Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?
Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
41–50 of 221 posts
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#42I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anyth…
He says a lot of words. Many are false, some are true. I don't understand how everybody (well, many people at least) ignore the obvious pathological lying and conclude he's doing what he said he would.
Because this is what is called to be a master at pitching snake's oil.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#43Interestingly missing: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX
[deleted]
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#44I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anyth…
Most politicians do in fact do what they say they will. It's not actually rare.
Thats really not very true
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#45> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years
Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the previous system and held a bit more consistent view on how travel between nations should work. A good example of this would be ACLU, who in contrast to the 97 companies has shown a consistent view on this kind of government behavior by bringing lawsuits in the past and the present.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Morality is like an ass - everybody has their own. Musk wants to see a self sustaining, fossil fuel free civilisation, and a backup off site. I'm not saying it's morally right, in fact it might be straight out of Machiavelli ideas, but you are right in that it's a long position.
Morality, stripped of religious connotations, is just about what is good and bad. If you think fossil fuel independence and Mars colonization are good things, those are moral statements.
I agree completely. I'm just saying that everyone has his own ideas of what is good or bad (or evil for that matter). One person's good may be the other's bad.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#47> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States.
Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next.
I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.
I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game. He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump. Amazon has a similar position: they need large…
>He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term.
If somebody doesn't believe Trump will be in office for the entire term, they are deluded.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#49Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?
Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
The State of Washington sued to block the EO.
The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed.
Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the appellate court:
> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.
Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies
#50I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anyth…
He says a lot of words. Many are false, some are true. I don't understand how everybody (well, many people at least) ignore the obvious pathological lying and conclude he's doing what he said he would.
What "pathological lying"? He is no more lying than the average politician, and maybe less.