Still, despite the size of metro Detroit, I think it's 100% off the table for Amazon's HQ2. The positive side of it is, sure, Amazon could own Detroit like vintage Ford – that's neat but I don't think Amazon wants that. The winters are still some of the most frigid and intimidating of any major American city, Michigan is still seen as the turncoat swing state (or one of them) that lead to Trump's election, and even though it's regarded as ripe for an artistic revolution (cheap permits, cheap housing) it's still not a "cool" place to be.
It's a huge gamble on a city that is pulling itself out of bankruptcy.
All depends on your perspective. Unlike many on ycombinator, I voted for Trump. I suppose it is more accurate to say that I actually voted for his Supreme Court justice list -- I viewed that issue as far more important than the president for the next four years. I lean libertarian, and while Trump had several justices that I'm OK with on his list, Hillary had no list and probably wouldn't have nominated anybody that I like. I live in Michigan, and I'm proud of our role in getting him elected (and getting a justice with a strict interpretation of the constitution nominated).
Also, please don't crucify me for admitting that I voted for Trump. I usually don't tell people IRL, because most left-leaning folks are extremely intolerant about it, many to the point of anger/hatred and possibly violence. If you want to know why you can't find the trump voters out in the real world, I think that's one of the big reasons.
Also, justices last a lifetime. A few bad justices could shred the constitution and trash our entire democracy faster than you can blink. A president properly constrained by congress and the courts cannot. Nominating activist judges and justices can seem like a great idea in the short term, when the chips are falling in your preferred way, but in the general case it's a terrible idea. If you don't believe me, think about how happy people were when Obama started abusing executive orders, and how upset they were when Trump continued the trend ... although they're not the first presidents to do this, there are some lines that just shouldn't be crossed.
I really couldn't care less about the wall. I do think that choosing not to enforce immigration laws through an exective order was wrong - that is the domain of congress. In the case of an institution as important as the government of the United States, the ends do not justify the means if the means weakening the foundations of the entire system. I think that this applies equally to executive orders from both Trump and Obama that effectively seek to legislate through executive action.
Also ... sigh, I've already got negative two on that post :( The rain of judgement is why we're all silent.
The reason I don't care about the wall is simple: Yes, our immigration laws are complicated and need reform, but people shouldn't be crossing the border illegally, full-stop. That's why we have laws. A country that selectively enforces its laws is a country where the government can imprison you on a whim (because you've broken a rarely enforced law that they can use against you at will), and historically such countries haven't been nice places to live. So as a basis, you want and need a government that consistently enforces laws, and if the laws are bad, you change them -- which is less likely to happen if lax enforcement eases the pain of the bad laws. So how do I move from "we need to enforce our laws, and change them if they're bad" to "I don't care about the wall"? Simple: whether or not we have the wall, immigration laws need to be enforced as they are written (love 'em or hate 'em), which means that until the law is changed anyone caught crossing will be deported anyway. At the point that the law is changed, people who want to cross will be allowed through as specified in the law. With this philosophy as a background, the wall is relatively meaningless in a practical sense, although I do admit that it does have some symbolic weight. I have always had far more concern for pragmatic thought than symbolism and idealism (which probably led me to engineering), and I'm assuming that building a wall would reduced long-term border patrolling costs to compensate for the cost to build it, and so this leaves me in a place where it's a wash and I don't really care whether or not they build it. And yes, I have been called an emotionless robot before ... I took it as a complement :).
One more note: I'm not saying that I expect the government to achieve perfect monitoring -- just like it would be impossible to catch all speeders, it would be impossible to catch all illegal border crossings -- but I am saying that when the government does know that a law has been broken, it should apply a consistent response that is compliant with the laws that have been passed by a congress and signed by a president.
Huh? We already have a wall. It covers about 1/4th of the US-Mexico border.
Trump would just be expanding it. Likely to around a half of the total border (Much of the border is close to impassable, due to mountains, desert, ect).
I think it'd be an amazing PR move, to be honest, and one Amazon would profit much from and suffer minimal risk. Amazon has been criticized lately for eating retail and causing economic upheaval. Going into Detroit turns all that around.
Shinola has been capitalizing on Detroitness. So has Chrysler, successfully.
Things are moving back from burbs into the city and gaining visibility. These are the successful test cases. "Imported from Detroit"
(The bankruptcy itself hasn't prevented much from improving in Detroit. The bankruptcy turned out to be the launchpad.)
It's a huge gamble on a city that is pulling itself out of bankruptcy.