El Presidente Trump

Yourself isit wrote: »

He's not in charge of anything. He's not president yet. The money is from the State. Were jobs saved or not?

Tell that to the Chinese.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Tell that to the Chinese.

set up a call and I'll mention it.

Nobody has answered my question. As far as I understand it this company was fully closing down operations in the US. How could trump have caused more job losses than 100%. (Even if he were in power which he isn't).

Baldwin is unfunny

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're so confident in your points, why do you feel the need to word it so misleadingly? It makes me glance over everything you say but disregard all of it because I know you twist words.

Saying Trump paid Carrier to move jobs abroad is either a downright lie or just bad English. You've defended it repeatedly so it must be the former. By writing it like that, you imply that the jobs would have stayed in America only Trump got involved and paid the company $7m to move.

It's the exact same as saying you paid the fire brigade to burn down half your house because they could only save the other half of it.

I have to agree with that. Carrier was moving to Mexico with 2,300ish jobs from both the main plant and a smaller one in Huntingdon. The deal bought 1,100 of those jobs, -although- 300 of them were never to be outsourced in the first place. (The number varies a bit in reports, but the deal saves somewhere between 700-900 jobs, it seems). A further 1,200 will go to Mexico. The cost of this deal was tax breaks that Carrier had been pushing for amounting to about 7m over a decade with promised return investment into the local area from Carrier, although details on what exactly that means aren't forthcoming yet.

The deal's got issues, and the potential for pretty serious issues at that. But it's not accurate to call it paying to move jobs abroad unless we go for Trumpian logic (Obama was the founder of ISIS! :P) and say that he's endangered countless other jobs by signalling to individual companies that they can threaten to move jobs out of the country to get tax breaks. His method here just isn't long-term feasible. The president just plain can't meet and personally talk out deals with thousands of individual companies and it really leaves open Palin's charge of crony capitalism if it's tried. Who decides which companies gets a hearing with the president?

Mind you, a reason why Carrier did is that Trump made them a talking point in the campaign (also, worth noting that he had a legal run-in with them before. Let us all be hugely surprised that it involved sueing them! Can't be too arsed reading through the full lawsuit, but by the looks of the preamble, Carrier and Trump Organisation both got smacked).

Overall, this looks to my uneducated eye like a good thing in the short term for the people involved, but a dangerous precedent for the future that could have negative effects on others. Time will tell.

dudara wrote: »

This call with Taiwan is quite serious stuff. America is a huge power, yet it has never officially recognised Taiwan. Why? Because China is a serious power that even the US thinks twice about f**king with. Senior Chinese official Shen is now on record stating that China will sever diplomatic ties with the US should this behaviour continue when Trump is in office. That would probably lead to serious trade implications between the two countries.

The US and Taiwan used to have connections. They cut off contact at the request of China. Okay, personally my response is "well, fcuk you too, China, Taiwan doesn't want to be part of your state", but I appreciate that isn't what foreign policy is made on and it's an eastern thing, not something for the US to be poking their noses into.

There -is- a tale going around that certain questions were asked beforehand about building rights for a project in Taiwan, but no-one seems entirely sure if the woman claiming to represent the Trump Organisation does or not.

So, may be a lack of regard for foreign policy, may be dubiousness, hard to tell. Which is exactly the reason why the whole blind trust thing is a sane approach. This sort of thing will be happening for the next four years because even the most trusting doesn't really believe that the people -appointed to the transition committee-, meeting foreign diplomats, running the international Trump organisation and also interacting constantly with Trump as his children constitutes any sort of barrier between politics and business.

ebbsy wrote: »

Democrats,including Obama,still blaming everyone but themselves. Does not bode well for them in 4 years time.

God forbid the guys that actually -voted- for him take any responsibility at all. Your attitude is much like the Congress/Obama veto where Obama vetoed a poor 9/11 responders bill allowing for international suing of Saudi Arabia, Congress -passed it anyway- and then, I **** you not, blamed Obama for not vetoing it hard enough.

Come on. Take some fcuking responsibility for your own actions too, Republicans. This is just childish. :rolleyes:

looksee wrote: »

Maybe there is a reasonable answer to this question, I really don't know, but how is Trump in a position to give/offer millions to anyone, given that it is state money and he is not yet in power?

Good question, but I assume he's using his 'future power' so to speak. "Do this now and I'm promising in return that the funds will be allocated to you once I'm in a position to do it."

...Mind you, given his record on actually paying people..!

dudara wrote: »

This call with Taiwan is quite serious stuff. America is a huge power, yet it has never officially recognised Taiwan. Why? Because China is a serious power that even the US thinks twice about f**king with. Senior Chinese official Shen is now on record stating that China will sever diplomatic ties with the US should this behaviour continue when Trump is in office. That would probably lead to serious trade implications between the two countries.

I know Obama said that he would spend extra time with Trump to help coach him, but is that actually happening?

Hopefully it isnt.

It's been watching those who were "only" supporting trump because they claimed they feared war with Russia slowly evolve into a position nowhere they feel an automatic need to defend any and every criticism of him. I do wonder what there thoughts are on the dangerous path he so sending US/Chinese relations towards at this point though? Agitating for war unless he changed tact by the standards they have laid out, surely?

China realistically isn't in any position to have a war with the USA.

The "senior official" being quoted as suggesting that China would cut diplomatic ties is actually a university academic in China and not a government official of any type. It's a lot of hyperbole and misattributed quotes.

If China got aggressive with the United States it would be walking away from one of its two largest markets by a long shot and would probably trigger NATO, losing access to the EU market, similarly enormous.

Then it would also spook companies manufacturing there and inward investors.

Basically, China isn't going to go to war with anyone unless it's feeling economically suicidal.