“Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Facebook Inc are among more than 60 technology companies that appear to have backed away from the legal fight against U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, deciding not to put their weight behind a lawsuit seeking to block the second version of his executive order,” David Ingram reports for Reuters.
“A legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii on Tuesday on behalf of Silicon Valley companies listed the support of 58 companies,” Ingram reports, “less than half the 127 signatories to a similar brief filed in an appeals court last month after Trump’s first executive order banning travel from a number of countries the administration said posed a security risk.”
“Major tech companies that signed on to the earlier effort but not this week included Microsoft Corp, eBay Inc, Intel Corp, Netflix Inc and Twitter Inc.,” Ingram reports. “U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu on Wednesday ordered an emergency halt to Trump’s executive order that aimed to temporarily bar entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The halt is temporary. Trump says the ban is necessary for U.S. national security, and called Watson’s order ‘unprecedented judicial overreach.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take:
SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook speaks out publicly against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 9, 2017
Apple joins fight against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 6, 2017
Apple, Google, others draft joint letter regarding President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 2, 2017
Apple mulls legal options against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’’ – February 1, 2017
President Donald Trump’s next immigration policy to target what Silicon Valley fears most – January 31, 2017
President Trump’s travel ban stirs little outcry beyond Silicon Valley – January 30, 2017
Tim Cook: Apple does not support President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – January 30, 2017
Tech industry frets over possible H-1B visa program changes under President Trump – January 28, 2017
President Trump eyes an H-1B visa aimed at ‘best and brightest’ – January 27, 2017
Silicon Valley uncertain after Donald Trump wins U.S. presidency – November 10, 2016
Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016
It’s very entertaining seeing so-called “liberal” American institutions think they are making progress when their country still has a fascist for a president. You Yanks just can’t seem to get off of your high-horses. Are you trying to tell us that you don’t have violent police forces, have manky (and expensive) veg; poisoned water, shitty working conditions etc? Or are you one of those ‘liberals’ who oppose right wing bollocks until someone points out how shitty your country is, then you become a defensive patriot?
You need to look up the word “fascist,” especially if you’re using it to describe a temporary halt to admissions into a country from countries that lack adequate record-keeping, much less the ability to properly vet potential terrorists. You need a passport to get into the U.S. If your passport is meaningless because your country is severely broken then, no, you don’t get in until the issue is fixed. We’ve had enough unnecessary deaths already, thanks.
Thank you. Though i’m not a huge fan of the Trump administration, using words like ‘fascist’ and ‘nazi’ are hyperbolic in the extreme. Additionally, everyone seems to have forgotten or conveniently ignored the fact that it was the previous administration that created that list, not the current one. I can’t help but think the DNC does indeed think we are that stupid. Incidentally, anyone decrying the fascist racist xenophobic ways of the White House should really watch this video from Bill Clinton way back in 1995 bearing in mind that if Hillary had won, he’d have been back in the White House, too. We were able to actually discuss things from the standpoint of reality back then, it wasn’t about xenophobia then, it isn’t about xenophobia now:
See you are capable of speaking reasonably, but choose to be a contradiction. There is nothing reasonable about Trump! Only means to an end.
I guess you are not agreeing with 80% of your conservative friends on this one.
Well outside the bell curve. Maybe you too.
Did I not say he’s capable though? Even him?
Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I think Ollie is using the term right, it certainly describes your nation that goes around invading other countries on a whim searching for a weapons of mass destruction program (and finding 5,000 rotting out weapons from a previous program don’t count to those that have more than two synapse firing), torturing people from over 50 nations, signs then totally disregards the Universal Declaration of Human rights, has about 85% of it’s history being at war.
Now his use of the right (and left) and fascist falls short of the more accurate description I’d used to describe your country, but I can’t use it here anymore cause too many cry babies went to MDN to complain so I tend to use terrorist. It’s close enough, but falls a tad short accurately describe the current state of your nation truly.
Well, regardless of where YOU are, I could give a flying f*** what you think of the USA or the POTUS.
So, go back to the basement and smoke a little weed.
Aww, is Pipeline Timmy, Social Justice Warrior extraordinaire, suffering from outrage fatigue already?
Or did Apple’s BoD finally, wisely tell him to shut up, stop sanctimoniously and selectively pontificating using Apple Inc.’s name instead of his own, and stick to his knitting (i.e. Make and ship some new products for a change)?
Is there something wrong with Social Justice? You seem to use it in a bad way. I think equal rights for LGBT, Autistic, and Minority communities should be the main goal for this country and I’m glad Apple is leading the charge for Social Justice.
What rights do those groups not currently have?
Well, racism and sexism still exist, and make no mistake about it that Trump is going to remove the Supreme Court ruling about gay marriage. I don’t see Donald Trump as an ally, but more like an enemy.
Point out what laws are racist. Then, go ahead and fight those.
Because in the end, racists, bigots, a**holes, and all the bad things will always exist as they always have. The difference is, we’re eradicating laws that are wrong and at least improving.
You can’t make life “fair”, but you can fight wrongs. But enough of the victim everywhere crap.
Those are behaviors, not rights.
The issue Chris is what you and what others consider “equal rights”. What many liberals mean by “equal rights” is that very vocal minorities should be able to do what they want when they want where they want. There’s no consideration given to the rest of us who putter along living our lives.
Example: look at affirmative action and diversification initatives for businesses, government, and colleges. Oh sure, this helps a few. But, then more qualified people are excluded. What about their rights?
Example: a very small vocal group advocates the right to use restrooms of their choice where they’ll feel more comfortable. The rights of the majority, to not have the wrong gender in their restroom making them uncomfortable or confusing our kids is seemingly unimportant. And there’s no thought to the cost for schools and businesses who have to accommodate the wishes of a few students/coworker at the expense of every other.
Example: an extremely small minority wants to be able to declare their gender and play sports within the gender of their choice. But what about the rights of the very vast majority who want to compete against their peers, not someone who decided to be a peer. Is there any consideration to the long term impact of letting people decide their gender in admissions, or hiring? And don’t say the best qualified person should win the spot, because I’ll refer you back to Example 1.
Very, very well put!
Who is the moron that would vote this down? State your case or move along…
A peer is someone demonstrably worthy of being a peer…
What’s the problem? Worried a ‘fag’ will kick the quarterback’s ass?
> But, then more qualified people are excluded. What about their rights?
That conservative argument stopped holding any credibility whatsoever when 1) the current administration’s cabinet appointments were picked, and 2) the Republican majority voted to approve every single one. Several of them are the epitome of “not qualified in any way whatsoever” but got the job anyway.
Forget the *most* qualified, anyone who still supports the current Republican party and president, who then tries to use the “more qualified” line, is a pretty blatant hypocrite.
Maybe you had a valid argument until you started calling people names and labeling them. Not a great way to have debate.
One could easily argue that liberals didn’t feel like these candidates were qualified because they didn’t agree with their policies. Were the objections to these candidates based on their life/professional/work experience, or because they didn’t have the same belief about the direction of the department.
Example: Betsy DeVos has a long history of experience in education: Foundation for Excellence in Education, Acton Institute, All Children Matter PAC, etc. She’s certainly qualified. The real issue was that her experience was in school choice. A difference in POLICY, not experience.
Name-calling? Where did mossman do that? Saying “hypocrite”?
If you try to argue that Trump’s nominees are typically well-qualified, you are either deceiving yourself or pretending to.
Any honest conservative would have to admit that the majority of Trump’s nominees aren’t qualified for the job, other than professing to hold certain political beliefs. It is arguable about whether certain beliefs are so obviously provably wrong that they would disqualify even someone with experience, but many/most of the nominees don’t even meet the “experienced” qualification.
Defend Ben Carson as Secretary of HUD, for example.
These people were picked solely on how loyal and ideologically “pure” they were, not based on whether they could run the various agencies well. Additionally, in DeVos’s case, at least, handing over millions of dollars didn’t hurt.
Because your so-called “qualified” HUD secretaries have done soooo much for the urban poor over the last 5+ decades.
Carson lived it. And wildly overcame it.
I’ll take his REAL experience every damn day of the week over some stuffed-suit lifetime government bureaucrat who never missed a $40 steak in his/her life.
I’m curious, do you think the person in this story should wrestle with males or females. Or should he not be allowed to wrestle with anyone. I’ll bet you the female wrestlers wanted him to wrestle with boys, and he did, too. But the state said he had to wrestle with girls.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/26/transgender-boy-wins-high-school-girls-wrestling-tournament.h
” that very vocal minorities should be able to do what they want when they want where they want. There’s no consideration given to the rest of us who putter along living our lives.”
The Constitution guarantees this, even without being vocal. Next?
Majorities have no rights individuals do. DO you want to make a law? That is your right. Currently there is no Federal bathroom law.
If you tell me about State’s Rights, I’ll tell you about Christian Sharia…
I’ve pretty much given up on arguing with people who think that the Constitution only has one amendment, paradoxically called “Second.”
A fairly routine exercise for political science students is to set up two booths in a mall and solicit signatures for competing petitions, one of which calls for the adoption of provisions plainly identical with the Bill of Rights and another that calls for the abolition of those same “privileges.” The “Repeal the First Amendment” petition almost always wins in a landslide.
The Fourteenth Amendment plainly grants the equal protection of the law and due process of law to individuals. Not states, not majorities, not groups, but individuals. Protection only for popular people and opinions is no protection at all, since popular entities don’t need protection. Minorities are constitutionally protected, as is their right to be “very vocal.”
YO! Chistopher! You might wanna do some homework and watch this documentary. You have NO FCKIN CLUE. So watch it and GET ONE! You snowflakes need to get a grip on REALITY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Will_Fall
Have a Grateful Day.
It’s just that it has created a winy, snowflake generation that screams and cries whenever they don’t get their way!
Think maybe they’d be somewhat appeased if they were given a trophy?
Maybe not trophy worthy…but definitely a ribbon.;)
Equal, yes. Exceptionally one-sided, not so much.
Is there some reason that everyone is always a Social Justice Warrior? One would think that there would be Social Justice Mages, Social Justice Thieves, Social Justice Healers, and the like, but we never seem to hear about them.
Ha! Good one!
I cast MAGIC MISSLE!
The court system is doing just fine…
I tend to agree.. this will adjudicate itself. I think the issue is that the law is very clear and this will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. Every legal expert knows it. What these courts are really doing is slowing down the president, who was elected by the people based on his agenda. And it comes across as petty.
It might be the case that many legal experts think that this order is valid, or even that most experts think so. It is clearly not the case that EVERY legal expert knows it, or there would not be several Federal District Judges, a Court of Appeals, numerous state Attorneys General, and literally hundreds of “Friends of the Court” who have filed opinions to the contrary.
A lot of these people are in nonpartisan positions and have nothing to gain by supporting a legal position that they know to be wrong and expect to be overturned. They may be wrong, but they do exist.
I personally think that an Executive Order that only applies to people outside the U.S. that do not already have a visa is an enormously closer case than the original, which is why there is less opposition for this order than the last one. The Silicon Valley firms can function without much damage for 90 days, so long as the existing visas and grants of permanent residency are honored and some sort of screening mechanism eventually emerges.
The worry, of course, is that the “temporary” ban will be repeatedly extended until it becomes effectively permanent. That, it can be argued, would be illegal unless Congress amends the law to remove the principle of equal protection for all nationalities.
A second judge ruled late yesterday or early today the same as the first judge.
Well then plainly judges in the U.S. have collectively lost their overreaching minds!
No one has absolute right to claim U.S. citizenship or asylum just because their own countries are corrupt, hazardous, or economic basket cases. I wonder if Tim Cook would allow me permanent residence in his home, free food and clothing, and an iPhone just because I wanted to?
You are stretching the argument beyond the breaking point. The travel ban is not just about immigration but includes just plain travel (for business or pleasure) for short duration. It does not guarantee travelers free food & clothing either, let alone iPhones.
Take your straw man and go home.
However if a country is a signer of the Geneva convention, as the USA and all other civilized nations are, then refugees from recognized war regions are allowed to emigrate for their personal safety. There is a process for this and the USA has welcomed many thousands of new citizens thereby. Now the paranoid administration refuses to continue using the time proven procedures and has issued executive orders that do nothing to protect Americans. In the long run it will probably harm the USA as tourism declines and trade slows.
“Now the paranoid administration refuses to continue using the time proven procedures and has issued executive orders that do nothing to protect Americans.”
What a perfect world you live in. If it was outside your head, I would agree.
These are not WWII refugees. We live in a different and dangerous world dictated by ISIS in 2017.
So, can you or the government account for all of these people? Of course not. Spare us the idealistic sophistry of a bygone era. I mean that in a good way. 🙂
I don’t think the administration is paranoid at all. Common sense elected President Donald Trump. And he is following through on his many campaign promises. Imagine that as contrasted to false hope and change slogan.
Executive orders work both ways — good and bad. As time goes on, I believe they will work much better in the current administration …
Millions of children are adopted every year. I don’t think Cook would be a very good single parent. He would bore the poor child to death.
But the point is, America is a multicultural society and there is nothing constitutional about denying an American family the right to adopt a Yemeni (or whatever origin) child. Period. The courts aren’t going to allow this or any other paranoid president the ability to redefine America as a nation for white christians only. And human travel is also a natural right that cannot be taken away based on your race religion or whatever. The founding fathers wisely knew that would never work. Trump didn’t get the message. America is more than secure enough without Trump stomping all over individual freedoms and national traditions.
“The courts aren’t going to allow this or any other paranoid president the ability to redefine America as a nation for white christians only.”
First off, President Trump is an optimistic populism leader for ALL Americans. Only in the darkest recesses of a Libtard brain (debatable), without PROOF, do these silly theories exist.
“And human travel is also a natural right that cannot be taken away based on your race religion or whatever. ”
I refer you back to @Frank’s golden words, “No one has absolute right to claim U.S. citizenship or asylum just because their own countries are corrupt, hazardous, or economic basket cases.”
Well said, Frank!
Absolute freedom to travel? And that would be where? Your naive idealism does not trump established international law …
It is notable that fellow graduates of the 1991 Harvard Law School, Judge Derrick K. Watson and The Muslim Usurper were within minutes of each other on Monday and Tuesday [Watson’s unconstitutional edict was published Wednesday afternoon]…The Usurper’s visit to Omaha, Silicon Valley and Hawaii went unpublicized by The Yellow Stream Media. More “Justice by Tarmac” from the Obama Shadow Government.
I sent Watson an email this morning asking if The Muslim Usurper bought lunch Tuesday.
Judge Derrick K. Watson · (808) 541-1470
Chambers Contact
Phone Number: (808) 541-1470
Orders Email: watson_orders@hid.uscourts.gov
…also notable: Countries that have a history of violence against the US in OBP’s travel ban have their own ban against Jews.
yet the Yellow Stream Media fails to report this either.
Yellow Stream Media… Is that the Trump news from Russia?
If the original order was blocked by the courts, I’m not sure how this second one will fare any better. The argument seems to go along the lines of “you may call it “protection from foreign terrorist entry”, but you can’t erase all the talk about the promise of a Muslim ban during the election. I can’t imagine anyone successfully arguing that Muslim ban was just campaign talk, and this order is something completely different.
The ideological battle continues. The more important question is what practical consequences this may have for the security of the US. Existing data seems to suggest that these kinds of moves are very efficient at recruiting and nurturing domestic, US-born extremists (people like Omar Mateen, or Syed Rizwan Farook, or Anwar al-Awlaki — all US born, domestic terrorists).
Meanwhile, the number of foreign-born perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban currently stands at 0 (zero).
Sure, but that is a reasonable argument. It has no place here.
Even if it were true, which it isn’t, it would not be reasonable to take an unnecessary risk just because something hadn’t happened yet.
In reality:
The November 2016 Islamic terrorist attack at Ohio State University was perpetrated by a Somali refugee who had lived in Pakistan before coming to the United States. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, was shot dead by a police officer after he slammed his car into pedestrians and injured others with a butcher knife.
In a September 2016 Islamic terrorist attack, Dahir Adan was shot dead after stabbing nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall. Adan was identified by his father as Somali but born in Kenya.
In a 2006 slamic terrorist attack, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar ran a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of people at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina. Thinking he would be killed during the attack, Taheri-Azar left a letter in his apartment saying he wanted revenge for the deaths of Muslims across the world caused by the United States, the AP reported. Taheri-Azar is naturalized citizen born in Iran. He was sentenced in 2008 for up to 33 years in prison.
Which part is not true? You are arguing my point!
None of those attacks would have been prevented by this kind of a travel ban, since they were all either naturalised citizens, or legal residents for quite some time.
This part is not true:
You: “The number of foreign-born perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban currently stands at 0 (zero).”
Fact: I provided three such cases of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban (Somali, Iran).
Your statement is demonstrably false. Untrue. Wrong.
Furthermore, the order would likely have prevented such attacks as the terrorists would either not be in the country with the order in effect or the countries from which the terrorists I cited came would have had to improve their screening and vetting protocols in order to weed out potential terrorists and to have their visas recognized as safe and valid by the U.S.
Ok, apparently the number stands at three.
The argument remains; the ban does NOT prevent legal residents (green card holders) or naturalized citizens. When they entered the country, they weren’t radicalized, and even the most extreme vetting would have allowed them in.
The main point of my message remains uncontested: this ban will do very little to prevent potential foreign terrorists from entering the US (countries that had in the past furnished most foreign-born terrorists aren’t on the list). What it will undoubtedly accomplish is accelerate radicalisation of US-born Muslims.
I don’t think anyone here has been able to argue on that point yet.
Given that, as I’ve already proven, there have been terrorist attacks from countries listed on the order, the stoppage of any and all entries from said countries would by necessity “prevent potential foreign terrorists from entering the U.S.”
How come you’re not gathering up American terrorists like abortion clinic bombers? Not scary enough for you?
Enough of this false charade. Please change your screen name to republicancynic. Truth hurts at times, no?
I would use a MUCH stronger word than cynic there. 🙂
Here are a couple suggestions:
MoveOncynic (no need for the .org)
Soroscynic
Huffingcynic
Saloncynic
LivesMattercynic
Illegalcynic
AttackConservativescynic
(Your personal m.o.)
StalkRightcynic
LiberalLovecynic
SuckUpLeftcynic
I’ll stop there with plenty to choose from. But as you said you have your own …
Read my comment again and suggest once more…
Sorry, I’m not good at deception …
Well I’m seeking a stronger word for cynic, not an alternate prefix. But thanks for playing. Peace.
Yes, it is true, there have been three terrorist acts committed by people who were originally from one of the six countries.
However, statistical data (and common sense) doesn’t support your conclusion. Over the past years, the number of terrorists who arrived from these six countries is practically negligible, compared to the number of home-grown terrorists, or the ones from other countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc).
It is quite baffling how can Trump administration hide behind Obama administration’s list, rather than making their own one, when the list cannot be defended by rational arguments.
Meanwhile, plenty of young Muslim men, born in USA, increasingly feel that the country hates them (the president clearly does), and find answers in radical Al Qaeda / ISIS web sites…
Tech companies lying low means that they either are funding opposition via third parties to keep hands clean, or they are backing off due to the fear that Trump is going to nix the visas and the offshoring where possible.
That’s the CHEAP labor folks that all these companies demand so their returns/mansions can grow and grow while the rest of us in the middle fight each other for the scraps.
Wow, you mean to tell me Orange Julius spelled unprecedented correctly this time?
Thank goodness there is a way to protect against Foreign Terrorist Entry into the Free and Civilized World by you know who.
Supporting terrorist immigration is not a good look.
Misleading headline. These companies haven’t changed their position since the first suit, and Trump’s unconstitutional travel ban 2.0 already has a growing list of states filing suit, with federal judges approving restraining orders:
Hawaii, Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and also the District of Columbia.
It is ironic that those who yell loudly about keeping government regulation out of our lives would support an authoritarian regime that thinks it alone has the power to restrict movement of people in and out of the USA. There is already a system in place to verify immigrants. Shutting off immigration based on nationality rather than on individual character is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral.
It appears that the Trump administration’s strategy is to propose desperate measures, tie up congress with a health bill that is universally objected to by all medical professionals and companies, to issue absurd policy statements or executive mandates, distract the public and press with unverified claims of treason, attacking critical parts of the government including the court system, State department, and Intelligence services, draft an absolutely unworkable budget proposal that if adopted would destroy the domestic economy, diplomatic programs, research, rural services, etc. while adding $58 billion deficit and completely ignoring any action on the largest spending programs, social entitlements.
Hey, if you can’t get anything done, then why not start slinging shit in all directions in the hopes that people are too tired to defend themselves against the onslaught of medieval thinking coming from the most clueless anti-everything paranoid crusader in modern history. Let’s hope the low information Trump supporters get a clue when the services they always took for granted are gutted by this reckless administration.
But won’t we all be proud of the new Apache helicopters that Trump is buying to keep you safe? Antiquated military hardware from last decade’s wars is going to be so useful you know.
The ban is not “unconstitutional.”
Precisely! Running off a state list that voted for Shrillary is not exactly credible.
Are you suggesting that the duly elected Attorneys General of fourteen states (plus D.C.) do not have a right to litigate issues that directly affect their states without the approval of the Federal Chief Executive? Did the citizens of those states lose their right to self-government because their citizens joined a plurality of the national electorate in voting for the candidate who came second in the Electoral College? Are those state governments “not exactly credible” just because you say so?
Sorry, GoeB etc., neither you nor the President get to make a final determination of whether an executive order is constitutional or not. You are entitled to your opinion, but the only opinion that finally matters is the concurrent view of at least five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“Sorry, GoeB etc., neither you nor the President get to make a final determination of whether an executive order is constitutional or not.”
Where did I post otherwise, hmmm? Project much? Not a surprise from a FAKE conservative straight white married man. Your dishonesty will live forever on MDN.
“You are entitled to your opinion, but the only opinion that finally matters is the concurrent view of at least five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
No sh*t Sherlock. I had no idea. 😈
Too easy, aka PreDrag …
“Sorry, GoeB etc., neither you nor the President get to make a final determination of whether an executive order is constitutional or not.”
Where did I post otherwise, hmmm? Project much? Not a surprise from a FAKE conservative straight white married man. Your dishonesty will live forever on MDN.
“You are entitled to your opinion, but the only opinion that finally matters is the concurrent view of at least five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
No sh*t Sherlock. I had no idea. 😈
I know that love comes where you find it and that sometimes your sexual passion breaks out in the most unexpected places, but I have to disappoint you. I really am straight.
Wow! That off-topic comment is totally out of LEFT FIELD … 🤔
Ok, King of deflection and master of selective reading comprehension. Third and final time: about a month ago, you described yourself as a straight white married male CONSERVATIVE.
Can you guess the one word that is totally FAKE? The one word you have not addressed or qualified after being called?
Obviously, you were bettting it flew under the radar unnoticed. A counterfeit attempt, and typical left wing tactic, to gain favor as a means to an end. Dishonesty and political manipulation duly noted.
Hammer right-wingers all day long, certainly your right. It is the deceit and pretense that you employ to be someone you are NOT.
Sorry you are not proud of who you are and delight in deception … pity.
Oh, I thought your comments doubting that I was straight white married and male were meant seriously. I had forgotten that you and botvinnik are basically just performance artists whose utterances are not intended to be meaningful.
They need to stop putting peyote in your neighborhood water supply if you think that a commitment to the United States Constitution is no longer a conservative position. You guys are the dangerous radicals here, not me.
As I posted elsewhere today, the Amendment about guns is the “Second” because there is a “First,” among a bunch more. My personal favorite is the Fourteenth, which says that every person within the jurisdiction of the United States (note: not just citizens) is entitled to due process and equal protection.
There is nothing in there about how the rights of minorities have to yield to the rights of the majority, much less the 46%. If it is a right, it is inalienable under our Constitution. I’m sorry if liberty bothers you, but that is what real conservatives believe.
No, I guess I’m not sorry. If you are too big a snowflake to accept that the United States of America does not exist for the exclusive benefit of people like you, you are welcome to emigrate. Unfortunately, very few other countries would accept a migrant who holds your views.
The Republican elected officials in one of the most conservative counties in one of the most conservative states in our Union trusted me to enforce the Constitution and laws as a prosecutor for thirty years. Other than worship the idol MAGA and trample individual rights, what have you ever done to deserve to be called a conservative?
We’ve had a glancing interlude on this before. A rhetorical question.
How is it that you, a professed conservative, and me, a left leaning liberal be such Constitutionalists, especially in light of the Trump disaster?
Shouldn’t we be at polar odds?
I can only conclude that the fact we agree is precisely because the Constitution is a LIBERAL (in the true definition, not the Republican spun definition) document? It DEFINES the liberties of people and errs on the side of protecting those liberties, even over protecting individual people.
Shouldn’t we be polar opposites? I can only conclude that
Ignore last fragment. Geez, I wish we could edit…
Pardon me for jumping in.
I appreciate the fact @applecynic you clearly and honestly describe your position in politics.
I don’t appreciate @TXuser claims to be a conservative and repeatedly dodges questions after his numerous left supporting posts. I suspect a FAKE poster working for MoveOn.org or the Democrat Party. Whatever.
Hey, that’s fine and all good. Regardless of political affiliation we are here on all sides to debate the best course forward.
Just be HONEST when doing so … ✌️
Thanks. I actually don’t see a conflict in TxUsers position. Since the Constitiution is indeed a liberal document (in the liberty sense of the word) all constitutionalists actually are liberal. As was Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.
The meaning of the word liberal has been skewed every which way. Alternately, today’s conservative has very little to do with Barry Goldwater. He’s probably to the left of them.
“I actually don’t see a conflict in TxUsers position.”
Funny. That’s not how I read it, but whatever. Understand the like minded have to stick together. But it’s always good to reach out of your comfort zone.
Regarding the bulk of your post, best left to historians and legal scholars.
The most interesting point for me was the term “liberal” as applied to 1776 and 2017. Hmmm … that’s a tough one.
Considering if the Libtard Nation can go back to the 1960s and apply sexual harassment statues according to present day law and interpretation, and subsequently charge Bill Cosby for being guilty as a participating member of the free sixties sexual revolution — I guess anything is possible — no matter how improbable. It’s SIMPLY the Libtard way …
“Oh, I thought …”
Ahhhh, no. Your thinking is limited to the left, FAKE conservative …
The argument that should override all of those talked about in this thread is that most of these countries either do not have functioning governments, or if they do, do not have any remotely reasonable system of documentation of their people.
We might as well just throw open the doors to all, which will, of course, encourage rogue countries to send their worst.
It would be pretty stupid to oppose executive orders that the president is 100% entitled (and indeed obligated) to make. Then again Apple is a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) converged company. They will pursue policies in the future that will lose them money to push their progressive agenda. Reality be damned!
“It would be pretty stupid to oppose executive orders that the president is 100% entitled (and indeed obligated) to make.”
Yes, indeed. But we all know the hypocrisy of the left. Only THEIR rules matter. Common sense, established law and universal inclusion be damned.
“Then again Apple is a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) converged company. They will pursue policies in the future that will lose them money to push their progressive agenda. Reality be damned!”
The reality is social justice warriors have a flawed and exclusive small club agenda. You own a gun or go to church. Nuff said …
It would be pretty stupid to oppose the notion that the sun rises in the east. That is a matter of undeniable fact.
It is not pretty stupid to oppose these executive orders. Their legality and constitutionality are entirely deniable. Two Federal District Courts and fourteen state Attorneys General do in fact deny it. Persons who are convinced of their illegality are entitled (and indeed obligated) to oppose them. Persons (including corporate “persons” like Apple) who are adversely affected by government actions of doubtful legality can be expected to oppose them. There is nothing SJW about that.
In this country, we resolve disputes about the law in the judicial system. We do not allow the Legislative Branch (much less the Executive Branch) the power to issue decrees that cannot be opposed by those who disagree with their legality.
The latest order may be valid. Ordinarily, I would assume that it is, since this version does not impair the vested rights of persons who have already received permanent residency or visas and purports on its face to be a purely temporary measure.
The problem is the many claims from within the Administration itself that this is really just the indefinite travel ban on Muslims that the President promised as a candidate, cleaned up to look less immediately threatening to the Constitution and laws.
If it is, indeed, designed to discriminate against applicants for entry based solely on their religion, it does not matter that it is not a ban on all persons of that religion. A rule that IHOP will only serve white people on Tuesdays is no less illegal because it does not inhibit persons of color who want to eat pancakes the other six days of the week.
I am getting p’d off at the repeated insistence that the notion of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is some sort of leftist rule that imposes on the radicals in the 46% who aren’t happy with letting minorities live and let live. Yes, Trump is the radical. Many who oppose him are progressives, but many others are conservatives who oppose him precisely because his radical agenda is not conservative.
No question he’s radical, and perhaps this is where we differ. Radical is not necessarily bad. The biggest problem of all is that he and his sycophants (Stephen Miller, I’m looking at you) are not only Constitutionally wrong, they are not even compatible with the Constitution. It’s deep.
“Two Federal District Courts and fourteen state Attorneys General do in fact deny it.”
It is pretty stupid to think two LIBERAL federal judges and assuming 14 Democrat state AG’s (27 percent) represent the VAST MAJORITY of the American people. WTF? FAIL!
Unknowingly, you have perfectly described what is wrong with Washington. What is wrong with decades of Dumbocrat rule. What is wrong with bloated government agencies that NEVER solve the problem they were assigned to address. Yes, drain the swamp Bother Golden Hair.
The will of the minority OVER the majority is not going to work in 2018. No doubt you will continue to undermine the election results until then — FAKE conservative.
Enough caring conservatives around here to hold your failed feet to the fire …
Brother Golden Hair.
You keep trying to turn constitutional litigation into a popularity contest. Federal judges are appointed for life. They don’t care what a vast majority (all caps or not) of people who are unfamiliar with the law think about their rulings. Liberal, conservative, or whatever, judges follow the law to the best of their ability as directed by their legally informed judgment.
Just because you disagree with their rulings does not make them wrong, any more than an honest belief that you can stand in front of a speeding train will save your life. Opinions are not facts. The fact is that the Judicial Branch has jurisdiction to finally decide these issues. The Executive Branch does not.
To state the obvious, 46% is not a vast majority. It is not a majority of any sort. However, that is completely irrelevant. In this country we follow the law, not mob justice. President Trump is the President of the United States and has all the legal powers of that office, no matter how few votes he got.
That does not imply in any way, shape, or manner that he has any powers beyond those granted by the Constitution and the laws adopted in conformity to it. Whether the latest executive order is legal or illegal is a matter properly before the courts, whether you think so or not.
I support your right to express your opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment is what is wrong with America. I will fight to the death against your efforts to abolish the rule of law.
“You keep trying to turn constitutional litigation into a popularity contest.”
FAIL. I point out the interpretation of the law according to political appointees. Is that clear enough for you FAKE conservative?
And please, spare us all the tedious rubbish, PreDrag in disguise …
The President has every right to ban whoever he wishes indefinitely for the duration of his presidency. There’s nothing unconstitutional about banning Muslims, Russians, Chinese, Kiwis, or all of the above. With any luck we’ll have a total immigration moratorium. I’m sure you’re just swimming in “minorities” and “persons of color” on a daily basis, self-righteous prog
I give you an A for effort.
But unfortunately, when you try to reason with a progressive FAKE conservative poser, you go nowhere …
This Is Stupid.
“Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Facebook Inc are among more than 60 technology companies that appear to have backed away from the legal fight against U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, deciding not to put their weight behind a lawsuit seeking to block the second version of his executive order
The Trump’s TWO iterations of anti-Islamic, anti-Constitutional BS has been THROWN OUT by FOUR COURTS.
What’s to sue about? It was DOA. It got the Frankenstein reanimation treatment and AGAIN was DOA.
If the unconstitutional POS ever shows signs of life, fully expect rational companies in the USA to sue the hell out of it. But it won’t. Our courts are doing what they’re supposed to do. The Trump troup is not.
“The Trump’s TWO iterations of anti-Islamic, anti-Constitutional BS has been THROWN OUT by FOUR COURTS.”
Would that be four liberal courts appointed by Obama?
Actually, you can look up who appointed the judges. Hint: as usual there is no factual basis for your statement. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter because even the Obama appointees were confirmed by Republican senators and were sworn to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. Sure, judges differ in their philosophy of government, but they do not simply follow partisan politics. Even in my state, where judges face a party primary every four years, they do their best to follow the law and not political expediency. No federal judge need ever worry about an election again.
If you cannot understand the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, you are not qualified to express a valid opinion on this litigation. If the Founding Fathers wanted the judiciary to serve as a rubber stamp for the executive, they would have called the Chief Executive “the King.”
Obviously, we are never going to agree on a definition of conservativism. I think it means the movement to conserve the traditional values enshrined in our Constitution. You think it means knee-jerk loyalty to every word Donald Trump tweets. I guess we will find out in 2020 whether Mr. Trump can expand his support beyond 46%, but even if he gets 95%, it won’t alter my commitment to conserving the values that made Amarica great in the first place, like a preference for rational debate over emotional demagoguery. Truth is not determined by electoral politics.
Tell you what: if you stop calling me a FAKE conservative, I won’t start using my private name for you.
More tedious half-truths, demagoguery and misinterpretation.
Democrat Liberal Activist unelected judges are a REALITY whether you believe it or not. If enough liberal activist judges were to take over the courts — they would shred and rewrite the Constitution in a heartbeat. That will not happen under President Trump. Know you don’t believe it and I really don’t care either way.
Who appointed the judges, how many of what party voted for them is a passing scorecard interest, but only a small part of the equation.
If you worked in D.C., you would know the first rule of politics: Don’t watch a politician’s mouth — watch their FEET. In this case, watch their RULINGS is the lion share of the equation.
Watching your feet (anti-right numerous posts), yup, FAKE conservative, all right …
By now nobody else is reading this thread, so I suppose you won’t be embarrassed if I use my private name, as I had promised.
I am not a fake conservative, but I am convinced that you are a REAL sexual predator. Your praise for Bill Cosby above shows that. He is not accused (by scores of women whose independent stories corroborate each other) of being a “participating member of the free sixties sexual sexual revolution.” He is accused of rape—and has confirmed in his own sworn deposition testimony that he drugged women and forced himself on them while they were unable to give consent.
That is rape now and it was rape in the sixties, whether the 1960s, the 1860s, or the prehistoric 60s. It is a felony for which men used to get the death penalty and are still sent to prison for life. If you think his behavior was acceptable, you are a potential rapist yourself. I would not bet that you have never actually forced yourself on an non-consenting woman.
Your support for Donald Trump fits that pattern. He is not your hero because of his political views, which you clearly do not understand and are unable to defend. You support him because he treats women like you would like to… or do.
He boasts that he can grab them by the privates and they will let him do it. He has an history of committing extensive adultery during his first two marriages, and was boasting of his efforts to get into Nancy O’Dell’s pants on the Access Hollywood tapes during his current marriage. At least a dozen women have come forward to testify that he has sexually assaulted or harassed them.
That fits into the overall pattern of his treatment of women in both business and politics. When the campaign began, there was not a single female executive at the VP level in the Trump Organization. There are hardly any women in his cabinet. He encourages his wife to stay in New York while he is in Washington all week. Essentially, he just sees females as sexual objects, like Bill Cosby does, and like you do.
The very REAL conservative tendency to place women on a pedestal and overprotect them may be demeaning to their status as independent adults, but it is a hell of a lot more acceptable than the behavior modeled by your two heroes.
I stopped reading after a couple falsehoods and direct personal attacks. Certainly not taking the tedious bait to debate sideshow off topics and feverish perceptions. So much is wrong with your misinterpretation of my posts, that it does not deserve the dignity of a response …
PS – Your conservative about as much as I am a liberal. FAKE FAIL.
The zero experience Trump the politician is learning with each passing day. His goal is to MAGA, even for clueless non supporters like you …