Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Dad_Scaper December 2nd, 2016 11:17 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I am skeptical that Trump's legacy will be as a "protectionist." Time will tell. For better or for worse, I think he will be sufficiently nimble, philosophically, that such labels will not easily stick.

vegietarian18 December 2nd, 2016 12:13 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2123509)
Instead of Jill Stein asking for a recount, she should consider how much the Green party contributed to a Trump victory.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ler?yptr=yahoo
Stein votes/Trump margin:
MI: 51,463/10,704
PA: 49,678/46,765
WI: 31,006/22,177
Admittedly, the race in deciding states wasn't as close as it was with Bush-Gore, but it played a part.

On another matter, any thoughts on Trump's influence on Carrier with respect to moving jobs offshore?

It's wrong to assume that a third party candidate strictly takes away votes from their major party alternative. Many people who are voting third party do it because they are frustrated with the party they closely identify with, or with politics as a whole. Besides, Gary Johnson probably "took" more votes from Trump than Stein took from Clinton. It's just a bad narrative or even discussion point.

Jill Stein's recount is kind of a joke anyway, she keeps raising the amount of funding she needs and any leftover will go to "election integrity".

Dad_Scaper December 2nd, 2016 01:04 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Well, this is an interesting development. Why would Michigan take legal action to stop a recount that it isn't paying for? I read this article & immediately remembered Nate Silver's response to Trump's Twit-storm (yes, I wrote that) alleging "millions" of fraudulent votes for Clinton.

It turns out that Silver's written a piece about it, which bears a read. He concludes:
Quote:

What are the costs of an election audit? Running them will cost several million dollars, but that’s fairly trivial in an era of billion-dollar campaigns. Instead, since these audits aren’t routine — although maybe they should be — the cost is mostly that they could undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election and the longstanding norm toward uncontentious transitions of power from one president toward the next. Which might be more persuasive … if Trump hadn’t spent the weekend peddling a conspiracy about how he thought the results were rigged in Clinton’s favor because millions of people had voted illegally.
The President Elect, and no other candidate, has made a serious accusation of fraud in the election. A recount (or, as Silver calls it, an "audit") will almost certainly not change anything. But it's paid for, it won't hurt anybody, and - unlike the President Elect's Twitter feed - I expect it would provide a measure of reassurance that the system works as intended. Considering that it's paid for by people freely devoting their own money to it, considering that the President Elect has publicly thrown doubt on the election's outcome, considering that the chief lawyer for one of the affected states is now taking action to stop it, why not? My Magic 8-Ball started on "Why bother," then to "Outlook is hazy," and now it's on "Yes, please."

Whatever Jill Stein's motives, and whatever the wild dreams of the contributors, the money is there, the accusations of fraud are there (courtesy of the P/E), and one (so far) of the affected states is offering a really lame excuse about why it doesn't want to, and is fighting it. There's probably nothing there, but let it happen.

Swamper December 2nd, 2016 01:46 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Looking at it from a practical/legal standpoint, I can see why Michigan wouldn't want to take the time to do a recount for Stein. She came in last in every state I think, so there's no real reason for her to want a recount. If Clinton was the one asking for a recount, that should be accommodated. A recount won't change the outcome for Stein, so there's no reason to recount for her, IMO.

Hahma December 2nd, 2016 02:17 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2123512)
As I understand it, Carrier's parent company is also a defense contractor. Defense contractors have deep and delicate relationships with the executive branch of the government. I'm not really interested in one deal as the delivery, or failure to deliver, on a campaign promise.

Trump is inheriting 8 years of rising employment, wages, and stock markets. I'm open to being impressed - I really am - but this deal doesn't mean anything to me. Show me trends, in time.

I suspect this mostly a Pence deal, considering he is still the governor of Indiana. Helps make Trump look like he kept his word about keeping jobs here.

I also heard that the parent company is a defense contractor, so I'm suspect that had more to do with the deal than the $7 million in tax breaks Carrier will get over the next 10 years from us in Indiana.

While companies have leveraged their location based on tax incentives between states in past, now they may have a new leverage to stay in the country.

Dad_Scaper December 2nd, 2016 04:41 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Michigan doesn't take time to do a recount. It's bought and paid for by the other party, in this case, Stein. Spending money given to her for this purpose. If Michigan doesn't want other people to waste their money, it should have discouraged them before now. A waste of time and/or money is a pretty weak excuse, considering that it's all bought and paid for by private parties.

Swamper December 2nd, 2016 05:07 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
From my understanding, Stein has raised money to cover some costs, but not all costs, and there is also a potential problem, in the event of a recount, with the final tally not being "official" in time for the electors final vote.

Usually I don't do links, but this Yahoo story is where I got the information: https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-...150741389.html

Dad_Scaper December 2nd, 2016 07:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The point would be an audit of the vote. The President Elect himself has cast doubt upon it, the requesting party has raised money to pay for it, and the request itself is apparently lawful.

You know, Swamper, it's ok for you to sometimes agree with the position taken by someone who you think of as a liberal. Nothing bad will happen.

Seriously, when Trump publicly claimed that there were millions of fake votes cast for Clinton, that should have been the end of this conversation. System integrity is important, as is trust in the system. The person about to assume the (arguably) most important job in the entire world just said that the vote was marred by fraud. People should be demanding a recount, particularly those who are his allies and supporters.

Swamper December 2nd, 2016 11:51 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Agreeing with a liberal has nothing to do with this. You said that there would be no cost for Michigan to do the audit. From what I've read, that's not true, and that's all I was pointing out, along with the possibility of not getting the recount done by the deadline.

As for the point about Trump, I think people aren't taking it seriously because they know Trump is full of bull. I certainly don't think there were tons of illegal votes, and no one I know does, either. Trump has been full of crap since the beginning of the campaign. I choose not to worry about every crazy thing he says, cause he says a lot. I'll pay attention to his actions when the time comes.

Speaking of actions, I'm not a fan of the Carrier deal. It's good for those individuals, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Are we gonna give every company tax breaks if they threaten to move overseas? I don't think that's a viable strategy.

Dysole December 3rd, 2016 01:22 AM

Pretty Much
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamper (Post 2123705)
Speaking of actions, I'm not a fan of the Carrier deal. It's good for those individuals, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Are we gonna give every company tax breaks if they threaten to move overseas? I don't think that's a viable strategy.

This. This is my current concern as there is practically no reason for them not to if this becomes any kind of standard.

~Dysole, who tries to search out where the water flows to eventually (metaphorically speaking)

vegietarian18 December 3rd, 2016 02:37 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I mean, I'm not sure what else could be done to keep jobs in America, this is basically what Trump ran on. You either incentivize staying, or disincentivize leaving. I don't think this will be something Trump consistently does, but rather he wants to show his supporters early that he will "save American jobs".

We will have to see though. Trump is still very much an unknown

Dad_Scaper December 3rd, 2016 10:05 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
1.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamper (Post 2123705)
Agreeing with a liberal has nothing to do with this. You said that there would be no cost for Michigan to do the audit. From what I've read, that's not true, and that's all I was pointing out, along with the possibility of not getting the recount done by the deadline.

Of course it does. These reasons you're offering are weak. Why not audit the election? These aren't serious answers. I didn't see where Michigan is on the hook for anything, regardless of money. Why are you assuming that the state does work it won't get paid for? Most importantly, in all 3 states, why are Trump surrogates (or his campaign itself) fighting?

2.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamper (Post 2123705)
As for the point about Trump, I think people aren't taking it seriously because they know Trump is full of bull. I certainly don't think there were tons of illegal votes, and no one I know does, either. Trump has been full of crap since the beginning of the campaign. I choose not to worry about every crazy thing he says, cause he says a lot. I'll pay attention to his actions when the time comes.

Words matter. This part of your post distresses me more than I expect you thought it would, but that ship has sailed. I don't intend for this thread to be continuing commentary on our nation's descent into a Trump Presidency, because it is about "Decision 2016," but I will continue to discuss election-related matters here.

3.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamper (Post 2123705)
Speaking of actions, I'm not a fan of the Carrier deal. It's good for those individuals, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Are we gonna give every company tax breaks if they threaten to move overseas? I don't think that's a viable strategy.

Fair enough. It's the type of thing that the government does all the time, particularly under pro-business administrations. I agree with Hahma that this has to do with Pence & Indiana, as well. And we know how thoughtful an administrator he is.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.