A few are posting that Jim is presenting "facts" and that opposing posters are not addressing his "arguments"

1. Some are addressing it, quite well, but the supporting posters do seem to notice.

2. Much like dealing with Kellyanne Conway", Jim is a master of "alternative facts", and as many in the US media have noted, to actually address a ludicrous argument gives it a legitimacy it does not deserve.

The fact that he starts out by not specifically acknowledging the money that would have been invested would have come from outside the country, and not cost any level of the Canadian public/government a dime (outside of the usual infrastructure to build roads for the houses the workers would have lived in etc.), totally negates any validity of whatever he writes after that.

However, if he did acknowledge the money was coming from outside the country (I would not say private sources, I believe Petronas is owned by the Malaysian government), there would simply be no article to write.