sharkman

You are obviously playing dumb because it's Obama who has refused to fashion a business friendly economy that will generate tax revenue instead of having to borrow trillions. The 1950's US population was around HALF of what it is now. And as for "defining the debate in a misleading manner", how is it that the US employment rate is above 100%, when millions have never been hired back after 2009? This assumes you understand basic unemployment rate fundamentals. Look, it's obvious all you want to do is play games. Have fun.

1) The US corporate tax rate is not the same. 2) The US is not the same as Canada, apples to oranges. 3) 8 years of Obama's debt spending has put the US on the edge of an interest rate cliff.

You don't get it Argus. The the US the corporate tax rate is way too high. Then they have to pay for Obama's ridiculous healthcare system. Then they have all of the new enviro regs to abide by. All of this makes them want to leave the US so they can make some money. But Trump is going to fix all that, just be patient and know that it's not corporate welfare, but corporate fleecing that's going on right now.

Yeah, it's not easy for some lefties to stay on topic what with all the hand wringing. I think Trump may do this kind of deal periodically until he can get the tax rates and such adjusted. Sunny ways!

Don't count on it, the little kid is too busy with carbon tax. That was a pretty good speech Trump gave in Ohio yesterday. He formed plenty of properly constructed sentences, and I guess the left is easily coddled. The crowd was loving him, I've never seen that kind of reaction from a politician's speech before. And he's not even sworn in yet!

Before you can say that Trump is subsidizing American business in this case, you need to know exactly what he did to make Carrier stay. He may have also included government contracts which apparently is worth a billion. Trump bashers are all playing the same assumption game and working themselves into a lather. Well, knock yourselves out, but until you know the facts, you're just another armchair quarterback. Edited: Oops, I found out they gave Carrier tax breaks.

I'm waiting to see what the left's response will be to this because it's good news with no blow back. The US economy is going to need lots more of this kind of activity.

Hi Bubber, I see you've taken to responding after my posts again, and knowing your history at least some of them are directed at me. I wouldn't know, you're still on ignore and I don't read you but just so you know...

Hey, you'll love this bridge! The locals call it the Golden Gate or some such thing, and you can buy it for cheap today only. But on recount news, I'm afraid Jill Stein is no Sherlock. The deadline for Penn State was November 21, so she and her crack team of recount specialists are gonna have to come up with another state to make their story at least look plausible.

Is that right? Listen, I got this bridge I'd like to sell you, chum...

Which would have happened 3 weeks ago if it were an issue.

The thing is, there is no basis for a recount.

Well, now the Dems are claiming there could be voter fraud, even though there is absolutely no evidence of a Russian hack and the White House has apparently said so. It simply looks like an attempt to force the Congress and Senate to vote in Trump instead of the electoral college. Which is just more politicking from the left.

Well, I mean something new. Like in now that the Dems real strategy seems to be to simply draw out the results after they lectured Trump on accepting the results.

Anybody besides Bubber have any thoughts? Bubber, you're still on ignore, why change a good thing?

Okay, to do all of these recounts, it could push the results past inauguration day. I've heard that might be the real strategy here, that's really why they waited almost 3 weeks to ask for a recount. It's to make Trump seem illegitimate, because then instead of the electoral college selecting a winner, the congress and senate will have to. It's a scam.

Can you believe that? Wilber actually thinks that there was no recount in 2000. Earlier I miisspoke. I said that to win the three states in a recount, Hillary would have to get about 50,000 votes changed. Actually the number is around 100,000 votes. They think that the Russians hacked hundreds of voting machines across counties of these states to give Trump the win. What a mass conspiracy!

No, I was asking you if the possibility of rioting and attacks on people bothered you, and you side stepped the question. So you personally don't mind if people get injured and riots occur, because there is a 649 lottery type chance that Trump's win could be overturned. Good for you, after you brow beat posters with their use of the "deplorable" term. Well I have bad news for you. The White House has said that there is no evidence of election votes tampering whatsoever. And when there was a much closer election, back in 2000, the Dems still lost. In this case they've cherry picked 3 states whose electoral votes would overturn the election. They've gotta come up with over 50,000 votes when they couldn't come up with under 3000 votes back in 2000. So they won't get anywhere. But on the plus side for you, this whole mess will cause more violence and torched cars/buildings. Better warm up your PVR.

Still, he's not the president yet. I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to take issue with what he's doing down the road if he doesn't reduce the ridiculous deficit and get the economy going, something Obama failed miserably at. Speaking of which, have you ever said anything critical of Obama? His foreign non-policy has left American interests in tatters in several key areas. Surely you have something critical you can come up with.

You seem confused. Maybe you should state for the record whom you believe to be the president. Once Trump gets sworn into office, like Hillary did, then you have an argument.

Isn't that being a little glib? You don't seem concerned about the threats of violence or the possible new round of rioting when those in denial get another dem defeat. The country needs to put the election behind them, not have recount after recount. And what if some non conspiracy related anomaly gets discovered? Some odd thing that has nothing to do with hacking, and they don't even know what it means because they've never looked for it before. Then the conspiracy theorists would really have something to chew on, kind of like the no-minds that figure since the melting point of steel is above what jet fuel burns at, then those buildings shouldn't have come down AT ALL!! When something called common sense would suggest that the steel didn't have to melt, only weaken. So at the end of the day, what benefit is there to recounting? Do you really think the Russians did it?

What's wrong with a recount almost 3 weeks after the fact? It will encourage more rioting, and death threats from the radical left.

Recounts are done when there is a very close outcome and it is done almost immediately because of the close outcome. This situation is completely different. It's being done two weeks after the fact and not because of a close outcome, (say 1200 votes) but because of a conspiracy theory that the Russians must have hacked it because the outcome wasn't a dem victory. And recounts are not cheap. I mean, they can go ahead and recount if they really want to but they'll find no smoking gun. It's a waste of money, because there is no actual evidence. There is no close outcome. Again, it's based on a conspiracy theory.

Well, the real reason for this green party driven effort is that Trump won't allow their enviro cult to influence things any further than they already are. They'll do anything at this point, and taking money from innocents on a lottery type chance of overturning the election is worth it to them. Meanwhile in other grasping at straws activity, the electoral college has been receiving death threats. Sore losers are starting to come unhinged.

And what about the above mentioned result in Texas? And I believe Texas is a strong Republican state.