Welcome to GateWorld Forum! If this is your first visit, we hope you'll sign up and join our Stargate community. If you have questions, start with the FAQ. We've been going strong since 2004, are we are glad you are here.
And it's an amazing coincidence that they lost value just as Trump started tweeting about them.. While trying to "save" American jobs. Which he hasn't done if you read the follow up stories.
Toyota isn't even American. Opening a factory in Mexico wouldn't have cost American jobs because they had no intention of opening a new plant there.
But Trump claimed he saved American jobs anyway. Which he didn't.
Toyota already operates plants in the U.S., Freemont, CA and I think there is one in Kentucky?
They sell a crapload of cars here, they should make more of them here, not open a plant in Mx or move production there.
So, a leader who wants isolationism and protectionism has the right to tell foreign companies where to build their product to be of the most benefit for said isolationist nation.
sigpic
ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
So, a leader who wants isolationism and protectionism has the right to tell foreign companies where to build their product to be of the most benefit for said isolationist nation.
Trump wants to have his cake steak and eat it.
He keeps threatening to punish companies who don't do as he says with huge tax increases on imports, which he can't really impose. Not on specific companies as a punishment.
If he wants to lose their trade altogether, he's going the right way about it.
And it's an amazing coincidence that they lost value just as Trump started tweeting about them.. While trying to "save" American jobs. Which he hasn't done if you read the follow up stories.
Toyota isn't even American. Opening a factory in Mexico wouldn't have cost American jobs because they had no intention of opening a new plant there.
But Trump claimed he saved American jobs anyway. Which he didn't.
So, a leader who wants isolationism and protectionism has the right to tell foreign companies where to build their product to be of the most benefit for said isolationist nation.
To be blunt, yeah, if they want to sell it here, they can make it here.
Why was Trump the only choice the Republicans had to put up? Why?
The leadership of the national party did everything they possibly could to stop Trump. If you recall, Trump had a large segment of the national party directly opposing him ever since he announced.
But rank & file Republican primary voter support was overwhelming. As has been noted, Trump bested 16 candidates at the polls.
The leadership of the party still hated him but realized that support for Trump by voters was so strong that they had best go along, or there wouldn't be a Republican party anymore. There would be a Trump party in its place.
To be blunt, yeah, if they want to sell it here, they can make it here.
You do realise that any education/tech/entertainment company will just shut up shop in the US and move away, right?
350 million customers is good for physical goods, 6 Billion is far better for the tech sector.
Within one generation you could kill all technical advancement in the US.
sigpic
ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
The leadership of the national party did everything they possibly could to stop Trump. If you recall, Trump had a large segment of the national party directly opposing him ever since he announced.
But rank & file Republican primary voter support was overwhelming. As has been noted, Trump bested 16 candidates at the polls.
The leadership of the party still hated him but realized that support for Trump by voters was so strong that they had best go along, or there wouldn't be a Republican party anymore. There would be a Trump party in its place.
Ah thanks... I knew of the primaries but how does that all work?
We didn't get to choose 'tween Sanders and Trump. The Dems were so beholden to Hillary, for reasons I've theorized about already that they ran her, and in my opinion, it cost them the White House.
Sanders was certainly worth consideration; one of the most important issues is trade, and he pretty much mirrored Trump on that issue. I also liked a few other ideas he brought to the table.
Without other considerations, Sanders may very well have been the better choice.
My big problem with Sanders was that he was soft on illegal immigration. If the Democrats hadn't been trying to use a flood of illegals whom were to be given "paths to citizenship" amnesty & voting rights to turn the country permanently Democrat, I might well have voted for him, counting on the Republican Congress to keep his nuttier ideas in check. But the "establishment" Republican Congresscritters could not be counted on to stand up to him on the Illegals issue due to pressure from their big business pals to keep the flow of cheap labor coming.
Given that, and the chance to turn the "establishment" Republican leadership on its head, I probably would have chosen Trump anyway.
But Sanders, at least would have required me to spend time making a choice. With Clinton, on the other hand, I didn't even have to think about it.
so basically you prefer Trump over Sanders because of a detail (immigration)
never mind that Sanders was the real anti-establishment candidate
immigration is more a matter of foreign policy isn't it
your concern might be understandable if your country was overrun or something (and if most of them didn't work & pay taxes). what % of the homeland population is made of illegals?
Comment