Thanks for your courtesy. Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no evidence that Trump did anything except explain the changes he was planning to put in place in the economy. The tax rebate was from Indiana and was on the table before Trump got involved. The combination of Trump’s plan to correct the business environment, his plan to favor US companies and Indiana’s offer swung the deal. What part of this was wrong on Trump’s part?
If talking to that CEO to keep jobs in America was wrong because he didn’t personally call every company than I think that is very poor logic.
I have confidence in your appraisal of the situation.
Certainly there would be nothing wrong if Trump was just re-promising to follow though on promises of general purpose changes.
And, obviously, Trump can’t really do anything shamefully unconstitutional in the sense I implied until he becomes president.
So I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it is possible he will not get mired in wrong-headed deal-making at any level other than universal application of whatever law/rule/reg/enforcement change.
Trump seems to enjoy furthering the impression that the master deal-maker is already saving employees of specific individual companies.
So, even though I’m with him strategically (good appts/etc) I’ll still be holding my breath regarding his tactics mostly in regard to economic issues. I admire Trump’s business skills and his desire to be charitable.
But I’m not one who wants our country run like a business and the central govt is specifically not supposed to engage in charity. However, I worry less about Trump’s ways over time - mostly because he seems to be surrounding himself with good people.
Also, if I understand the deal correctly I would not approve of what was done at the state level either. But at least it is not a US Constitution issue and it is none of my business since I don’t live there.