I don’t think it was ever up in the air where they’d go. NYC is the financial capital of the world, and DC is DC. If you’re interested in lobbying and influencing policy, where else would you go.

It’s just a shame all these smaller cities bent over backwards to suck Amazon’s dick with enticements, and it was never really a competition.

Good for Nashville, but that city has been booming for a couple decades.

What I wrote, and what you quoted in your own reply is:"By any metric other than how many world leaders in Europe speak favorably of our president, our position is stronger."

You respond with a question about what leaders I think are speaking highly of Trump.  You didn't even read what I wrote and missed my argument.  It's obvious European leaders dislike Trump.  I'm saying that's a meaningless metric to argue Obama was a better President.  I care about what they do, not how they feel.  Their increased contribution to NATO and their own armies is a great metric to show the disparity. 

If you have other metrics to consider, please share.  But saying "The EU thinks Trump is an idiot" is meaningless to me.  Are they still our ally?  Are they pumping more money into NATO?  That’s the factors I consider.  But I'll state again, if you have an argument on how Trump has done worse on the international stage than Obama, I'm all ears.  I'm just not interested in hearing how popular Obama was.

And?  I said, "Sanctions in Russia have been implemented under Trump."

I don't think this was worthy of pulling from my post, but you obviously did.  Trump has implemented sanctions.  He's removed others.  I'm going to operate under the assumption you didn't read any of those articles you linked, or just stopped at the headlines that said, "GOP senators protect Trump administration’s plan to lift Russian sanctions", ignorant that these were very specific sanctions, because we have many, and Trump has in no way attempted to remove all sanctions.

My opinion is that Trump's actions prove he's not a Russian stooge, because he doesn't do things he'd do if he was Putin's buddy.  But the false notion you obviously fell for by your links in a response to the sentence you quoted, and is often alleged by Russian Truthers, is that Trump has taken no action on Russia.  Many, including myself to a degree, believe Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama.  Which is why I citied Ukraine on the quote you cite next.  But here are some articles dating back at least a year from non-partisan, credible sources that discuss the idea Trump is tougher on Russia than Obama.  Please feel free to read them to understand why someone like myself wholly rejects the notion Trump is weak on Russia.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-ch … d=53223453
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/heres-w … ed-do.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ … ons-977650

I care because a country grabbing territory from another country is so early 20th century.  It's a problem I've been concerned with since it happened, advocated against, and was annoyed Obama refused to do anything (like arming Ukraine to prevent further Russian land grabs) meaningful.  It was an example to further the point you apparently missed, that I believe Trump is stronger on the international platform than Obama.  Those articles I linked above cite Trump's withdrawal from Paris, Iran and TPP as negatives, but I think there's an argument to be made that those "treaties" made us weaker if we had been beholden to them. 

This wasn't really a question from you, so much as a hand waive because it's not a topic you think you can spin to cheerleader your "side".

You were completely unaware of the news articles going on the past few weeks of a trade deal being ironed out between the two?  You weren't aware this was a thing, and Xi had ordered tons of soybeans as an act of good faith (Trump hilariously grossly exaggerated the amount China ordered by a factor of ten if memory serves correct and was lampooned for it) to get the deal moving forward.

This is from today, but almost 2 weeks have passed since I wrote my original post. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics … index.html

"VERY LITTLE"?  If you want to attack my position, the best way to do it is to say that nothing has been signed yet, let alone released for public debate.  We haven't even seen the draft plan, so who knows if it's a good deal.  That's how you'd attack me.

You're not even familiar with current events, let alone have the retention of fact to make a counter argument.   The best you could do is find an article from 3 months ago?  I guess we have different definitions of research. 

This criticism is entirely fair.  We haven't seen the full proposal, so claiming some great victory is premature.  And the comments of NAFTA 1.1 or 1.01 are somewhat fair criticisms.  But I'm going to operate on the assumption until proven otherwise, that whatever changes are being proposed, that they're going to be better for America.  Some of what has been released, like requiring more portions of vehicles be manufactured in the US, I like.  The fact that Canada and Mexico have agreed to an updated deal, one presumably better than the last, is itself noteworthy.  As the difficulty in doing this has only occurred once before, and under two administrations.  Remember, NAFTA was a Bush I idea Clinton had to fight tooth and nail with his party to sign and implement. 

But you lose me in your last comment.  What does this have to do with executive overreach?  This is the 2nd time in the past few months you've made this specific argument, and last time you were under the impression this is was a unilateral action, like Paris and Iran, and didn’t require ratification from congress.  NAFTA won't change unless congress ratifies the new agreement.  Executive overreach has nothing to do with this.  So, I don't know why this was tossed in there.  It makes me question if you're still confused how a new NAFTA will be implemented and has been stated it will be approved/implicated from day one.

I don't care what happens to NK or its people.  I want them to be happy and prosper because I'm not a sociopath, but in terms of US action to improve their lives through some act you didn't specify, no thanks.  I'm concerned with them saber rattling and launching missiles capable of carrying an ICBM.  They haven't done that since before Trump and Kim met.  There's not open hostility.  That's something to be supportive of and is objectively better than when they were launching missiles into the Sea of Japan every week.  Are you incapable of acknowledging when Trump has done something good?  Their political system and plight isn't something I care for, and I have to ask are you willing to support military action to depose Kim?  No?  Then what was this all about?  Just a way for you to find something to point to because Trump's international policy has resulted in NK not routinely threatening the US and launching missiles. 

Did you even read the headline of your first article?  It says "ISIS has secret reserves of £230 million for future attacks on the West even as they face losing their last regional stronghold, UN experts warn"

My statement was "ISIS has largely been removed".  You completely ignore the "largely" part, since it's a qualifier that is synonomous with "Mostly".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction … h-dict-box

I never claimed they were removed.  You can't even respond to what I write, so as I wrap this up, I'm convinced of what a colossal waste of time this was.  You're looking for someone to have a shouting match with.  You quote me directly, then ignore what I write to create some argument you think you can win.

Your final statement again, is a complete fabricated argument you created to fight with.  As the only person on this forum who has deployed to a war zone, a war zone in the middle east, in a country where ISIS is still present, I'm all too aware that to fully remove ISIS, you have to kill them with boots on the ground.  The point of your 2nd article.  I'm also aware that the types of military action necessary to accomplish the complete removal of ISIS would be in violation of both the UN and American Constitution.  It's a quagmire I'm not interested in this country entering.  So, I stand by my statement that "ISIS has largely been removed, an entire organization that entirely created under Obama’s watch due to his pullout of Iraq and refusal to acknowledge ISIS as a threat for years."

All of that is why I didn't respond, Mitch.  What you posted wasn't worth the effort in the response I gave, but you can thank my ego.  That and you completely ignored my question to you which served as the basis for my post; what has gotten worse under Trump. How is your life worse?  You ignored that entirely and did a very poor job of trying to argue with me.

Did you pay less in taxes?  My refund was roughly the same. And I paid less in federal taxes.

If you paid less in taxes, it stands to reason your refund would be smaller too. If you want a windfall each tax season, you can increase your withholdings to give the government a tax free loan for 12 months.

You should have tweeted it and live streamed on Facebook live. That’s the only acceptable option.