DBest

quote:

---

I think the obsession is not that he tweets, its the subject of those tweets.

---

It is painful to see logic on these boards. Thank you for posting it regardless.

quote:

---

There's a bit of difference between saying, "I think the President Elect is a corrupt criminal and has jeopardized our national security", and "I think the President Elect is an a-hole."

See a difference?

---

I dont see a difference in either candidate not being qualified to lead this US. You pointed out HRC flaws which are valid but you leave out Trumps. And even if he had no personality flaws (which he does have many) he has no experience. You voted for someone to lead this great nation who hasnt proven the ability to run this country...period. In my book, you have to be qualified to get the job. Neither should be President...period. the simple fact that one is shows how far we have fallen in the process establishing leadership and direction in this country.

Because the poster never said that Trump wanted to withdraw...he said Trump will not rip up NAFTA. Then he provided you with the quote from Trump saying he would. Read the post title again and then the link. Take your time.

quote:

---

It's almost comical that Muslims act like there isn't a problem in their community.

"There is no such thing as "Islamophobia". It is entirely reasonable to fear a medieval death-cult with over a billion followers who want to take over the world and subject everyone left living to their madness.?"

---

Consider history, the same conclusion of violence can be assesed to us as well.

quote:

---

quote:
He never said he wanted to. He has always said that he wants to renegotiate it.

quote:
"I’m going to rip up those trade deals and we’re going to make really good ones,” he said during a campaign stop in Portland, Maine.

LINK

---

It is beyong commical how ridiculous the posters are on this board. You say Trump said something, they say he didnt, you then provide a link of him saying it and yet you get downvotes??? Lol, that is why he said he could shoot someone in broad day light and get away with it I guess.

If you really believed a wall would be built you didnt think it through. If you think you can get Mexico to pay for the wall then you are insane. If you think the wall will only be built by the US tax payers then you are resonable. Cut taxes for everyone and build the wall. Can't have both people. You want taxes or a wall??? Real question folks.

LINK

You know...it doesnt matter to me if they received any tax breaks from state or stimulous from federal...bottom line you and I and every tax payer for that matter pays them $7billion a year via defense contracts. Isnt that more than enough for them to keep 2k jobs in the US and not bite the hand that feeds you?

I agree that any moves are based solely on bottom line that is why I firmly believe without having wages and tax breaks equivalent to Mexico these jobs will still move. Ten years places a bandage on the bleed. Bottom line, manufacturing jobs in general,I believe are gone. I jusy dont see how we get companies to stay. Incentives keep them for a while but the ultimately move on.

Stop. That was an excuse. Rules come as safety precaution. Carrier is not the only company that operates in the US under those new rules. No others moved based on the new rules. Bottom line the move is simply to cut cost and increase revenue. This is a bottom line decision.

quote:

---

A simple link to your assertion that they reneged, you claimed it back it with facts

---

Well you claimed everybody that disagreed was an idiot so I figured with a statement like that you should already know the facts.

LINK

What would you like evidence of as it is apparant you would rather I provide than you look something up for yourself...to educate yourself. Let me know and I will provide. I alread have in another post.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if people realize companies get tax breaks from states all the time. Infact it's usually normal procedure. It just doesn't make national news usually.

States offer tax breaks openly so businesses will open shop in that state. How many people here are really this ignorant of reality and are just using this as an excuse for faux outrage so they can be mad at trump?

It was a good deal. Everyone who disagrees is an idiot.

---

You should be careful calling people idiots...

Carrier agreed to tax credits a while back which was intended then to keep the company in Indiana and not Mexico. They reneged on that agreement an later made their famous announcement. The state of Indian was upset enough to ask for their money back. Carrier obliged and now we offer them multiple times that offer and you think it is a good deal...you sir might be the idiot. We pay their parent company nearly $7billion a year through defense contracts. That makes up 10% of their companies annual revenue and you want to convince this board that, that isnt enough to warrant them keeping jobs in the US without additional incentives??? You cant see the truth so I just gave it to you.

quote:

---

The us pays 5 billion a year to this company? If true you may have a point. Do you have a link to this figure?

---

LINK

$7Billion...sorry

Sorry sir, you are focused on the wrong part because I am saying this deal should have never been necessary. No leverage or incentive should have been needed to keep those jobs because we pay UTC $7Billion a year in government contracts. That represents 10% of their overall revenue which I am certain they wouldn't be willing to give up for the sake of allowing the smallest portion of their company to move 1000 jobs to Mexico. You guys have to wake up because you are being deceived. No one with such leverage should ever give up such a public position which will prompt other businesses to expect similar reciprocity. See trailing data below.

In fiscal year 2014, the United States government paid out an astounding $444 billion in federal contracts. That’s equivalent to almost forty percent of the federal discretionary budget for 2014.

Who got all that money, and what for? Here’s a rundown of the top 10 federal contractors in 2014. Hint: all of the top 10 contractors are for-profit companies, and all of them owe their status to military spending – something worth keeping in mind as Congress engages in battle over government spending levels for the Pentagon versus every single other priority, including health care, education, and job creation.

10. Huntington Ingalls Industries, $4.7 billion.
Huntington Ingalls describes itself as “America’s largest military shipbuilding company.”

9. BAE Systems, $5.0 billion.
BAE Systems traffics in “defence, aerospace and security solutions” (and yes, they are a British company with significant operations in the U.S.), with products ranging from amphibious combat vehicles to “hyper velocity projectiles.”

8. L-3 Communications Holdings, $5.8 billion.
L-3 bills itself as a “prime contractor in aerospace and national security solutions.” Its products include explosive detection systems and holographic weapons sights, among others.

7. United Technologies Corporation, $6.0 billion.
UTC is a parent company for defense contractors Pratt & Whitney, UTC Aerospace Systems, and Sikorsky. Pratt & Whitney is the maker of the F-35 jet fighter engine, among others, while Sikorsky is the maker of the Black Hawk helicopter.

6. McKesson Corporation, $6.2 billion.
On its face, health care solutions company McKesson appears to be the lone non-military contractor among the group. But even McKesson would not be where it is without our country’s penchant for Pentagon spending: it gets $4.2 billion in contracts from Veterans’ Affairs, and an additional $1.6 billion directly from the Department of Defense.

5. Northrop Grumman Corporation, $10.3 billion.
Northrop Grumman bills itself as providing “unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and security” solutions. Northrop Grumman makes the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the “Warthog”), among others.

4. Raytheon Company, $12.6 billion.
Raytheon’s business includes missile defense, electronic warfare, precision weapons, and more, including Tomahawk and Patriot missiles.

3. General Dynamics Corporation, $15.4 billion.
General Dynamics provides aerospace, combat systems, marine systems, and more, including Abrams tanks, MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and nuclear submarines through its Electric Boat division.

2. Boeing, $19.6 billion.
Boeing specializes in fighter jets, rotorcraft, advanced weapons, and missile defense, including Minuteman missiles, the V-22 Osprey aircraft, and the F-15 aircraft.

1. Lockheed Martin, $32.2 billion.
That’s 7% of all federal contracts, and the equivalent of three percent of discretionary spending in 2014, to just one company.

That company saw over $5.5 billion in profit, and paid its CEO more than $34 million in 2014. And the $32 billion it received from the U.S. government made up more than seventy percent of its total sales.

And Lockheed’s signature product? The F-35 jet fighter, which despite being in development since 2001, and being billions of dollars over budget, is not yet combat ready. The F-35’s top initial selling point?

Affordability.