Ivanka Trumps line getting pulled

33055

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 3:11 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I've become convinced over the last few weeks that Trump is functionally illiterate. (Google Trump can't read to find out more.) He's bright enough to memorize some speeches, and to wing the others, so it's not that obvious, but more and more reports indicate an inability to read more than a page of bulleted text. Consequences of not being functionally literate are that he can't easily check up on facts for himself, or take detailed notes so he can refresh his memory. So one can possibly make excuses for the bizarre statements that Trump makes. But Kellyanne Conway can read and check facts. There is no excuse for her to lie.

Do you realize how ridiculous your conclusion is? And he can't ride escalators and is scared of stairs. And his son is autistic. And liberals are better educated. Where do you liberals draw the line?

The better educated liberals should have figured out that he is a busy man and likes abstracts.

amother

Pumpkin

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 3:49 pm

Squishy wrote:

They made up the same nonsense about Bush's literacy, too, do you remember? Clearly he had to be dumb because he went to Harvard business school, not law school. And he mispronounced "nuclear". And he talked like a cowboy. Rolling Eyes

In fact, this is what ultimately led me to becoming a conservative. When I heard Bush's speech right after 9/11, I was floored at how eloquently he spoke, how much sense he made.

This was my first indication that the media had been full of baloney, and from then I started questioning and searching for other sources of balance in news coverage.

MagentaYenta

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 4:47 pm

Fox wrote:

How am I distorting what you said regarding the Oregon law? According to you, the laws in Oregon would prohibit an artisan from refusing a commission based on religious criteria.

Per your suggestion, I looked up a bit about the Oregon Equality Act and found the best summary of it here: Oregon Equality Act

The section that applies to Sweet Cakes by Melissa would appear to be the part that prohibits discrimination based on s-xual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations, meaning places open to the public such as businesses that sell goods or services, recreational facilities and providers of medical services.

So it seems we were both a little bit wrong.

This particular statute wouldn't prohibit a Christian bakery from declining to bake a "Happy Satanist Day" cake, but if they refused to do so because the Satanist who requested it were gay, then they'd be in trouble.

The problem comes in defining what constitutes "public accommodations." Obviously, no one has advocated for bakeries to bar people from entering the premises. However, taking a commission is a bit grayer an area.

Having now read quite a few articles on the case, I'm even more convinced that the underlying problem is that many well-intentioned people genuinely can't understand people who adhere strongly to their religious faith and attempt to live by it. They just can't believe that someone could be a kind, tolerant person yet reject gay marriage on religious grounds. It just has to be bigotry and hate.

It all sounds good to you, but unfortunately you didn't read the case documentation. Sweet Cakes was prosecuted under a different statue and not the Equality Act of 2007.

And yes, artisans who offer religious art and artifacts do a booming business in OR without prosecution. Judica stores and Xtian bookstores are fee to do business, craftspeople who manufacture these types of items are well represented at many of our juried and open art fairs. Your hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts without anything but the most superficial of research really shows you are more interested in a bully pulpit rather than an actual dialog.

Let's get back on track. This thread is actually about a business that didn't deliver the necessary sales to maintain shelf space in a major retailers stores.

amother

Pink

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 5:02 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

It's quite clear the plaintiffs had standing. The Universities of Washington and Minnesota are seriously impacted when their faculty members and students can't freely travel internationally. I know academics who have been harmed by this travel ban. It's no joke.

I don't know whether the ruling will be overturned or not. But it will take a few months in order for the process to happen. In the meantime, if the Trump administration is really serious that it is extreme vetting foreigners rather than banning them, let them draw up a list of extreme vetting regulations. That's what this whole thing is about, isn't it?

Given that they were quite willing to not allow green card holders, who had lived here for years, or holders of student visas, who are straight A students making major contributions to American academic prowess in high-tech fields, to travel, it seems clear to me that they hadn't yet put together any criteria for extreme vetting. Why don't they do that first, instead of causing such chaos?

Doesn't it seem to you like the real purpose of this ban was for the administration show that they could throw their weight around, rather than to increase safety?

You do know that we already have strict criteria for allowing people to get visas orgreen cards, and to become refugees? It's not like Trump was going from an open door policy to a sane and responsible vetting policy. He was trying to go from a sane and responsible vetting policy (for people from those 7 countries) to pointless chaos.

II happen to think that we should be a lot more careful letting in people where there are known strong terrorist organizations, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. But the ban didn't touch them. Those are the countries for which we need better vetting procedures.)

How can the universities have any standing when there are American citizens who are interested in attending school and need jobs but lose these spots to foreigners? There are many American Citizens who are A students who cannot get into programs, the universities can open their doors up to these students and hire them before they worry about educating the rest of the world.
Additionally, minorities are always complaining about schools not hiring enough minorities to be professors so now is the time to change that. The universities can hire plenty of qualified American citizens who can take the place of all the foreigners they love to educate, so the plaintiffs/universities should have no standing until they can prove that all American citizens are educated and have jobs. And states need to prove that every citizen has a place to live as well, money to buy food and pay bills, etc before they have standing as well.

33055

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 5:09 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

So every time I catch you making mistakes I can say you are more interested in a bully pulpit than a dialogue. Your post is unnecessarily nasty.

ectomorph

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 9:26 pm

Fox wrote:

Here's what I just don't get, and I'm not being disingenuous or insincere:

Why is it necessary to detest President Trump?

I can understand not voting for him. I can understand being disappointed that he was elected. I can understand opposing various policies or agendas. I can understand questioning his qualifications. I can definitely understand cringing at some of his more unfiltered tweets.

But it seems that anyone who isn't enraged almost to the point of incoherence is branded as morally bankrupt. It's not enough to be skeptical-but-hopeful. It's not enough to be cautious-but-optimistic. It's not enough to be concerned-but-open-minded. Anyone who wants the President to be successful is, well, deplorable.

This is the experience Chadwick Moore wrote about, and his experiences appear to resonate with many people in different communities.

I voted for Trump for two reasons:

1. I felt he was more committed to results than to ideology. I had voted for Obama in 2008, but I was disappointed by his response to failure. It seemed that instead of saying, "Okay, that didn't work; let's try something else," he doubled down and refused to acknowledge obvious problems. I was hopeful that Trump, when confronted with failure, would metaphorically bellow, "You're fired," and try to fix the problem.

2. I am gravely concerned about the cultural Marxism that dominates so many universities and its long-term effects, especially on Jews. While I don't believe that a president can directly tackle this problem, I am in favor of leaders who will stand up to it when they can.

These are not stupid reasons, IMHO, but I can completely understand that these might not be everyone's priorities. That's fine. But who agrees with everything a particular candidate advocates? Most of us have enough trouble getting along with our kids' schools!

I get accused of being patronizing, but I believe that it is far more patronizing to insist that "if only you knew (or acknowledged) the facts, you'd agree with me." It's possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Really, it's possible to oppose Trump on various issues without appearing to get spittle all over the keyboard.

Because they are making an emotional argument, not a rational one.

33055

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 6:16 am

Miri7 wrote:

I think that ultimately the joke will be on the Trump family as his presidency will be injurious to his family's brand. It appears that Ivanka's line is the first to suffer.

They are in the business of maintaining their brand's value and licensing it. His candidacy ran the risk of diminishing the value of his brand. He can't really complain if the market responds to consumer demands. After all, he touts his own business prowess. Can't really fault others for making smart business decisions.

Not a chance the overall brand will suffer. Mar Lago membership fees were doubled. Drink prices were raised at the Trump hotel. Melania Trump said on her legal papers that her brand was worth $100,000,000. The overall value of the Trump brand is surging. Demand for men's suitors, his condominiums, and his golf memberships are surging. Ivanka's brand appealed to young urban female millennials. This particular demagogic is where he is politically vulnerable.

Ivanka will still end up a billionaire. I wouldn't be surprised if she herself is sitting behind the desk in the oval office one day. Her employees are the ones who will suffer from the petulant behavior.

Sears, Nordstroms, etc wouldn't find themselves in the vulnerable positions they are in if they could make smart business decisions.

The stock market keeps hitting records again. The country, including legal immigrants, is more concerned with the economy than keeping illegal criminals here or transgender rights or whatever the PC army is claiming is correct at the looniniversities.

Hundreds of years from now Trump will still be in our lexicon.

youngishbear

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 8:20 am

Fox wrote:

I don't think it's necessary to detest him, but it is vital to speak up when he does those things you disagree with. It would go far in reducing the image of Trump voters as being - what did you call it? - "zombies blindly following Trump's call."

All I've seen so far is whitewashing and gymnastic contortions to make sense out of nonsense. Yes, you specifically do point out what conservative thinker x said about this or what a Republican politician pointed out about that, but I mean it more broadly on this site, the entire right, and conservative media outlets especially. The message from conservatives seems to be that this mistake is irrelevant and that's not a big deal, give him a chance, "look at the bigger picture". Well, the bigger picture to me is not the clown in the red hat but something a bit more sinister. Patterns are created by tiny pieces repeating over and over.

If you (general you) voted for him with reservations, at least some of the things happening right now should have exacerbated those reservations. Instead I see many Republicans "doubling down" and defending the indefensible, some even quite enthusiastically.

33055

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 9:00 am

youngishbear wrote:

The left polarized the country and created the hysteria starting with their theatrics on election night.

I can see flaws in Trump. I see the much greater evil in a regime that steamrolls over free speech, is intolerant to different opinions, and promotes civil unrest.

Fox

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 9:31 am

youngishbear wrote:

I don't think it's necessary to detest him, but it is vital to speak up when he does those things you disagree with. It would go far in reducing the image of Trump voters as being - what did you call it? - "zombies blindly following Trump's call."

All I've seen so far is whitewashing and gymnastic contortions to make sense out of nonsense. Yes, you specifically do point out what conservative thinker x said about this or what a Republican politician pointed out about that, but I mean it more broadly on this site, the entire right, and conservative media outlets especially. The message from conservatives seems to be that this mistake is irrelevant and that's not a big deal, give him a chance, "look at the bigger picture". Well, the bigger picture to me is not the clown in the red hat but something a bit more sinister. Patterns are created by tiny pieces repeating over and over.

If you (general you) voted for him with reservations, at least some of the things happening right now should have exacerbated those reservations. Instead I see many Republicans" doubling down" and defending the indefensible, some even quite enthusiastically.

I must live in an alternative universe, because my Twitter feed is full of conservatives and libertarians complaining and criticizing various Trump actions. The Cato Institute and the National Review, etc., are hardly Trump cheerleaders.

A certain amount of recalcitrance is built into the system, and true bipartisanship could easily result in situations where everyone agrees to do the wrong thing. But it seems that the left is equally outraged by everything -- and I think that's ultimately a strategy that works against everyone. At this rate, we'll all succumb to outrage fatigue within six months.

The other thing that I find disturbing is that conservative media and commentators have all called for a strong, competent left wing. They recognize that a single ideology is always dangerous. However, I heard precisely the opposite from the left: the goal seems to be to more or less eradicate contrary world views.

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 10:52 am

Squishy wrote:

I guess you slept through the past 8 years.

Pete Sessions: “Everything we do in this body should be about messaging to win back the Senate.” [Roll Call, 11/5/2013] Not about doing what is best for the people. Or doing their jobs. Defeating the Democrats. Or Mitch McConnell, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

"If you act like you're the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority, We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.” [Rep. Kevin] McCarthy [R-Calif.]

The Senate Banking Committee refused to take action on any Obama nominee for 14 months, before finally approving the head of the Treasury Department’s terrorism section after letting him languish for 11 months. Why the delay? The chairman, Richard Shelby of Alabama, admitted that it was because he faced a primary challenge: He couldn’t be seen as approving any Obama nominee.

The day Obama asked Congress to take action on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) released a video of him throwing a printout of Obama’s plan in the trash.

But not only was Obama the first president to be denied a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, he was the first to be denied a hearing on his budget, and the first to be asked to show his birth certificate. He Obama faced more than 500 filibusters in the Senate.

You must have slept through the year before the election, when the Senate refused to even consider a Supreme Court nominee.

And when Mitch McConnell stated that if Clinton were elected, he would work to ensure that none of her Supreme Court nominees were ever confirmed. Without any information as to whom they might be, or their qualifications.

But the liberals are supposed to sit back while Kellyann Conway spouts "alternative facts." When Trump nominates blatantly unqualfied people. (And make no mistake, there are many eminently qualified conservatives. I'd like to see Trump nominate some of them.) When he uses his official platform to promote his own economic interests. When he praises Putin, and appoints officials whom he had been informed were conducting foreign policy discussions with foreign governments before the inauguration. When he fails to make any statement on a disaster in California, instead tweeting about how unfair Nordstrom is making in making a business decision counter to his family's economic interests.

Not gonna happen.

chaiz

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 10:53 am

youngishbear wrote:

Very true. The continued whitewashing and defending is really astounding.

chaiz

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 10:55 am

Fox wrote:

I guess I also live in an alternative universe. I follow National Review on Twitter and I would not call them critics of Trump in any way. The one thing that I know they were against, it was lukewarm. Never mind they are so partisan it is unbelievable. Anything and everything about the liberals and the left is horrible and evil.

Fox

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 12:07 pm

chaiz wrote:

Well, being partisan is kind of their job. William F. Buckley founded the magazine for the purpose of promoting conservative voices. I actually don't follow them on Twitter; I guess I should. But David French and others have been extremely critical of Trump, and French's name was even tossed around by the NeverTrumpers as a possible last-minute convention challenger.

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 1:30 pm

Fox wrote:

It is a different world, as I've seen precious little of that myself.

But let's talk about the conservative media under Obama. How often did they praise anything that he did?

33055

Tue, Feb 14 2017, 1:42 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Where are the conservatives rioting, setting limos on fire, looting small businesses, and boo hoo-ing on campus? Where is the safe space for conservatives? Where are the million conservatives marching with genitalia on their heads?

Where are the conservatives screaming storm troopers when Obama deported 2.8-million illegal immigrants? Where were the conservatives marching and stopping commerce when Obama issued his EOs that most of the country disagreed with?

Liberals should have sat back until he actually did something. They only marginalized themselves and destroyed any respect and legitimacy they had with their carrying on. Trying to justify their terror tactics with subsequent events doesn't work.

Civil unrest doesn't impress me - it scares me. Stifling free speech doesn't impress me - it scares me. Every single actual flaw and all the crazy imagined flaws attributed to Trump and his family doesn't scare me as much as the precedent that will be set if the mobs are successful. Our orderly system will be gone.