Originally posted by whodey
Listen, the bottom line is that if Trump continues to run around saving US jobs he will win reelection.

No one will give a damn about the details.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in a decade. These jobs aren't needed that badly, especially at the price they will cost America. The ones who should pay for these jobs is the corporation, not the rest of America.

If this is the way he "saves jobs", these are the most expensive jobs ever for America.

Typical Republican.

Originally posted by whodey
Obama mocks Trump for saving jobs.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/watch-obama-mocked-trump-for-saying-15350028/

Not a good move.

"[W]hen somebody says, like [Trump], that he’s going to bring all these jobs back, well how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do?" Obama asked rhetorically. "There’s — there’s no ...[text shortened]... otiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually, the answer is he doesn’t have an answer."

He's absolutely correct. Not even Obama thought that Trump would just shove the cost of these jobs to the rest of America.

Negotiators can really screw things up when they aren't the ones actually paying the sums they negotiate. And here he is, promising the world to an already-rich corporation ($12.1 billion in profits just last year) in exchange for those 800-1000 votes. Stop it, Donald, you're not the one paying that bill.

We have to stop and think about how much these jobs actually cost America. And the employees aren't even going to get any of that for themselves. Exactly how much will he make us pay over four years for each and every vote he got in this year's election? And he's already forcing us to buy the next election's votes.

Are we just supposed to bend over and say, "Thank you sir! May we have another?"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't think I have ever sang Mr. Trumps praises. This is a common misconception that just because I was against Mrs. Clinton that I supported Donald Trump. They appear to me to be both part of the same plutocracy. The problem with Mr. Trump is that he cannot be trusted, he will do anything if its expedient. He said he would repeal Obamacare, well ...[text shortened]... erations elsewhere and here we find him making concessions. Nothing he has said has transpired.

Most of the time I think I can spot when you are talking with tongue in cheek.. at least I think I can. And then there are times I'm not so sure.
For instance, I'm sure you are aware that Trump's tenure as president hasn't yet started, and won't start until after his inauguration. Obama is still the president and the guy in charge. So if as you say "Nothing he has said has transpired" it's probably because he's not yet in a position to actually do anything in the capacity of president of the United States. I was reluctant to say this, because it is so obvious I don't know how it could (or would) have escaped anyones attention.
Mexico paying for the wall doesn't mean the president of Mexico would be literally cutting a check for some agreed upon amount. There are a variety of ways this can be done, but the end result would be Mexico (one way or another) paying for some or most of the cost. The art of the deal is much more than simply "I will charge x amount of dollars and you must pay x amount of dollars". If this was all there was to it then anyone and their Aunt Shirley and Aunt Shirley's monkey (don't ask) could be a high rolling multimillionaire business man or business woman... or wealthy business monkey.

Originally posted by Suzianne
He's absolutely correct. Not even Obama thought that Trump would just shove the cost of these jobs to the rest of America.

Negotiators can really screw things up when they aren't the ones actually paying the sums they negotiate. And here he is, promising the world to an already-rich corporation ($12.1 billion in profits just last year) in exchange for ...[text shortened]... on's votes.

Are we just supposed to bend over and say, "Thank you sir! May we have another?"

Obama spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package and promised a bunch of jobs in return that never materialized. Also, companies like GE did not pay $1 in federal income taxes under Obama and all of a sudden you are upset with the way things are done?

I even saw how Sarah Palin, of all people. lash out at Donald for Crony capitalism, but as I have said, voters are only going to care about one thing, keeping jobs in the US.

Just say'in.

Originally posted by whodey
Just say'in.

*sayin'

Originally posted by Suzianne
Bernie would have said, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

And, "Don't expect to sell your products in this country ever again, traitors."

These are the ones who should get their citizenship revoked, not those exercising their right to free speech by burning the flag.

So you would kick out US companies and prohibit them from selling in the US?

That would mean fewer jobs, less tax revenue, and higher prices at the store, you do realize that, right?