The news is easily found. Simply consult your favourite news outlet.

And no, Trump's deal doesn't bring back even one single job. He managed to keep roughly half from being moved, and only at an immensely high price. Just for reference, Delphi Automotive has less than $20k equity per employee. For them this deal would bring (an additional) 50% annual return on shareholders equity.

As for the rest:
Just more of your usual unsubstantiated speculation.

I don't think anybody is taking it as if Trump has already solved the labor crisis before stepping into office. It was more a demonstration of his engagement, per his campaign platform. I don't know the details of the solution they came up with, although I suspect that incentive was committed at the state level, and not at the federal level.

In any case, it does demonstrate that something can be done. That is in contrast to Obama and the Democrats who have given up and resigned themselves to futility by blaming those workers for the loss of their jobs.

I think this was a poke in the eye of Obama who said Trump cannot save any of the Carrier jobs. It's a good start in the right direction. I think they will try to formulate this into strategic regulations as part of Trump's agenda, per his campaign platform. I'd give them a good grade for effort alone, and a bad grade to Obama for not even trying.

Sorry, spending 10k per employee in legalised bribes to get them to stay isn't saving jobs, it's subsidising big business at the expense of the taxpayer. I'm sure even Obama could have "saved" jobs in this manner, but if he had, the country would be bankrupt...another of The Donald's specialities.

If it is a case of straight cash, I would agree that it is an unsustainable subsidy or bribe. But I don't really know the details of the deal. It could very well be the net value of pending corporate tax cuts in the US. Tax rates are expected to be cut from 35% to 15% for corporations.

I tend think this is another one of those shrill EF exaggerations and over-reactions. No need for a rush to judgment. Next election is 4 years away.

Who bailed out the US car industry Phos? I think you must have a very short memory to forget such an unpopular but necessary action.

Phos seems to be focusing on buzzwords instead of facts again. Misusing shrill again also. Shame, I think he almost admitted The Donald might have made a mistake.

Now he's challenging the recounts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38187641

I wonder why?

shrill
adjective, shriller, shrillest.
1.
high-pitched and piercing in sound quality:
a shrill cry.


mad buzzwords yo

Nurse, old Mr Trump's out of bed causing havoc again...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38191711

His fanboys must be ecstatic.

When has Phos ever focused on facts?

Although I agree the near admittance that Mad Don made a cock-up is some sort of record.

Besides Trump transfering the running of his brand to his children, which doesn't comply with 'blind interest', isn't this also a huge conflict of interest?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...raises-concern

This is kind of interesting regarding conflict of interest. Apparently the rules about conflict of interest for president and vice president are not well defined.

(I'm not sure about the quality of this resource - it's an interpretation of the law.


http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trum...-apply-to-him/

Some quotes -

"Both the Vice President and President are exempt from federal rules that prohibit executive branch employees from participating in matters in which they have financial interests.

In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 202 specifically states, as relating to Section 208 which deals with financial interests:

“Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”

The theory behind exempting the President and Vice President from this law is that they need to carry out their constitutional duties without legal restraints.

“On top of the language of Section 208, there has been a long debate over the application of ethics laws to the president. The position of the Justice Department in the 1970s was that such laws did not apply to the president–even before the insertion of the express exemption, ” George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in his blog. However, in years past, presidents have taken steps to separate their business dealings from their political life, which is perceived as core principle of good governance.

And then there is this:

"And while Trump is right to say conflict-of-interest rules don’t apply to him, other laws governing this type of behavior do like the federal bribery statute and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting gifts from foreign governments or international organizations except as permitted under the law.

And, interestingly, as President, Trump will have no legal protection from lawsuits that stem from his private life, thanks to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling after President Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones in a sexual harassment case."


Interesting times. I suppose a lot of ethical behavior has been more convention than law - so we'll see what happens next.

This is great. How anyone with any sense can complain is beyond me.

Taiwan is a democracy. China isn't. It's about time someone ruffelled their feathers.

Maybe so. I guess we'll see the impact of abandoning protocol soon enough.

I guess there are some concerns about the Chinese destabilizing the dollar, given that they hold something like 10% of the US debt. I think a bigger issue might be that the Chinese make so much of the sh*t sold in the US, i imagine a pissed off China screwing US consumers in a bigly yuuuuge way.

The entire Chinese economy is based on selling cheap stuff to the west. Any economic games and it'll end up hurting them. 2008 showed us as much.

Anyhow, the beautiful thing about this move is that no right minded liberal can criticise Trump without looking like a prat.

Guess I'm a prat then, whatever that is. Don't care.

The principle that Trump will behave in a manner perceived as "ethical" only when forced to by the law (and even then, only when he has exhausted every possibility to circumvent the law) is very well established. There are numerous examples, dating back to his first years in business.

Shady and unprincipled doesn't even start to describe Trump.

Walk of fame starts from pissing off the super powers. Well let's see how it all unveils ...

Trump-Taiwan call: China lodges protest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38194371

If he puts a bit more effort in, he could possibly start a war in Asia before he's actually president!

Exactly. Seriously, Loz1983 and Phos, are you that naive?