Absolutely any, repeat any, loss of on-soil manufacturing base is a military security problem.

The Trump idolatry does not recognize that he has said nothing about limiting government powers and protecting the rights and freedom of individuals. All of his "reform" is cast in terms of better "deals".

He said nothing about Carrier being a security problem, only "jobs". Nor has anyone else explained how Carrier's operation under attack by Trump is a security problem. The subsidiary of UT that makes jet engines is Pratt & Whitney.

There’s quite a bit of daylight between Trump and “Mr. Thompson”. Most of the “voices in churches” were for Hillary. Both candidates promised us a brighter tomorrow, as candidates have been doing since the dawn of politics.

The “mindless support of the 'man on the white horse' without regard for principles” was easily exceeded by the “mindless support of the 'woman in the pantsuit' without regard for principles.” Her more fervent supporters racked up far more incidents of actual bullying than Trump’s, and this included her campaign sending people to disrupt his rallies, with her supporters forcing cancellation of at least one and possibly more. Trump’s “bullying” was verbal and most of it was directed at the mainstream media and the establishment candidates, who were engaged in bullying and underhanded tactics of their own. Theirs’ was simply more subtle.

I agree that “Clinton and her radical collectivist-statist agenda had to go,” but she likely would have prevailed over a more polite and politically correct Republican opponent.

I understand what you are saying and consider Trump to be less than honest in how he generalizes and is intentionally non-specific. I am not sure if he has no ideology or is hiding one.

I made a Freudian slip on the reference but at least I never cite the New York Times. Ha. Ha.

Something tells me that it's better for companies to "hide in plain sight" with a low profile in this environment

Except the part of the deal I don't think you can see, is his pledge to address those other government controls.

The other part is that routes of import and export present a military security problem.

It's up to Trump to articulate what he's doing. You know what he has been threatening for months and that he is actively using government power to manipulate private companies -- while his followers rationalize by projecting all kinds of excusing motives that Trump does not say and does not understand. The article you cited, which was not from ARI but the American Enterprise Institute, cited provisions reported by others

If we don't know first hand the details of what is in Trump's 'deal', Carrier doesn't know either. Government threats and 'offers' always leave insinuations for the future implicit but clear in principle -- it's like calling a "protection racket" protection, when everyone knows what it is without the 'offer' having to spell out the details. What is clear about the Trump/Pence 'deal' is that it is intentionally anti-free market government 'good cop - bad cop' bribes and intimidation. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/...

Legitimate fear of Clinton is not a justification for Trump for what he is. The political-financial-ideological corruption in Clinton and her radical collectivist-statist agenda had to go, but that is not a reason to embrace a bully and a loutish demagog to run the government.

You should be afraid of Trump, but more frightening for the future is the large number of followers who mindlessly supported the 'man on the white horse' without regard for principles, not to oppose Clinton when in the primaries there were other candidates, but for what Trump is.

"'Mr. Thompson will put an end to those sinister forces whose purpose is to keep us in terror and despair. He will bring light into the darkness of the world and will show us the way out of our tragic problems—a stern way, as befits the gravity of this hour, but a way of glory, as granted by the rebirth of light'... 'Have faith! Listen to Mr. Thompson!' said voices in churches. 'Mr. Thompson will give you the answer!'"

Legitimate defense work is not asking to be bullied. What other motives UT executives might have had in dealing with the government are another matter.

And where they don't have to contend with the EPA and the IRS. Trump's months of threats didn't mention anything about defense contractor security, and no one has yet demonstrated that there would be such a problem. What else UT does with the government is not relevant.

Yes, you wrote "I'll stay if ..." The "light" they saw is the train coming towards them in the tunnel. But threats aside, we can wonder how many of their executives harbor the views of the passengers in the Taggart tunnel disaster.

"Reflecting" does not mean that Carrier would be doing defense work out of the country, and being active outside the US to escape punishment does not "reflect" badly on anyone except the source of the punishment, other than in the mind of Donald Trump. Whether or not they actually would be engaging in defense work out of the country was not Trump's consideration. He's pursuing a shake down to use government power to dictate to private companies, "curing" problems caused by government controls with more government controls in the usual pattern of progressively increasing statism, in this case with authority he does not have.

I am curious about what "deal" is with Carrier. I saw this article from ARI and thought I would get a summary:

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-c...
All I got was a diatribe based on allegations of what might be in the deal. This is why it is so difficult to judge Trump. It seems that he has pissed off every one with a pencil and they have scribbled every distortion of his every move they can imagine. If I were he I would be asking companies why they were leaving and asking that they wait a while to see if I could create a better climate for business. The list of stupid anti-business regulations, taxes and laws is a long one and there are bound to be some that are causes for leaving. There is no need to threaten or payoff anyone until we have eliminated these self destructive acts.

Trump doesn't frighten me, although I suppose it's possible he might in the future. What was very frightening until last month was contemplating our future under Hillary. Glass half full.

Agreed. Bullying and paying off carrier isn't what we need in government. By selling to government on the other hand, united technologies asked for it

Carrier is owned by united technologies, a big govt contractor. Trump has been pounding on carrier for moving to Mexico for months where wages are $3 an hour instead of $26 an hour in Indiana

Actually I was indicating the real reasons carrier saw the "light" and reversed their decision it was bribes and threats they could lose government contracts or face the wrath of government

I didn't mean I would actually fall for a government trap like that. I should have been clearer in what I wrote

Only one connection: United Technologies has a lot of lucrative federal contracts. Carrier is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies. So anything that Carrier does, reflects on United Technologies.

His policies and his methods are mixed. He is an open bully who intimidates and threatens in the name of "negotiating". No government official has the right to dictate to private citizens they way he threatens and aspires to wield power. If Congress votes to lower taxes and controls under his influence as the party leader that is good, but it doesn't make Trump or the mindless Trump idolatry that unquestioningly accepts his dictatorial loutishness any less frightening.

His policies are a mixed bag, but a deep corporate tax cut and meaningful deregulation are not "nothing".

-- or be remembered as ahead of her time if the spread of collectivist premises is not stopped.

You would be "bought off" by government? There are always strings attached and that kind of system leaves everyone, including you, subject to punishment by this or a future president wielding the cronyism for other pressure groups. It's wrong in principle.

What is the connection between Carrier's specific operation moved out of the country and the specific UT product used for defense? If there is a connection it hasn't been mentioned as the reason for Trump's threat.

He's also threatened to raise taxes on companies that leave. He just said that companies "will not leave" because he is going to make it "very difficult". The president is not supposed to make unilateral pronouncements dictating to private businesses and threatening to exploit tax policy to manipulate economic decisions. He is intimidating, not negotiating. He has nothing to offer but the use of force.

POTUS should have made this call last year. DJT is not yet POTUS.