Well, yes, that is a possibility. Of course, various studies have shown that in trade between countries with highly restrictive import rules and high tariffs and countries with limited import rules and tariffs, it is the latter which fair better economically. Trade restrictions appear to have greater negative impact on the country imposing them than on the country they are applied to (exceptions being in those cases where the country imposing the restrictions has a much larger economy than the one they are being imposed on).

When has a lack of legal basis stopped Obama from doing what he pleases in the past?

Then they will move some place else. Of course, you could always make it so that a company pays a tax in every country they do business in on all of the money they make any where in the world, with a tax credit for any tax paid in any other country (meaning that only the country with the highest tax rates actually gets any money). Of course the result of this will be for companies to separate into lots of smaller companies all owned by the same holding company. The holding company would be based in a low tax country and would charge each of the subsidiaries a fee for "managing" their relationships. That fee would be equal to, or exceed, whatever taxable income each subsidiary would otherwise earn.

Or to put it another way, yet more capital would be tied up in finding ways to avoid taxes rather than being spent on productivity.

Without knowing the wording of the question, there is no way to evaluate these results. I have seen too many polls reported in ways which distort what the actual results say to buy this one.

I do not misunderstand my place. I think you misunderstand how it works when the mob picks up their pitchforks. If you live comfortably, You seem to think that when the revolution happens that you will be left alone.
There seem to be two mistakes that you are falling into. First, you overestimate how much money it takes to be in the 1%. Second, you think the mob will limit itself to attacking the 1%. When the mob gets started, they will go after the 10% and probably the "30%". I am quite confident that we both fall into that last category.

Further down you leave the impression that you believe that when the revolution happens and the mobs start going after the wealthy they are going to stop with the super-rich. That's not how it works. When the mob starts going after the rich, they are going to start with the merely richer than themselves and the obvious targets among the super-rich. The merely well-to-do are much easier targets than the super-rich.

Guess what? When the mobs start going after the wealthy to redistribute their wealth, you and I will be among their first targets.

Except of course, that he did not speak at an event where David Duke spoke.

He apologized for it because he did not remember one way or the other. He made the mistake of assuming that the "news" media actually checked their facts before they printed their allegations.

Yes, but they have been working hard at stopping that with significant success over the last six years. The most interesting thing is that despite the actual evidence people believe this has happened despite the Democrats best efforts rather than because of their efforts. The Democrats say they want to help the poor and downtrodden and people take them at their word despite the constant evidence of the results of their policies.

No, it is definitely true. The person you replied to did NOT say that someone who knows nothing about the topic would not have a preconceived position, merely that ONLY a person who knows nothing about the topic MIGHT have no preconceived position.

In other words, you want someone in that post who does not know anything about the subject. Anyone in the Senate long enough to get this position is going to have formed an opinion on the subject of H-1B visas unless they have been intentionally ignoring the subject. It is not as if Senator Sessions is coming into this position not knowing anything about the subject. He has been on this committee in the past.

Except that he did not SPEAK to the racist group. He spoke to a neighborhood civic association...you know the types of groups which campaigning politicians speak at 5 or 6 a day? The fact that the chairman of that group was a friend of David Duke and had scheduled the David Duke group to meet at the same hotel later that day is not something you can reasonably expect either the Congressman (state legislator at the time) or his aids to know. If they had looked into the background of the civic association at whose meeting he was asked to meet, they would have discovered nothing except a normal neighborhood association. Why would they have looked into who else was meeting in that hotel later that day? My source by the way is the Times-Picayune and I gave the link further up the thread. Furthermore, I do not see any of these people fussing about President Obama associating with Al Sharpton, a much more virulent racist than David Duke (after all, I have never seen any allegations that David Duke stirred up violent protests which led to someone being killed , whereas Al Sharpton has no done it at least twice).

A better link would be this one: http://www.nola.com/politics/i... from the Times-Picayune

Except of course that it turns out that Steve Scalise never spoke at the event sponsored by David Duke. Rather he spoke at an event held by a local civic association (or neighborhood group) at the same hotel where the David Duke group would later meet on the same day.

The Netflix-Comcast situation has been used on Slashdot to argue that Net Neutrality needs to be made the law of the land in the U.S..