|
Trump Brags About Losing Kaepernick His Job. That's Not A Good Thing.
Multi-Demi Winner
Very Good Kisser
Alt-Art Alpha’s Howl Winner
Former Dominus Multiboxer
|
Posted byManocean#0852on Mar 21, 2017, 11:20:56 AM
|
Trump Brags About Losing Kaepernick His Job. That's Not A Good Thing.
"
BenShapiro wrote:
Seaking in Louisville on Monday night, President Trump slammed former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who made an enormous production out of kneeling for the national anthem last season.
Trump recounted an article he’d read stating that “NFL owners don’t want to pick him up because they don’t want to get a nasty tweet from Donald Trump…I said if I remember that one, I’m gonna report it to the people of Kentucky, ‘cause they like it when people actually stand for the American flag.”
This isn’t good.
Actually, it’s quite awful.
That’s not because Kaepernick doesn’t deserve criticism. This is a fellow who wore socks depicting police officers as pigs, who thinks the same America that has made him rich and famous for being a one-shot talent is deeply racist and horrible. NFL teams are reticent to pick Kaepernick up not just because he’s a headache, but because he’s flamed out as a football player.
But the president of the United States should not be in the business of bullying businesses into firing particular employees – or even being perceived to do so. That’s frightening. Imagine if President Obama had celebrated Mozilla Firefox’s firing of former CEO Brendan Eich over his support for traditional marriage. Conservatives would have been outraged, and rightly so.
This isn’t even Trump celebrating the predictable results of making deeply morally benighted political stands. It’s him celebrating his own impact on creating consequences for people who aren’t even in a political business. Yes, NFL owners are right to shun Kaepernick. But Trump certainly isn’t right to involve himself in pressuring owners to do so through his Twitter feed.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14625/trump-brags-about-losing-kaepernick-his-job-thats-ben-shapiro
Multi-Demi Winner
Very Good Kisser
Alt-Art Alpha’s Howl Winner
Former Dominus Multiboxer Last edited by Manocean#0852 on Mar 21, 2017, 11:22:36 AM
|
Posted byManocean#0852on Mar 21, 2017, 11:21:34 AM
|
"
deathflower wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It'd be nice to get back to 2 years. Or maybe even less. One of the major reasons why there's so many illegal immigrants is that the red tape for legal immigration is Kafkaesque in its absurdity. All that bureaucracy serves almost no one; those who process all the applications get a salary, and are the only beneficiaries I can see. Making immigrant vetting ever-more convoluted is conservative virtue-signaling.
Being staunchly against illegal immigration should mean being very much for common-sense, efficient, merit-based legal immigration.
That is interesting that you remind me it cost money to enforce your laws and solve problems too. You can ignore it, it is cheaper... Probably...
Well, if we never said no, never turned down someone attempting to immigrate legally, then I imagine it would cost more to track an unregulated flow than to not track it.
Ultimately, we need to put Americans — current ones, that is — above the welfare of people currently in other countries. If an immigrant is trained in a field underrepresented by the native workforce, or wants to get an education in a field that is projected to be underrepresented, then I welcome such immigrants. But if admitting an immigrant is likely to cause a situation where either they are unemployed or a current citizen is unemployed, that's a (potentially double) economic harm: paying welfare benefits to the artificially unemployed (and the cost of immigration bureaucracy). The economic harm there is great enough to justify some administrative overhead to prevent it (assuming the investment produces results).
Ultimately, I think this is what it comes down to. Merit-based immigration is a more sensitive topic, but all this talk about policing borders seems devoid of context without the implication of such a system. I feel national security is a bit of a red herring, at least for anyone who isn't insane enough to support the war on drugs.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Mar 21, 2017, 11:36:02 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Mar 21, 2017, 11:34:16 AM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Well, if we never said no, never turned down someone attempting to immigrate legally, then I imagine it would cost more to track an unregulated flow than to not track it.
Ultimately, we need to put Americans — current ones, that is — above the welfare of people currently in other countries. If an immigrant is trained in a field underrepresented by the native workforce, or wants to get an education in a field that is projected to be underrepresented, then I welcome such immigrants. But if admitting an immigrant is likely to cause a situation where either they are unemployed or a current citizen is unemployed, that's a (potentially double) economic harm: paying welfare benefits to the artificially unemployed (and the cost of immigration bureaucracy). The economic harm there is great enough to justify some administrative overhead to prevent it (assuming the investment produces results).
Ultimately, I think this is what it comes down to. Merit-based immigration is a more sensitive topic, but all this talk about policing borders seems devoid of context without the implication of such a system. I feel national security is a bit of a red herring, at least for anyone who isn't insane enough to support the war on drugs.
People are usually biased without even trying. I care not if my workers are Americans or not. The better question is if Americans lost their jobs to Mexicans because of competition. If these Mexicans have better work ethic, willing to work longer hours and take lower wages and citizenship is base on meritocracy rather than entitlement, we should pick the cream of the crop not because they are Americans. The problem of citizenship as an issue of scarcity turn on its head. You don't usually earn your citizenship unless you are an immigrant, it is something you inherit being born in your country of origin.
We usually give preferential treatment for citizenship to the rich and wealthy, the well educated or social upper class, technically we pick from the highest socioeconomic bracket. You don't usually get in from lowest socioeconomic bracket. Just saying... Why do people immigrate illegally? There is no queue, not for them.
|
Posted bydeathflower#0444on Mar 21, 2017, 12:35:05 PM
|
|
You know what I find funny about liberals...
They tell us to don't support Trump because he could start a war... meanwhile Hillary did her very best to start a war with Russia, and Obama is the president of the entire history of the USA who was the MOST at war. He was at war for 8 years with more than 7 countries.
|
Posted bydiablofdb#3816on Mar 21, 2017, 3:39:49 PM
|
"
They tell us to don't support Trump because he could start a war... meanwhile Hillary did her very best to start a war with Russia, and Obama is the president of the entire history of the USA who was the MOST at war. He was at war for 8 years with more than 7 countries.
Yep. And try pointing this out and they claim Obama only inherited wars but never started any and was a peaceful, misunderstood creature. Honestly, when they talk about him I wonder if they aren't talking about the frankenstein monster.
Censored.
|
Posted bykolyaboo#7295on Mar 21, 2017, 3:52:12 PM
|
"
kolyaboo wrote:
"
They tell us to don't support Trump because he could start a war... meanwhile Hillary did her very best to start a war with Russia, and Obama is the president of the entire history of the USA who was the MOST at war. He was at war for 8 years with more than 7 countries.
Yep. And try pointing this out and they claim Obama only inherited wars but never started any and was a peaceful, misunderstood creature. Honestly, when they talk about him I wonder if they aren't talking about the frankenstein monster.
Obama only inherited Afghanistan and Iraq, and both wars were at their end. Not only he prolonged both wars for 8 more years, but he did add, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and few others. He's the biggest war monger of the entire history of the USA and Hillary wanted to follow his footstep.
|
Posted bydiablofdb#3816on Mar 21, 2017, 4:12:22 PM
|
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/american-spring-break-revelers-chant-trumps-build-the-wall-while-partying-in-cancun-report/
That's stupid in so many levels... I mean, they went to mexico to chant about a useless wall that they themselves will be paying(of course, that if the said wall is ever built).
|
Posted bysoneka101#4659on Mar 21, 2017, 4:22:39 PM
|
"
soneka101 wrote:
Lol, the stupidity knows no bounds. This is great. If they were told "hey, you know youre in mexico right?" what they would say. Its like those that are anti Obamacare but need the ACA to survive.
|
Posted byDeletedon Mar 21, 2017, 4:41:23 PM
|
"
SarahAustin wrote:
"
soneka101 wrote:
Lol, the stupidity knows no bounds. This is great. If they were told "hey, you know youre in mexico right?" what they would say. Its like those that are anti Obamacare but need the ACA to survive.
let's talk about obamacare and about how it was a failure... people voted.
|
Posted bydiablofdb#3816on Mar 21, 2017, 4:47:53 PM
|
