and cooling systems to be? Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed? The population grows. The demand increases. The jobs will change. There is a lot of competition coming from outside the US. It is very elastic. We're not talking about oil here. People have options as the technology changes, it will affect the types of jobs needed. The manufacturing jobs (now staying in the US) will probably have to focus on operating machinery rather than brute labor force in Mexico (or other low wage earning country). I have no doubt that the margins are thin, so giving a company willing to give jobs to citizens should be given some incentive. It might even entice others to follow. Government contracts (like tax payer money) is a not finite amount either, but rewarding AMERICAN companies should be a priority. Unlike Obama's administration who outsourced the ACA website to a foreign business. I keep hearing this theory from the left that EVERYTHING is a finite resource. You can only be rich by making someone else poor. One job here means one less somewhere else. Who's teaching this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico. That sounds remarkably like "If the Affordable Care Act can help one person..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts