2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: ams288For liberals, we just gotta sit back and let the man self-destruct. He's in over his head. Why waste time whining and protesting before he's even President?
I agree with your position that whining and protesting is a waste of time, though I don't share your opinion that he will self-destruct.
The whining and protesting is fine--as I have said before, protest all you want...but don't riot or stop other people from doing their jobs (by illegally blocking roads, etc.). It is the protester's right to do so.
I think the effort would be better spent on actually seeing if you can put together a LIberal (not Democrat, all Dems are not Liberal/Progressive...just as all Republicans are not Conservatives) group large enough to actually win elections. I am not sure if that is possible because I think more people are towards the middle than on the far side of either group.
Since I am more to the other side (but not as far as some think), go ahead and protest and don't worry about the 2018 elections!
That belief often causes you to say stuff about my comments...because I am not idealistic enough to actually believe that one side or the other has everything right. I believe that there is plenty of room for improvement all around.
Quote: ams288
This is one of those tweets that is so stupid that it is clearly meant to distract the media from something else he is doing.
Hillary pretty much agrees. She co-sponsored a bill to make flag burning punishable by a year in jail or a $100,000 fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
Quote: RonCIn case anyone wants to say "no she didn't"....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
I thought I commented before on Hillary's position on flag burning. Don't agree. It's similar to making criticism of religion punishable. Something too important to criticize is likely a bad thing.
Quote: rxwineI thought I commented before on Hillary's position on flag burning. Don't agree. It's similar to making criticism of religion punishable. Something too important to criticize is likely a bad thing.
Agreed. I cannot imagine the expense of all the flags I'll have to burn should this see the light of day. God, but I'm f#$%ing tired of civil disobedience.
LMTFA
Quote: RonCIn case anyone wants to say "no she didn't"....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
But what does that have to do with the correctness or incorrectness of Trump's position? At some point--maybe years from now--Trump, and Trumpers, will have to stop the childish "HIM/HER TOO!!!" tactic and own up to what he says and does.
A President is sworn to defend the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag is protected First Amendment expression. Therefore, if Trump continues to express this sentiment after he is sworn in, he will be in violation of his oath of office. Period. Clinton's views have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Memo to The Don: read the US Constitution, mull it over, and then preserve it, don't use it as toilet paper.
Liberty is more than a statue of a dame holding a light in NY harbor.
Here Don, let me show you where to shove that flag burning tweet you penned:
Quote: MaxPenBy the way, I had to take a test when I was in the military. I scored in the 98.7 percentile. Should the 1 out of a 100 in intelligence above me make all my life decisions " for my own good"?
I like statistical edges when I understand them.
And I bet that was the cleanest, most beautiful latrine of the 5 on the base that wonderful day.
Quote: RigondeauxHillary pretty much agrees. She co-sponsored a bill to make flag burning punishable by a year in jail or a $100,000 fine.
Quote: Wikipedia article on Flag Protection Act of 2005The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
Quote: Trump tweetNobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
I disagree with the characterization that these are "pretty much" the same. They're not at all the same concept. You have the right to burn a large wooden cross in a safe place -- say, the middle of your farmland. But you do not have the right to put on Klan robes and burn the same cross on the front lawn of a black family's home:
Quote: Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), Justice Sandra Day O'ConnorThe act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech.
Burning the flag is no different than burning a cross. Both symbols hold exceptional meaning to their allegiants, and burning them can be seen either as an act of defiant opposition or of incitement and terror. Expressing defiant opposition is protected speech under the First Amendment, but incitement and terrorism are criminal acts that are not.
So let's dispense with the false equivalences. The bill from 10 years ago was about codifying penalties for incitement or terrorism involving burning the U.S. flag. Trump's tweet proposed a blanket disenfranchisement for burning the U.S. flag for any reason, including protected speech. If you don't see the distinction, you don't understand your rights.
Quote: MathExtremist
So let's dispense with the false equivalences. The bill from 10 years ago was about codifying penalties for incitement or terrorism involving burning the U.S. flag. Trump's tweet proposed a blanket disenfranchisement for burning the U.S. flag for any reason, including protected speech. If you don't see the distinction, you don't understand your rights.
But false equivalences are what got Trump elected. Sure, he's a fraud, but Hillary sent emails. Those are pretty much the same things, so why not vote for Trump. We will as a people be engaging in this kind of doublethink for at least four more years.
Trump's disregard for, or ignorance of (hard to say which) the First Amendment is appalling. Yet, Trumpers think he's fit for office. Amazing.
Quote: sammydvAnd I bet that was the cleanest, most beautiful latrine of the 5 on the base that wonderful day.
Your ride has arrived.....get your helmet!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikBut what does that have to do with the correctness or incorrectness of Trump's position? At some point--maybe years from now--Trump, and Trumpers, will have to stop the childish "HIM/HER TOO!!!" tactic and own up to what he says and does.
A President is sworn to defend the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag is protected First Amendment expression. Therefore, if Trump continues to express this sentiment after he is sworn in, he will be in violation of his oath of office. Period. Clinton's views have absolutely nothing to do with it.
So the President is not allowed to disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court?
President Obama was certainly not happy with this decision...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?utm_term=.b7b4529fd898
So long as Trump only says that he doesn't like flag burning and thinks that it should be banned (and subject the burner to punishment) and HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT A FLAG BURNING, he is not in violation of his oath of office. He can even advocate a new law or a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
I am not sure how one even comes up with that type of a position.
...I don't like flag burning; I think people that do it are slimeballs. That being said, I defend their right to do it and would not support a law or amendment banning the practice.
The point about Hillary is simple...banning flag burning is not an idea only brought forward by one "side"...and, of course, would her supporters disagree as vehemently with her if she expressed some time of need for a law had she become President?
Quote: terapinedIf I was Black, I would be very very worried about being stopped by the police
Most cops are good cops. A few are racist. Those few are the ones to be worried about. Good cops don't turn them in. We only find out about these few racist cops when they do an unjustified shooting.
Then what does that make those good cops?
Quote: RonCSo the President is not allowed to disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court?
So long as Trump only says that he doesn't like flag burning and thinks that it should be banned (and subject the burner to punishment) and HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT A FLAG BURNING, he is not in violation of his oath of office. He can even advocate a new law or a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
You're partially right in that his actions would be what would make him criminally liable. However, it's a bit more nuanced than that. When he, for example, advocates for suppression of the press, he is saying that he disagrees not just with some Supreme Court decision, but with the Constitution itself. His advocating for the punishment of flag burners is likewise a repudiation of the Constitution's First Amendment. Yet, he will take an oath to "defend" that Constitution. Of course, there's no legal definition of what defending or failing to defend it means. But speaking out against the Bill of Rights, which just about all Americans regard as a fundamental part of the Constitution, would seem to qualify as certainly, not defending it.
You need to back away from partisanship here. If Hillary advocated for the punishment of flag burners (and that, by the way, was in a MUCH narrower context than what Trump is saying), that was her lookout. She didn't take an oath like the one Trump will have to take if he gets to the inauguration. I don't think that a President should advocate for the destruction of the First Amendment or any part of it, and that includes its interpretations by the Supreme Court. If Obama or Nixon or Washington or Dracula or whoever did that, it was wrong as well. But we're talking about Trump here.
I see it as pretty much black and white. Perhaps the President's most important job is to protect our freedoms, not advocate for their elimination. Trump, aside from being a terrible human being, will be a terrible President for that and a host of other reasons.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYou need to back away from partisanship here. If Hillary advocated for the punishment of flag burners (and that, by the way, was in a MUCH narrower context than what Trump is saying), that was her lookout. She didn't take an oath like the one Trump will have to take if he gets to the inauguration.
OATH OF OFFICE--SENATORS
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
OATH OF OFFICE--PRESIDENT
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oaths are different (and the Oath of Office for the President is part of the Constitution), but both of them require the oath taker to defend the Constitution.
Your argument that Hillary didn't take an Oath like Trump will take is invalid. The context of her support of an law outlawing the burning of flags was narrower but it was still a law against burning flags. One can't be accountable for the Oath they take if the other isn't...
No, Trumpers don't care that he's not. Trump's election shows just how much civic apathy has infected our electorate. Here are some other things that Trump voters don't care about:Quote: JoeshlabotnikBut false equivalences are what got Trump elected. Sure, he's a fraud, but Hillary sent emails. Those are pretty much the same things, so why not vote for Trump. We will as a people be engaging in this kind of doublethink for at least four more years.
Trump's disregard for, or ignorance of (hard to say which) the First Amendment is appalling. Yet, Trumpers think he's fit for office. Amazing.
a) Having a president who respects science
b) Having a president who is numerate
c) Having a president who respects the Constitution
d) Having a president who avoids conflicts of interest
e) Having a president who respects the environment
f) Having a president who is honest
g) Having a president who is dignified
h) Having a president who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories
i) Having a president who actually wants to do the work of being president
Trump is none of those things. He ran on a platform that was a giant middle finger to the political establishment. So did Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and he was recently quoted as "Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination if you're a son of a bitch." Wonderful guy, Duterte. Ordered over 1000 extrajudicial deaths because, let's face it, summary execution is faster than adhering to the rule of law. Trump wants to override the First Amendment for speech he doesn't like, including media criticism and flag burning. It's not too much further to ignoring other laws he doesn't like, and then we're living under Duterte just with longer hair. Good luck to us all.
The opposite of political correctness is not "let's do everything wrong because nobody gives a sh*t anymore." If you don't want to play ball anymore, you're welcome to get off the field. But you're not welcome to drive over it with a tiller and ruin the game for everybody else.
Screw Canada: I'm gonna hook up with molly and head to Black Rock .
It's like Canada, but a million times more different.
Quote: MathExtremistTrump is none of those things. He ran on a platform that was a giant middle finger to the political establishment.
That's the real fraud. Joe Sixpack thinks Trump is some kind of rebel. Exactly what is a billionaire real estate developer if not part of "The Establishment"? So he wasn't a politician. He threw tens of millions of dollars AT politicians. It's laughable when Trumpers say he isn't/wasn't part of "the system." He IS the system.
The First Amendment has to apply to speech you disapprove of, or it's meaningless. That Trump doesn't understand that on some fundamental level is appalling and frightening. It adds to the heap of shame already on the heads of those who voted for him.
Quote: RigondeauxHillary pretty much agrees. She co-sponsored a bill to make flag burning punishable by a year in jail or a $100,000 fine.
Who cares what Hillary thinks? At some point, the Trumpsters celebrating his (Electoral College) victory are going to have to realize that attacks on Hillary's positions are totally irrelevant now. The Orange Man's positions are all that matters.
And I think the biggest issue with Donald's tweet was the "loss of citizenship" portion. He doesn't have that power. The fact that he's dumb enough to think he does should scare you.
They want a guy who they feel is savvy and successful to lead them down the path to personal prosperity and security.
Allowing The Don to profit as a by-product is a price they'll willingly pay as the cost of doing business.
Meanwhile, his opponents will seize and press the issue: what else can they do?
After all, they really screwed the pooch in blowing this election.
Quote: BozNot much on here about the Carrier decision to keep 1000 jobs here.
Because it's not that big of a deal.
Half of the Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico.
Quote: @PaulKrugmanIf Trump did a Carrier-style deal every week for the next 4 years, he could bring back 4% of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.
This guy could make "Clinton Cash" look like a lightweight comic book in comparison to the swath he'll plow.
Quote: ams288Because it's not that big of a deal.
Half of the Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico.
Actually they are keeping 1000 and sending 400 to Mexico. Not half as you said.
And Krugman is exactly that kind of liberal asshole who will never give Trump any credit, even if he does save 1000 jobs a week. Krugman knows everything, just ask him.
I do agree we may never get the jobs back we lost, but stopping the flow out is a good first start. Only the biased who want Trump to fail regardless of the cost to individuals don't see this as a positive.
Quote: BozActually they are keeping 1000 and sending 400 to Mexico. Not half as you said.
Five days ago: Trump Leans on Carrier to Keep 2,000 U.S. Jobs From Moving to Mexico
Quote: ams288Five days ago: Trump Leans on Carrier to Keep 2,000 U.S. Jobs From Moving to Mexico
Seems to be different numbers out there.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/trump-to-reveal-deal-to-keep-nearly-1000-carrier-corp-jobs-in-indiana-sources.html
Quote: BozQuote: ams288Five days ago: Trump Leans on Carrier to Keep 2,000 U.S. Jobs From Moving to Mexico
Seems to be different numbers out there.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/trump-to-reveal-deal-to-keep-nearly-1000-carrier-corp-jobs-in-indiana-sources.html
It's all fantasy anyway. The number of jobs his trade restrictions and tariffs would destroy would dwarf any jobs he could strong-arm companies into keeping in the US. Aside from the fact that he wouldn't actually have the power, despite his promises, to force any company to do anything. A company wants to move its operations overseas--Trump supposedly won't let them. Can he keep them from shutting down and opening up a completely new operation somewhere else? Of course he can't.
Also, let's say he did somehow manage to blackmail a company into staying. It would now be noncompetitive because its labor costs are too high compared to those who make comparable goods. It would falter and shut down anyway.
What's fallacious about the Trump Way is that we can't be isolationist. Whether Joe Sixpack likes it or not, we are intimately connected with the world economy. Trying to wall us off from it will only hurt the very people Trump says he will help.
Quote: ams288Because it's not that big of a deal.
Half of the Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico.
It's amazing how much ignorance is out there. If Mexico can make something more cheaply than we can, we should let them do it and then buy the product from them. Everybody wins. Meanwhile, those "lost jobs" can be directed towards whatever we do best.
It's called the principle of comparative advantage, and Joe Sixpack doesn't understand it. WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING HEAVY MANUFACTURING AT ALL. Other countries, such as China and Mexico, can do it more cheaply. We should be making the goods that we're most efficient at creating and then trade those goods for the cheap manufactured goods made in those other countries. That way, we don't "lose" jobs--we employ people in the most efficient manner. Keeping the steel mills going regardless of economic realities is inefficient and will ultimately result in more unemployment as those inefficient operations are forced to shut down.
It's been a basic tenet of economics for over 200 years that everyone should do what they do best, but not one in a thousand persons understands it.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIt's amazing how much ignorance is out there. If Mexico can make something more cheaply than we can, we should let them do it and then buy the product from them. Everybody wins. Meanwhile, those "lost jobs" can be directed towards whatever we do best.
It's called the principle of comparative advantage, and Joe Sixpack doesn't understand it. WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING HEAVY MANUFACTURING AT ALL. Other countries, such as China and Mexico, can do it more cheaply. We should be making the goods that we're most efficient at creating and then trade those goods for the cheap manufactured goods made in those other countries. That way, we don't "lose" jobs--we employ people in the most efficient manner. Keeping the steel mills going regardless of economic realities is inefficient and will ultimately result in more unemployment as those inefficient operations are forced to shut down.
It's been a basic tenet of economics for over 200 years that everyone should do what they do best, but not one in a thousand persons understands it.
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly are we the most efficient at anymore? Even tech companies find it better to have their products built overseas. And handing out Food Stamps cards doesn't count.
If T won the popular vote and H won the EC would you keep mentioning that fact? I thought the goal was to win the election?Quote: ams288Who cares what Hillary thinks? At some point, the Trumpsters celebrating his (Electoral College) victory are going to have to realize that attacks on Hillary's positions are totally irrelevant now. The Orange Man's positions are all that matters.
And I think the biggest issue with Donald's tweet was the "loss of citizenship" portion. He doesn't have that power. The fact that he's dumb enough to think he does should scare you.
Quote: AxelWolfIf T won the popular vote and H won the EC would you keep mentioning that fact? I thought the goal was to win the election?
It bugs Donald that he lost the popular vote by a lot, so I think it is fun to keep mentioning that fact.
Quote: ams288Because it's not that big of a deal.
Half of the Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico.
Even if he brought back 4% of the jobs, and prevented the loss of more jobs, which is what Hillary or whatever Republican other than him would have wanted, that's a pretty big deal.
As I said before, these things have a multiplier effect. i.e. if your boss knows you have alternatives, he has to pay you more and treat you better.
Biggest negative so far is the possibility of that DeVos lady as secretary of education. If she gets in, hopefully she doesn't get much done.
Way to drain the swamp and do away with crony capitalism.
Quote: BozOk, I'll bite. What exactly are we the most efficient at anymore? Even tech companies find it better to have their products built overseas. And handing out Food Stamps cards doesn't count.
The number one product that the US produces better and more inexpensively than anyone else is information. That includes information technology---regardless of who builds the computers, we're the ones who design them; and information processing--software, databases, search engines, and applications.
We also are tops in the world at sustainable energy technology, medical technology (whatever you may think of our actual healthcare system), and certain areas of food production. Moreover, we are the world's top producer and exporter of entertainment, which if you think is unimportant, I'd point out that it was our #1 export in terms of dollar value (food #2, weapons #3) in 2015. We are the world's best at automated systems, guidance and telemetry, aircraft, and yes, weaponry.
The point is, we've moved on from being the best at producing steel girders and washing machines. It's a waste of resources for us to be doing that any longer. Granted, it might be difficult to retrain Joe Sixpack from working in a coal-fired power plant to writing software, but we need to do it nonetheless. What we shouldn't do is build more factories to satisfy Joe.
This rubs some people the wrong way because an episode of South Park or a new IPhone app doesn't seem as "real" as a truckload of steel girders. But if somebody will pay for that South Park episode or that app with the steel they made, what's the difference? It's like the difference between money with intrinsic value (gold coins) and fiat money (paper currency). What matters is a commodity's trading value. That's why Trump's rhetoric about strangling trade is so ignorant. Reducing trade reduces the value of literally everything we produce.
Quote: AxelWolfIf T won the popular vote and H won the EC would you keep mentioning that fact? I thought the goal was to win the election?
I think you're missing the point--what he was saying that at some point, attacks by Trumpers against Hillary are going to start to sound hollow. I am CERTAIN that the coming various disasters, large and small, will be somehow blamed on Hillary, Democrats, liberals, the media, blah blah. But Trump and Trumpers will have to man up and take responsibility. Trumpers should own up to the fact that if you animate Frankenstein's monster, you're responsible when he destroys the village.
Lots of incentives in the past for attracting and retaining large manufacturing, particularly cars, airplanes, foreign manu seeking an American presence.
But also banking, lending, lots of industries. I worked for Citibank immediately after they moved from NY to SD to get a better corporate tax rate. You want to talk about a lot of disgruntled New Yorkers. Lol.. Lots of good jobs for SD locals suddenly appeared, though, at pay levels maybe half the job rated in NYC.
There have been deals where some govt entity bought the land for them, special tax zones or exemptions for years, low-cost interest for their workers, all kinds of incentives to make the deal happen. There was a huge fight for Toyota America; think Alabama won that. Savanah GA won Gulfstream; Charleston got Boeing ' s new plant. Greensboro Spartanburg SC won a huge car plant (BMW?) In the 90's. That car division in KY somebody mentioned. Just a few of many over about 40 years, maybe longer.
This could all have been staged to some extent. Some of the most well-known ones have been football, baseball, nba, and hockey franchises demanding new stadiums, but it happens all the time in lots of businesses. Some of them mean it; some of them are leveraging the situation for incentives to stay. Most of those incentives come from public money somehow.
So Carrier could have been posturing, could have been serious. They fit Trump's agenda and touched a nerve. Relatively low hanging fruit for a deal to come thru that he can take credit for. Good for him. A small bit of good news among a whole lot of awful stuff.
Quote: beachbumbabs
So Carrier could have been posturing, could have been serious. They fit Trump's agenda and touched a nerve. Relatively low hanging fruit for a deal to come thru that he can take credit for. Good for him. A small bit of good news among a whole lot of awful stuff.
When the new prince is about to ascend to the throne, it is meet to send an emissary to kiss his feet and ask for a boon. 'Twas ever thus.
Due to the Law of Comparative Advantage, we actually LOSE by keeping those jobs in the US, given that there's someplace where the goods could be manufactured more cheaply. But the politics of ignorance Trump everything. It'll give him something to crow about, which is beneficial in that however long the glow from having his ego massaged lasts, during that time, he's less likely to lash out and destroy something. As long as you're feeding the dog, he's not out pooping on the neighbor's lawn.
I think that the best way to handle Trump is to coddle him, appease him, flatter him, and keep him out of the loop as much as possible. Let him appear at Mexican lynching parties while the folks back in Washington enact their evil schemes. That does, in fact, seem to be the way the Republican establishment intends to handle Trump.
This was probably the smartest response, whether it was economically sound for them or not.
Chemicals, steel, mining, heavy manufacturing.
That, plus protective tariffs.
Quote: MrVThe Don needs to gut our country's protective environmental laws if he wants to get good jobs back.
Chemicals, steel, mining, heavy manufacturing.
That, plus protective tariffs.
Interestingly enough, China imports most of its chopsticks from the US due to unmanaged deforestation.
Quote: MrVThe Don needs to gut our country's protective environmental laws if he wants to get good jobs back.
Chemicals, steel, mining, heavy manufacturing.
That, plus protective tariffs.
We don't WANT those jobs back. It makes no sense for us to do heavy manufacturing any more. And there's plenty of empirical proof that tariffs do the opposite of what they're intended. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression, for example.
Have you ever seen pictures of China's cities? They all look ten times worse than L.A. ever did on its smoggiest days.
We should concentrate on doing what we do best (and that isn't heavy manufacturing) and let other countries cope with the attendant resource extraction and pollution. Send Joe Sixpack back to community college and give him the means to learn new skills--don't build a factory for him just so he can go back to his pack-a-day-of-Bud habit.
Quote: rxwineInterestingly enough, China imports most of its chopsticks from the US due to unmanaged deforestation.
Well, it's a better use of our trees than just having them stand around so that liberals can hug them!
Quote: beachbumbabsThe only real issue on the Carrier thing is the amount of credit DJT is taking for it, most of which probably happened on the state level and heavily involved Pense, who is likely stepping aside from the credit, and Indiana Congress members who may have been involved.
Lots of incentives in the past for attracting and retaining large manufacturing, particularly cars, airplanes, foreign manu seeking an American presence.
But also banking, lending, lots of industries. I worked for Citibank immediately after they moved from NY to SD to get a better corporate tax rate. You want to talk about a lot of disgruntled New Yorkers. Lol.. Lots of good jobs for SD locals suddenly appeared, though, at pay levels maybe half the job rated in NYC.
There have been deals where some govt entity bought the land for them, special tax zones or exemptions for years, low-cost interest for their workers, all kinds of incentives to make the deal happen. There was a huge fight for Toyota America; think Alabama won that. Savanah GA won Gulfstream; Charleston got Boeing ' s new plant. Greensboro Spartanburg SC won a huge car plant (BMW?) In the 90's. That car division in KY somebody mentioned. Just a few of many over about 40 years, maybe longer.
This could all have been staged to some extent. Some of the most well-known ones have been football, baseball, nba, and hockey franchises demanding new stadiums, but it happens all the time in lots of businesses. Some of them mean it; some of them are leveraging the situation for incentives to stay. Most of those incentives come from public money somehow.
So Carrier could have been posturing, could have been serious. They fit Trump's agenda and touched a nerve. Relatively low hanging fruit for a deal to come thru that he can take credit for. Good for him. A small bit of good news among a whole lot of awful stuff.
Sounds like I was close to dead on. The incentive for carrier to stay is $700,000 in state money that taxpayers have no say in spending. Some committee of appointees by the governor, headed at the moment by Governor Pence, meets next on Dec 13 to approve the appropriation.
Pence stayed Governor despite being not just VPE but head of Trump's transition team, reportedly to take that last meeting and ensure the money is approved. This despite Trump claiming during the campaign that incentives of this type don't work, and he would not do them. Technically, he didn't; Indiana did. But he's taking all the credit for it.
SMH
