4 ms·
> I'll just say that while I realize that Wisconsin is extremely corrupt Can you be more specific about what you mean by "corruption" in this instance? Repeat
by danans 8y ago
> I'll just say that while I realize that Wisconsin is extremely corrupt
Can you be more specific about what you mean by "corruption" in this instance? Repeatedly pointing to a faceless "corruption" de-focuses the conversation from the specific issues with this deal, including the magnitude of the subsidy, and what might be the lack of recourse for WI residents against Foxconn.
Is it to suggest that Gov. Walker had expected, or at least decided it was acceptable if Foxconn significantly altered their plan in a way that undermined the deal, in return for a short term political "win".
If not, then what is the "corruption" you are referring to in this situation? Weren't the terms of the deal, including the latitude it offered the parties, fully public?
> The difference is that in Wisconsin we ... have mass protests.
Wisconsin is not the only place that has protests over corruption and mismanagement. It's a common occurrence, especially at the local level, in many places.
- Animats 8y agoFight back by calling the governor a sucker as frequently as possible. Republicans are supposed to be good at business. When a governor gets taken to the cleaners like that, it means they're too gullible for the job.
- danans 8y agoIf he was a sucker in this deal, then can he have been corrupt? Or if he is corrupt (as in he knew that it was a raw deal for WI but carries forward for personal benefit), can he be a sucker? In this instance, is it possible he was both corrupt and a sucker? Maybe so if he was playing WI residents while getting played by Foxconn? Not drawing conclusions here but trying to play out the implications of what others have stated here.