US Presidential Candidates

Daryl wrote:Our system is far from perfect, but if a PM was to do this here, he wouldn't last past midday. Mindboggling third world stuff.

Yup, same here.

Yet people like PZ keep coming up with ever more stunningly inane excuses.

US civil war version 2.0 here we come?

It's not right or fair of them to target HER business just because they dislike him. How would you feel if your dad were widely hated and people decided to destroy your career?

biochem wrote:It's not right or fair of them to target HER business just because they dislike him. How would you feel if your dad were widely hated and people decided to destroy your career?

Whilst I would normally agree with you 100%, in this case Ivanka has climbed right into the politics with him.
In any real PR or political sense they are much of a muchness.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:

biochem wrote:It's not right or fair of them to target HER business just because they dislike him. How would you feel if your dad were widely hated and people decided to destroy your career?

Whilst I would normally agree with you 100%, in this case Ivanka has climbed right into the politics with him.
In any real PR or political sense they are much of a muchness.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Yeah - she's got the job of control rod in a nuclear reactor we should pay her a fortune!

gcomeau wrote:
For the love of whatever you find holy there WERE NO VIOLENT PROTESTERS pressuring Nordstrom's.


THE LINE WASN'T SELLING.


Your argument is like saying "terrorists could *hypothetically* pressure France into changing a policy to something we don't like."

"The UK on their own implemented this policy we don't like."

"We need to invade the UK... to resist terrorism."


W.T.F?

The line wasn't selling because of an online call to boycott it. It worked. Well the President can comment on retailers pulling the line due to the boycott. He has First Amendment rights too. His role in government doesn't preclude his right to free speech. Whether ultimately a wise course of action is beside the point.

Now we have Underarmour in the cross hairs for their CEO's positive comments about the President. This list of corporate supporters to be targeted will lengthen. The President can use his right to free speech to address how the left deals with those corporate supporters. So long as his response is only speech when addressing others' speech, all is good for me. He only uses the powers of his office to deal with those who break federal law.

No, there hasn't been violence directed at corporate supporters. Just the epicenter of lefty Nirvana. I doubt this fact will continue. If it does, well I'll be wrong. If violence does increase and any hint of wider organizing is present, whether against corporations or individuals, send in the FBI fo follow that trail anywhere it leads.

I know you believe that as President, any word he speaks carry the force and power of his office. That belief would stipulate limitations on anything he says. I don't agree, obviously. Beyond national security issues, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone. The wisdom of his words is irrelevant to his right to utter them.

PeterZ wrote:Now we have Underarmour in the cross hairs for their CEO's positive comments about the President. This list of corporate supporters to be targeted will lengthen. The President can use his right to free speech to address how the left deals with those corporate supporters. So long as his response is only speech when addressing others' speech, all is good for me. He only uses the powers of his office to deal with those who break federal law.

If you're watching closely, you'll see PeterZ attempt a rhetorical maneuver in which he posits that no matter who you are, your speech is completely equivalent to any other speech.

Which, of course, is complete bollocks and a sure sign of how much one has to stretch ones' principles in order to avoid calling what the Trumpenführer does bad or stupid.

I know you believe that as President, any word he speaks carry the force and power of his office. That belief would stipulate limitations on anything he says. I don't agree, obviously. Beyond national security issues, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone. The wisdom of his words is irrelevant to his right to utter them.

He has that right, yes. However, because the President's words carry a lot more weight in the public eye than most people's, past Presidents have been very careful to word their statements in ways that can't be construed as blatant nepotism, or expressions of an extremely fragile ego.

But this is the brave new world you wanted, isn't it? One in which the President acts exactly like what a complete idiot drunk on too many beers thinks the President should act.

Now retired, my last about twenty years employment was as a "fat cat" senior bureaucrat. Very much less influential than the US President, but I still couldn't voice my opinion publically on any even slightly contentious topic. As it would be seen to be a governmental endorsement.
That Trump does it is remarkable, that people don't see anything wrong with him doing it is worrysome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/09 ... 64476.html
>>>Ben Wedge was on his way home from work, walking down Agricola Street, earlier this week when he spotted the homemade sign in a window.

"Number of Days Since Trump Last Embarrassed America" the sign read, with a light-up, electronic ticker below.

Of course, the ticker was set to zero. <<<

biochem wrote:Actually the problem with the SOE is more complicated than that. It is really an argument over a worldview shift.

SNIP

My understanding is that much of the opposition to DeVos was due to perceptions of her competence; such as her being unfamiliar with basic terms and practises during her confirmation hearing (as well as things such as refusing to commit to requiring some kinds of standards from charter schools). Also, aren't the charter schools she set up in Massachusetts failing compared to the public schools there?

PeterZ wrote:The line wasn't selling because of an online call to boycott it. It worked. Well the President can comment on retailers pulling the line due to the boycott. He has First Amendment rights too. His role in government doesn't preclude his right to free speech. Whether ultimately a wise course of action is beside the point.

Now we have Underarmour in the cross hairs for their CEO's positive comments about the President. This list of corporate supporters to be targeted will lengthen. The President can use his right to free speech to address how the left deals with those corporate supporters. So long as his response is only speech when addressing others' speech, all is good for me. He only uses the powers of his office to deal with those who break federal law.

No, there hasn't been violence directed at corporate supporters. Just the epicenter of lefty Nirvana. I doubt this fact will continue. If it does, well I'll be wrong. If violence does increase and any hint of wider organizing is present, whether against corporations or individuals, send in the FBI fo follow that trail anywhere it leads.

I know you believe that as President, any word he speaks carry the force and power of his office. That belief would stipulate limitations on anything he says. I don't agree, obviously. Beyond national security issues, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone. The wisdom of his words is irrelevant to his right to utter them.

1) He may have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that other considerations don't apply. For example - I have the legal right to gift property I own to anyone I please. I would still be in hot ethical water if I did it to one of our subcontractors (without requiring anything specific in return, which would be outright bribery).
2) This wasn't limited to Trump. He also had Spicer speak out on the subject, and IIRC Conway as well.
3) You seem to be making the following argument:
A) Some members of the left have been calling for a boycott.
B) Some members of the left engaged in violence during protests against trump.
Conclusion: Any protests by the left in any form incuding these boycotts can be assumed to include an implicit threat of violence.

This is absurd (and frankly disturbing, as painting your opposition as violent is straight out of the Budding Dictator's Handbook). And I'm wondering if you'd be so sanguine if the same logic was used againt pro-life activists or 2nd Amendment supporters.

This is absurd (and frankly disturbing, as painting your opposition as violent is straight out of the Budding Dictator's Handbook). And I'm wondering if you'd be so sanguine if the same logic was used againt pro-life activists or 2nd Amendment supporters.

Who just happens to also be violent so often that it´s portrayed as "nothing to be bothered by" more often than not.