Ok, but what does this have to do with Trump?
I agree with this, also, is incentivizing a company to stay in an area and provide jobs a generally bad idea? There are several factors that should be consider. It seems like the state will come off better with the taxes collected from people working (income tax), and people being able to pay other taxes because they have a job (property, sales, etc). Carrier staying for $700,000 in tax incentives actually seems pretty cheap. Of course this depends on how many and the type of jobs that are staying and I don’t think that information has come out yet. This is clearly a win for Trump unless he just get Indiana to pay a lot of money to keep a bunch of minimum wage jobs.
Anytime a company wants a massive tax break, they just have to threaten to move jobs to Mexico. Then wait for the taxpayer money fountain to be turned on in their lobby by Dear Leader.
Trump doesn’t give a shit. It’s not his money he’s throwing around. As long as it gives him adulation, he’ll give away other people’s money all day.
It’s precisely the same sentiment. Or to quote Bush Sr. “Fuck 'em. They’re not going to vote for me anyway” (or words very close to that).
Why should Trump care about the popular vote or a bunch of pants-wetting protesters who have the civic awareness of lichen?
Well, that’s just the amateur protesters. The professionals aren’t like that.
I don’t think that’s accurate no matter how you slice it, but if you’ve got an interesting angle I haven’t been able to think of, please share.
As for your broader point, I don’t want Trump to ignore blue states during his Presidency and turn them all into some sort of reverse fly-over country, but I’m not particularly bothered by him spending some time during the transition reaching out particularly to downtrodden whites in the Rust Belt who have felt neglected during Obama’s administration.
(post shortened)
President-elect Trump hasn’t assumed office yet. The Democrat collective is still an emotional wreck. I expect the wailing and gnashing of teeth to continue for quite a while. There’s plenty of time for recon-silly-ation after the Democrat collective calms down a bit.
Trump seems to be spending most of his time trying to establish his new cabinet. If the Democrat collective wants something from the President, dead-duck Obama is still holding that office.
[quote=“HurricaneDitka, post:26, topic:773632”]
I don’t think that’s accurate no matter how you slice it, but if you’ve got an interesting angle I haven’t been able to think of, please share.
[QUOTE]
The protesters are Americans
The states that voted Democrat contain Americans
The majority of votes were for Hillary, and were cast by Americans.
Not sure what you think is not accurate.
I’m afraid the answer for the OP - like the answer to many other questions about Trump - is: “With many other presidents, [yes/no.] With Trump, who knows.”
This line. I think this line is inaccurate. “Majority” is typically taken to mean ‘greater than 50%’. Plurality is probably the word you meant, although admittedly, it doesn’t sound as cool as “majority”.
I wish that were true. But he lives in our reality, and we have to share it with him.
And what is x% tax on $0? Just like globalization means the American worker competes with illegal wages and foreign wages, globalization also means that the US government competes on taxes.
Because they are the popular vote and he and his congress may need them to stay in power.
He accurately said majority of the votes, not 51% of the populace or 51% of the votes. The definition of majority is a greater number. Hillary votes equal a greater number than her competitors.
How about just “more”? Or maybe “two and a half million more”? Better? And what do you care how a question is worded if you’re going to evade it anyway?
Yes.
Which question did I evade?
Trump won the EC vote. The only vote that decides who will be the next POTUS.
All 20+ candidates for POTUS ran their races with the intention of getting more than 270 EC votes. If the rules were changed to a popular vote winner, all of the candidates would have run their campaigns differently. Which would have led to different vote totals. INHO, of course.
I’ll certainly never forget it, after the 2000 election, how GeeDubya and top Republicans rushed to say that they were humbled by the experience. How it showed a divided country and how no party could honestly proclaim victory, even less the party that got fewer votes. I was impressed by the civic virtue and humility displayed.
I’d like to cite it as an example of Republican ethical purity, but for some reason, can’t find any reference to it. Perhaps one of you guys will help out with that?
Hurr, Door: Can we take it as a given that you dismiss out of hand Il Douche’s claim that his popular vote loss was due to millions of illegal votes?
Ahhh, sorry, I didn’t catch the “Hurr” the first time as referring to me. Makes sense now that I see it though.
As for Trump’s claim, no I don’t think he “actually won the popular vote” if we were to deduct non-citizen votes.
I do suspect some non-citizens voted, but that’s probably a topic for another thread.