What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Another theory I heard somewhere is that this is payback for Boeing being all buddy-buddy with Obama and Clinton.

Boeing is a major military contractor, of course they're going to be all buddy-buddy with every single high ranking politician.

Yes, but Rightards see only the relationships with Obama and Clinton as being "buddy-buddy."  The fawning relationships with the Bushs and Cheney and Boehner and Ryan is just statesmanship.

[grumbler]

Blahblahblah. Crooked Hillary killed state department officials with her illegal email server.

The only mandates Trump had from the baying crowds who elected him were to build the wall and lock her up.  He looks like he is abandoning both his missions now that the suckers have cast their votes.

[Ed Anger]

Ed's day:

Trump disses Boeing, stock does down. MOTHERFUCKER

later....

stock recovers and goes up a little: GROOVY

[Valmy]

Man if only I had thought of doing investing based on Trump tweets.

[Ed Anger]

Man if only I had thought of doing investing based on Trump tweets.

I'm not even going to try myself.

TRUMP: WHOLE FOODS UNFAIR! sad!

[CountDeMoney]

Ooooh, Battle of the Hats

[viper37]

Larry Summers has a take on the Carrier deal I largely agree with, and had previously mentioned--it was by no means any sweetheart deal for Carrier, and was almost certainly done out of fear of future Presidential wrath. That in itself is a pretty concerning thing if you think about its broader implications.

Let's be clear: Donald Trump is practicing presidential extortion of individual companies for symbolic political gain

Last week, I was sharply critical of the President-elect's effort to pressure Carrier into keeping jobs in Indiana on the grounds that it was a step towards degrading American capitalism from being rules-based to being deals-based.  The Carrier case has generated much discussion, so I want to follow up and make clear why my concerns are now considerably greater than they were even last week.

First, no one should be confused. This was more of a mugging than a bribe. The tax incentives offered by Indiana total $7 million over 10 years or less than $1,000 per job-year. Incentives at this level would be standard in any business location decision. So, given the stakes involved, the decision was surely based on the reasonable judgement by United Technologies (the parent company of Carrier) that it did not want to be on the wrong side of the incoming President.

See, this is mostly wrong there.  7 million$ may be chump change over 10 years, but Trump did say there were more to come, more tax breaks, more deregulation.

Further more, if there was a real threat here, if there was fear from United Technology, then why are they still closing their other plant in Indiana?  Further more, in the "1000 jobs saved", it included around 300 administrative jobs that weren't going to Mexico.
Politifact

[11B4V]

Ooooh, Battle of the Hats

Those ain't fucking hats. No bubba roll, looks clean.

This is a hat

[CountDeMoney]

Larry Summers has a take on the Carrier deal I largely agree with, and had previously mentioned--it was by no means any sweetheart deal for Carrier, and was almost certainly done out of fear of future Presidential wrath. That in itself is a pretty concerning thing if you think about its broader implications.

Just another characteristic that goes unnoticed when it comes to the Demagogue: micromanagement, not only for the sake of exerting control--in this case, over UT/Carrier--but for reinforcing his ability to "get things done" with his base, regardless of how truly effective.

Back in his younger days, Castro used to answer the phones himself when it came to complaints from the people, from fixing potholes to flooding of farm land.  Granted, not many phones back then, but still.  Just sayin'.

[Ed Anger]

basecop's gross old hat: 

[CountDeMoney]

Smells like sweat and hair loss.  Hats are like dress shirts:  once they lose their "umph", it's gotta go.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Larry Summers has a take on the Carrier deal I largely agree with, and had previously mentioned--it was by no means any sweetheart deal for Carrier, and was almost certainly done out of fear of future Presidential wrath. That in itself is a pretty concerning thing if you think about its broader implications.

Let's be clear: Donald Trump is practicing presidential extortion of individual companies for symbolic political gain

Last week, I was sharply critical of the President-elect's effort to pressure Carrier into keeping jobs in Indiana on the grounds that it was a step towards degrading American capitalism from being rules-based to being deals-based.  The Carrier case has generated much discussion, so I want to follow up and make clear why my concerns are now considerably greater than they were even last week.

First, no one should be confused. This was more of a mugging than a bribe. The tax incentives offered by Indiana total $7 million over 10 years or less than $1,000 per job-year. Incentives at this level would be standard in any business location decision. So, given the stakes involved, the decision was surely based on the reasonable judgement by United Technologies (the parent company of Carrier) that it did not want to be on the wrong side of the incoming President.

See, this is mostly wrong there.  7 million$ may be chump change over 10 years, but Trump did say there were more to come, more tax breaks, more deregulation.

Further more, if there was a real threat here, if there was fear from United Technology, then why are they still closing their other plant in Indiana?  Further more, in the "1000 jobs saved", it included around 300 administrative jobs that weren't going to Mexico.
Politifact

I don't know many businessmen who would decide to keep jobs over vague, future promises of legislative change. I also don't know many businesses who would decline $65m in savings for $1000/yr/head, a pretty typical incentive for jobs from State/local government in the United States. I think the threat to UT's government business is by the most rational reason, and one that we actually have strong reason to believe versus "Trump gave them some super secret, special deal."

Basically, I think Larry Summers is making a much better and more rational argument than you are--that Trump used the power of his future office to threaten an American company with reprisal, and the American company negotiated the best deal it could with Trump.

[jimmy olsen]

Holy shit! 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-tower-secret-service-amenities-232216

Secret Service advertised as hot 'new amenity' at Trump Tower

  By Tara Palmeri
  | 12/06/16 12:08 PM EST
  |  Updated 12/06/16 05:37 PM EST

The U.S. Secret Service is the hot, new "amenity" at Trump Tower, where desperate brokers are trying to lure well-heeled clients into the building on Fifth Avenue that has served as President-elect Donald Trump's home as well as his campaign and transition headquarters.

Less than a week after Trump was elected, prominent New York real estate agency Douglas Elliman blasted out an email with the subject: "Fifth Avenue Buyers Interested in Secret Service Protection?" to advertise a $2.1 million, 1,052-square-foot condo in the tower on 721 Fifth Avenue.

"The New Aminity [sic] – The United States Secret Service," screamed the flier sent in an email on Nov. 13 for a one-bedroom apartment on the 31st floor, represented by brokers Ariel Sassoon and Devin Leahy.

"The Best Value in the Most Secure Building in Manhattan," it stated.

While there's been a great deal of attention to how Trump plans to divest of his conflicts of interest, less attention has been applied to how business associates — including owners and marketers of his properties — may seek to profit from his new job in the White House.

As hard as Trump works to distance himself from his businesses, there may be no way of getting around other business associates using his brand for their own opportunity.

Trump was the developer and sponsor of Trump Tower when it was built 33 years ago, but most of the 263 units are individually owned. Trump Tower does not retain a portion of the sales but since the building is managed by Trump Corporation, it retains a processing fee for unit sales which is about $2,000 per application plus $250 per additional adult dweller, as part of its service as manager of the building.

The condominium collects the common charge, but Trump manages the garage and vendors like the bar and restaurant in the building.

Debra Stotts, a realtor for Town Residential brokerage, who has worked in marketing for the Trump Organization for eight years until 2011 and still represents many listings in its properties, said that the appeal of living in Trump Tower is "50-50."

"Honestly, it's 50-50 just like the polls. There are those who flee, there are those who are going to the building and want to be associated with Trump as a winner," Stotts said.

When asked about why the majority of the sale and rental listings have gone down in value, Stotts cited outside factors. "It's the market," she said. "Before Donald had won, it's been down. It's because of the abundance of development that's occurred in New York City. There's just so many buildings in the market."

Meanwhile, last week the jeweler Tiffany and Co. located near Trump Tower at 727 Fifth Avenue warned of lower profit because of its flagship store's location next to the Tower, which is being blocked by security causing traffic and congestion in the area.

Even after Trump moves to Washington, his wife, Melania, and son Barron plan to stay in Manhattan so that Barron can finish school. Melania Trump also is afforded security detail.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday that securing Trump Tower costs the city $500,000 per day. He said that he is requesting $35 million from the federal government to guard the building from the election on Nov. 8 to the inauguration on Jan. 20.

A representative for Douglas Elliman declined to comment. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

[jimmy olsen]

Christ. Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong in the world when I find a Tom Tomorrow comic funny. What is wrong with me?

[LaCroix]

it's still speculation that takes the facts we know and pushes a narrative, which could be wrong. there might be a different reason why they let some jobs stay. what will trump do if he makes a request of a company, and the company says no? nobody right now knows that answer. if a company truly needed to go against trump's request, it would, and that's the situation I want to see--what happens then. until then, it's speculation. the company may very well have been a little bitch ass pussy in this instances. or maybe moving the jobs wasn't actually all that important to the company, so they decided "whatever, let's keep them there."