Why wasn't Tesla part of the 100 Tech Companies Signing against the Travel Ban?

[Xolt]

You suggest that corporations should not be political but the fact is they are.

You suggest that Tesla should not be political but the fact is Tesla is.

You suggest that judges are not political, but they are even in the Supreme court.

I don't want the rest of the world to agree with me.

The world is with many views but that does not make the world not political.

 

[jbcarioca]

liberal


ADJECTIVE

• 1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
  liberal - definition of liberal in English | Oxford Dictionaries
  
  Without question I am liberal.
  
  Thus I support Elon Musk attempting to engage positively with the US Government, regardless of the political predilections of those in power at any given time.

 

[Xolt]

So then you agree? I'm not arguing whether they do or don't, any fool can see that. Consumers should shun corporations that try to exercise political positions whether they agree or disagree with them. Judges should be removed that make political decisions. Corporations and Courts should take no sides.

 

[jbcarioca]

conservative adjective (POLITICAL)
tending to emphasize the importance of personalresponsibility and traditional values and to oppose depending on government for social services:
conservative Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
In some important respects I am conservative, without question.

Thus I support Elon Musk in engaging positively with the US Government regardless of the political predilections of those in power at any given time, particularly with respect to encouraging the US populace to learn basic science, act responsibly and very conservatively to protect the fragile environment and advocate forcefully to discourage any actions that would fail to establish and maintain very conservative environmental protections. Further I fully support all efforts to preserve the welcoming stance towards immigrants that has been a crucial part of the vision of the US since the inception. Failing to maintain a strongly conservative originalist stance on this issue would act to diminish the very character of the US system.

True Conservatives understand that immigration is part fo the bedrock of the USA. I admire Alexander Hamilton, an immigrant, not to mention Mssrs Tesla, Musk, Brin, and so very many more. My innate conservatism also recognizes that the entire US medical system, scientific research system and higher education system would be rendered severely diminished by failing to support those efforts as the US has always done before. Failing to adhere to conservative values in these respects could easily destroy the US global leadership in many areas.

 

[jbcarioca]

So then you agree? I'm not arguing whether they do or don't, any fool can see that. Consumers should shun corporations that try to exercise political positions whether they agree or disagree with them. Judges should be removed that make political decisions. Corporations and Courts should take no sides.

Might you be missing the reason the US judicial system exists? By definition courts interpret laws. By definition there is some political perspective involved. Since the inception of corporate legal forms, corporations have taken sides. Neutrality is not quite possible. Courts are meant to be impartial, but that is a different concept.

 

[sitter_k]

So then you agree? I'm not arguing whether they do or don't, any fool can see that. Consumers should shun corporations that try to exercise political positions whether they agree or disagree with them. Judges should be removed that make political decisions. Corporations and Courts should take no sides.

How do you rule one way or the other without being political on things such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control or immigration just to name 3. Anytime the judiciary has to strike down or uphold a law the are either confirming or denying a law. As political lines on those issues are pretty clearly drawn or used to be.
Corporations can exercise free speech as they wish as well, under Armour, chick fillet, home Depot and you can vote with your feet.

 

[Xolt]

You miss my point, there is a difference between making a decision and making one obviously for political purposes. The travel ban has been politically twisted and often called a Muslim ban. If it was a so called Muslim ban it would have been far wider and encompassed a religious qualification. By calling the court ruling a check and balance is a stretch of nothing more than a politically masked decision. By wanting Tesla to sign on is wanting them sides against roughly half of their customers assuming Teslas customers reflect the general population as poles show approximately 57 percent support of vetting. On the other hand it could have been done more carefully not to allow it to be misconstrued but for a wealthy country the US really is an easy country to enter.

 

[sitter_k]

You miss my point, there is a difference between making a decision and making one obviously for political purposes. The travel ban has been politically twisted and often called a Muslim ban. If it was a so called Muslim ban it would have been far wider and encompassed a religious qualification. By calling the court ruling a check and balance is a stretch of nothing more than a politically masked decision. By wanting Tesla to sign on is wanting them sides against roughly half of their customers assuming Teslas customers reflect the general population as poles show approximately 57 percent support of vetting. On the other hand it could have been done more carefully not to allow it to be misconstrued but for a wealthy country the US really is an easy country to enter.

I doubt Tesla owners reflect the general electorate, but that's besides the point. Just because a ruling goes against your sensibilities doesn't make it political. Yes the Muslim Ban didn't include all Muslim nations, but who knows what it would morph into, any large scale act of repression or genocide is gradual, I'm glad this EO was hacked off at the knees before allowing it to manifest or grow in scope. Trump wanted Muslims banned, his surrogates called it a Muslim Ban, he said Muslim Ban, it was planned to have a Christian exception, and the courts saw it for what it is arbitrary repression. As for 57% of Americans supporting vetting, that's not what the EO Muslim Ban is so that statistic might as well be regarding the price of tea in China.

 

[Red Sage]

I just like to work up all the Trump haters who think the rest of the world agrees with their position

That was rather obvious. By the way, I don't hate Donald Trump. I hate his policies, I hate his demeanor, I hate that at over 20 years older than I am he has learned no sense of decency, I hate that he is a moronic sock puppet for oligarchical isolationist insurrectionists disguised as a patriotic game changing man of the people... But only the STUPID ones.

 

[Red Sage]

By wanting Tesla to sign on is wanting them sides against roughly half of their customers assuming Teslas customers reflect the general population as poles show approximately 57 percent support of vetting.

I expect everyone here 'supports vetting'. That is obvious and prudent. It was also already in place, in a legal and effective fashion, through the efforts of President Barack Hussein Obama. In his racist zeal and politically motivated angst, President Donald John Trump chose to tear a page from the Rush Limbaugh playbook by claiming President Obama's measures 'Don't Go Far Enough' and had an Executive Order drafted for his own signature that instead went too damned far.

If you had actually paid attention in Third Grade History class, or even Ninth Grade Civics class, you would know the Constitution of the United States of America -- the self-same document that every President, Governor, Mayor, Senator, Congressperson, and civil servant in the nation swears to uphold -- set up three branches of GOVERNMENT. No single branch may rule without input and review by the other two. Our most recent President before this one was fully aware of such points, as he served as a Professor of Constitutional Law for over a decade. That is why his carefully crafted Executive Order remains in place, unchallenged and in full effect, despite the illegal actions of his successor in that Office.

 

[Xolt]

I expect everyone here 'supports vetting'. That is obvious and prudent. It was also already in place, in a legal and effective fashion, through the efforts of President Barack Hussein Obama. In his racist zeal and politically motivated angst, President Donald John Trump chose to tear a page from the Rush Limbaugh playbook by claiming President Obama's measures 'Don't Go Far Enough' and had an Executive Order drafted for his own signature that instead went too damned far.

If you had actually paid attention in Third Grade History class, or even Ninth Grade Civics class, you would know the Constitution of the United States of America -- the self-same document that every President, Governor, Mayor, Senator, Congressperson, and civil servant in the nation swears to uphold -- set up three branches of GOVERNMENT. No single branch may rule without input and review by the other two. Our most recent President before this one was fully aware of such points, as he served as a Professor of Constitutional Law for over a decade. That is why his carefully crafted Executive Order remains in place, unchallenged and in full effect, despite the illegal actions of his successor in that Office.

Wow, It sure is fun to hear you recite the typical repetitive talking points but that rhetoric just blends into the crowd of followers. Obama is awesome! It sure looks good on a resume to be a Professor when looking to run for higher office and I give him credit for being intelligent plus having a great well executed run and at the same time being the right person in the right place at the right time. He technically was a Professor because he was a part time Lecturer. Lecturers are considered to be Professors and that title sure sounds better when sounding off. Chicago law school actively seeks out politicians with law degrees to be Lecturers as do other schools. He had a great approval rating as he really knows how to read a speech with very well placed "pauses and umms" He didn't write those speeches but he did read them well. You asked if I was paying attention in class, were you sleeping? The travel ban at this time has a restraining order and that is not the same as illegal. It may be proven either way or canceled and then replaced

 

[msnow]

You took a survey?

I read one. If you google it you'll find it. It makes sense too since the east and west coastal states have higher populations for tax base and people to consume products.

 

[msnow]

You miss my point, there is a difference between making a decision and making one obviously for political purposes. The travel ban has been politically twisted and often called a Muslim ban. If it was a so called Muslim ban it would have been far wider and encompassed a religious qualification. By calling the court ruling a check and balance is a stretch of nothing more than a politically masked decision. By wanting Tesla to sign on is wanting them sides against roughly half of their customers assuming Teslas customers reflect the general population as poles show approximately 57 percent support of vetting. On the other hand it could have been done more carefully not to allow it to be misconstrued but for a wealthy country the US really is an easy country to enter.

The intent was a Muslim ban. Trump asked crazy Rudy G to find a way to "make it legal" but obviously he failed.

 

[3Victoria]

The US already has strong vetting. There is no need to shutdown the system in order to review it. The EO was poorly thought out, written (by Steve Miller it appears), and executed, and thus the court felt that the applicants had a good chance to prove that it would not stand up to full examination. Courts are meant to be impartial, and have every right to examine whether an EO upholds the constitution. It appears it was written, not from any need, but to appear to fulfil Trump's promise for a Muslim ban.

 

[Xolt]

The US already has strong vetting. There is no need to shutdown the system in order to review it. The EO was poorly thought out, written (by Steve Miller it appears), and executed, and thus the court felt that the applicants had a good chance to prove that it would not stand up to full examination. Courts are meant to be impartial, and have every right to examine whether an EO upholds the constitution. It appears it was written, not from any need, but to appear to fulfil Trump's promise for a Muslim ban.

Excellent point, I'm sure it was to fulfill the promise, whether there is a need it can be debated but without full security info not intelligently. Our vetting I'm sure is strong but nothing is foolproof. I would believe the next EO will be better thought out, if not I give up. Even if better thought out and crafted it will still almost certainly be challenged. That is my point.

 

[msnow]

I read one. If you google it you'll find it. It makes sense too since the east and west coastal states have higher populations for tax base and people to consume products.

Edit: I recalled after I posted (but too late to edit) that it wasn't a coastal analysis of voters, although I'm sure it included them, but rather an analysis of states that voted for Hillary versus Trump. The blue states consumes 63% of the GDP and contributes 66% of the tax revenue. It's just another way of looking at it beyond popular vote or acreage (Electoral Votes).

 

[Red Sage]

Wow, It sure is fun to hear you recite the typical repetitive talking points but that rhetoric just blends into the crowd of followers. Obama is awesome! It sure looks good on a resume to be a Professor when looking to run for higher office and I give him credit for being intelligent plus having a great well executed run and at the same time being the right person in the right place at the right time. He technically was a Professor because he was a part time Lecturer. Lecturers are considered to be Professors and that title sure sounds better when sounding off. Chicago law school actively seeks out politicians with law degrees to be Lecturers as do other schools. He had a great approval rating as he really knows how to read a speech with very well placed "pauses and umms" He didn't write those speeches but he did read them well. You asked if I was paying attention in class, were you sleeping? The travel ban at this time has a restraining order and that is not the same as illegal. It may be proven either way or canceled and then replaced

Perhaps you should read the decisions of the multiple judges that ruled it was illegal. That is why the Temporary Restraining Order was issued, to give the Executive Office an opportunity to respond. They did so by issuing an appeal. They were shot down again. The Restraining Order remains in place pending trial. The White House has since said they will withdraw their ILLEGALLY RENDERED Executive Order and will instead craft another. Hence, the EO signed by President Obama on this issue remains in effect, and unchallenged. It isn't about 'sounding good'. It is about being RIGHT. And it isn't about the speechwriter, or its delivery by a speaker, so much as the content of the oratory proposal.

 

[Tam]

The travel ban has been politically twisted and often called a Muslim ban.

In a Fox News TV interview on Saturday, 1/28/2017, Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump asked him how to do a “Muslim ban” and make it “the right way to do it legally.”

So, who are the ones doing the twisting with the terminology "Muslim ban"?

And that's why the world is laughing at the amateurs who want to make something criminal into something legal and then broadcast to the world on how messed up they did it!

 

[Xolt]

Excellent point, I'm sure it was to fulfill the promise, whether there is a need it can be debated but without full security info not intelligently. Our vetting I'm sure is strong but nothing is foolproof. I would believe the next EO will be better thought out. Even if better thought out and crafted it will still almost certainly be challenged. That is my point.

In a Fox News TV interview on Saturday, 1/28/2017, Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump asked him how to do a “Muslim ban” and make it “the right way to do it legally.”

So, who are the ones doing the twisting with the terminology "Muslim ban"?

And that's why the world is laughing at the amateurs who want to make something criminal into something legal and then broadcast to the world on how messed up they did it!

you posted a link to the Washington Post, that answers your question

 

[Tam]

you posted a link to the Washington Post, that answers your question

How about a link from "Make America Great Again" by Trump & Pence:

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

How about Trump's tweet itself: