Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?
This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company , including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK. If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.
Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
221–230 of 283 posts
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
His comment is rhetorically partisan, but you haven't come close to establishing with evidence that it's "alarmist". I'd direct your attention to Eliot Cohen's essay in The Atlantic from this morning: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clari... Cohen is no liberal; he cofounded PNAC and served as a deputy under Rice in the Bush administration. And his take on Trump's last week is even more urgent…
> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could pro…
This is understating the case. Green card holders aren't just "allowed to travel to the US" - that's true of any visa holder. Green card holders live in the US and aren't allowed to come home.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the…
Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious."
Get over yourself.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work. Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?
You're asking an unrelated question. The morality or advisability of engaging in disruptive protests is completely separate from the morality of Uber allowing its drivers to choose to work while taxi drivers are protesting.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is semantics. It was imposed with the intention of being a Muslim ban, but with plausible deniability. See Giuliani's comments here: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/trump-asked-me-how-to-legally-c...
DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#226Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
Are you saying that Giuliani is lying?
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that Giuliani is lying?
Are you saying Obama wanted a muslim ban? Most muslim countries aren't even affected so if you read it's a muslim ban you have been reading fake news.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is semantics. It was imposed with the intention of being a Muslim ban, but with plausible deniability. See Giuliani's comments here: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/trump-asked-me-how-to-legally-c...
DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
The DHS list of countries on that waiver ban is indeed the same as those listed in the Executive Order. I haven't seen a reference that this list was indeed the basis for the countries listed in the Executive Order. If you know of one, please do share. I'm happy to be corrected.
Guiliani is widely reported in an interview on Fox News just yesterday to have confirmed that at least initially the goal was to create a Muslim ban:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...
I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
Perhaps the claim that resulting Executive Order is indeed purely based on risk assessment is true. I think reasonable people can understandably question whether this is indeed the case. To deny that it at least initially was motivated by the desire to create a Muslim ban is disingenuous at best. Accusing people of relying on "fake news" if they bring this up is clearly unfair.
Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
No country has an obligation to do business with the United States either. If we pull back, not only will our economy will suffer for it, but many people will lose their jobs as well as their lives.
In the future, just flag comments like these. Give them at least 20-30 minutes before dignifying them with a reply.