MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[The Black Forrest]

Even in that case, Exxon still lost money because they had to drop prices. Not as much as they would have if the boycott had continued, but still some.
If something similar is happening with Nike (I don't know if it is, since everything I can find online talking about it is talking about their stock prices, not their products), then that could make at least some sense, but the whole issue is just... idiotic.
And it's not like Nike wasn't expecting something like this to happen, anyway. They knew what was coming when they signed the man's contract. Literally the only people here who stand to lose a lot of money are the ones ripping their footwear in half.

Something I saw said that they had a 4 Billion drop in sales revenue

Sounds like a great deal. Keep in mind they had a profit of 36 billion last year.

This boycott will not last. Many boycotters will have their excuses when a few decent sales happen. Others who didn't buy nike will probably start buying and people are fickle. I would be surprised to see this have any lasting effect.

[Gravlen]

...at a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. And he's right.

But hey if you wanna cherry pick quotes and post them out of context then go right ahead. You have every right to be wrong.

And this is what you consider to be "something real"?

So let's see the whole quote including the context.

Here you go:

THE DAILY CALLER: “Can I ask you about the Kavanaugh hearing today?”

POTUS: “Yeah.”

THE DAILY CALLER: “Democrats have put on quite a show, have you kept up with it?”

POTUS: “A good show or a bad show?”

THE DAILY CALLER: “I’ll leave that up to you, sir.”

THE DAILY CALLER: “Have you seen some of it? It’s been a lot of protests and interrrupting.”

POTUS: “I’m amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I don’t know why they don’t, why they don’t take care of a situation like that because it’s terrible. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don’t even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it’s an embarrassment. I think, well it’s really early stages, but I think the Democrats are grasping at straws, that looks like to me. It’s incredible how bipartisan everything, when you look at how the opposite, I mean, when you look at how the level of division between the two sides, it’s sort of incredible.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/05/full-transcript-trump-daily-caller-interview/

[The Black Forrest]

Well? If you go back in time to the Exxon Valdez spill. People were "exxon is the devil! BOYCOTT!!!!" Exxon dropped prices and then the excuses came out for why the stopped boycotting....

Loyalty to the checking account.

Indeed. Talking is easy. Effort and money? Excuses.......

[Gravlen]

Everybody should stop hating Nike. I am regularly using Nike in my gym class

Nike has many reasons to be judged. Kaepernick is not one of them. But hey dummies; you sure showed them burning those costly shoes you bought.

Oh not really relevant to the thread.....

Trump made it relevant:

HE DAILY CALLER: “So with Nike, you know they decided to feature Colin Kaepernick in its ads for the 30 anniversary. You’ve been really tough on the NFL kneelers. What message do you think Nike is sending to the country with this?”

POTUS: “I think it’s a terrible message. I have Nike is a tenant of mine. They pay me a lot of rent. But I think it’s a terrible, horrible message that they’re sending. And the purpose of them doing it, you know, maybe there is a reason for them doing it. But I think as far as sending a message, I think it’s a terrible message and a message that shouldn’t be sent. There’s no reason for it.”

[The Black Forrest]

Nike has many reasons to be judged. Kaepernick is not one of them. But hey dummies; you sure showed them burning those costly shoes you bought.

Oh not really relevant to the thread.....

Trump made it relevant:

HE DAILY CALLER: “So with Nike, you know they decided to feature Colin Kaepernick in its ads for the 30 anniversary. You’ve been really tough on the NFL kneelers. What message do you think Nike is sending to the country with this?”

POTUS: “I think it’s a terrible message. I have Nike is a tenant of mine. They pay me a lot of rent. But I think it’s a terrible, horrible message that they’re sending. And the purpose of them doing it, you know, maybe there is a reason for them doing it. But I think as far as sending a message, I think it’s a terrible message and a message that shouldn’t be sent. There’s no reason for it.”

Didn't see that :|

[Gravlen]

Have people actually started acknowledging what prompted the taking a knee that started all this?

Nope. It's still he was insulting the military.

Strange, how kneeling went from a sign of respect and submission ("Kneel before Zod!") to being something offensive,

[Gravlen]

Trump made it relevant:

HE DAILY CALLER: “So with Nike, you know they decided to feature Colin Kaepernick in its ads for the 30 anniversary. You’ve been really tough on the NFL kneelers. What message do you think Nike is sending to the country with this?”

POTUS: “I think it’s a terrible message. I have Nike is a tenant of mine. They pay me a lot of rent. But I think it’s a terrible, horrible message that they’re sending. And the purpose of them doing it, you know, maybe there is a reason for them doing it. But I think as far as sending a message, I think it’s a terrible message and a message that shouldn’t be sent. There’s no reason for it.”

Didn't see that :|

To be fair, who can rightly keep up with the Trump Train of Thought these days?

[Vassenor]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

[Telconi]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

Reasonable restriction.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

The same way having a ban cover one arbitrarily created class of firearm doesn't violate the right to bear arms, one would imagine.

[Ifreann]

So let's see the whole quote including the context.

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

The situation in question, if you aren't following, is hecklers and protesters making themselves look like asses during the Kavanaugh hearings. He's absolutely correct in that it's embarrassing for the country to allow morons to stand up and start screeching about shit while we're trying to evaluate the merits of a potential Justice.

Before you all lose the run of yourselves badgering Vass, people aren't allowed to do that. Over 70 people were arrested, as was reported two lines below the line you just quoted. Trump is objectively wrong here. And you should really all know better than to believe him when he has been lying pretty much incessantly for years now.

[Washington Resistance Army]

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

The situation in question, if you aren't following, is hecklers and protesters making themselves look like asses during the Kavanaugh hearings. He's absolutely correct in that it's embarrassing for the country to allow morons to stand up and start screeching about shit while we're trying to evaluate the merits of a potential Justice.

Before you all lose the run of yourselves badgering Vass, people aren't allowed to do that. Over 70 people were arrested, as was reported two lines below the line you just quoted. Trump is objectively wrong here. And you should really all know better than to believe him when he has been lying pretty much incessantly for years now.

Trump is wrong in the vein that yes they aren't "allowed" to do it, but we allow it to happen by letting in random morons and it's embarrassing.

[Telconi]

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

The situation in question, if you aren't following, is hecklers and protesters making themselves look like asses during the Kavanaugh hearings. He's absolutely correct in that it's embarrassing for the country to allow morons to stand up and start screeching about shit while we're trying to evaluate the merits of a potential Justice.

Before you all lose the run of yourselves badgering Vass, people aren't allowed to do that. Over 70 people were arrested, as was reported two lines below the line you just quoted. Trump is objectively wrong here. And you should really all know better than to believe him when he has been lying pretty much incessantly for years now.

They were allowed in were they not?

[The Black Forrest]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

They can have their say. Just not there. Free speech zones for the win?

Now who created them?

[Proctopeo]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

There are obviously some places forbidden from civilian protest, like pretty much the entire White House property, as well as many other government locations. Allowing protest in, say, the Situation Room, would be just silly. This is the same thinking behind not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't an actual fire.
Where, exactly, are Kavanaugh hearings taking place, and what's the nature of the protest?

[The Black Forrest]

They keep bringing up coaching basketball and his mom and supporting women. Does he have a history of ruling against women's issues? Abortion?

[Vassenor]

Here's the thing though. How does only having a protest ban cover one room make it magically not a FA violation?

The same way having a ban cover one arbitrarily created class of firearm doesn't violate the right to bear arms, one would imagine.

But I thought rights weren't absolute.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The same way having a ban cover one arbitrarily created class of firearm doesn't violate the right to bear arms, one would imagine.

But I thought rights weren't absolute.

I didn't say that lol

[Telconi]

The same way having a ban cover one arbitrarily created class of firearm doesn't violate the right to bear arms, one would imagine.

But I thought rights weren't absolute.

Hey, if you wanna make my rights 'not absolute' is it not fair that I get to make your rights 'not absolute'?

[Jerzylvania]

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

Schizoprenic administration detected. Here's the whole thing in case you can't access the NYT...

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

[Ifreann]

Before you all lose the run of yourselves badgering Vass, people aren't allowed to do that. Over 70 people were arrested, as was reported two lines below the line you just quoted. Trump is objectively wrong here. And you should really all know better than to believe him when he has been lying pretty much incessantly for years now.

Trump is wrong in the vein that yes they aren't "allowed" to do it, but we allow it to happen by letting in random morons and it's embarrassing.

If you find it embarrassing that the general public is allowed to view government proceedings, well, bully for you, but you aren't Donald Trump. Does Trump find it embarrassing that the public is allowed into the public gallery? He doesn't say that. He says it's embarrassing that people are allowed to interrupt the Senate and scream and protest. Which they are not allowed to do and were arrested for doing. No amount of scare quotes can make Trump right here.

---

Before you all lose the run of yourselves badgering Vass, people aren't allowed to do that. Over 70 people were arrested, as was reported two lines below the line you just quoted. Trump is objectively wrong here. And you should really all know better than to believe him when he has been lying pretty much incessantly for years now.

They were allowed in were they not?

Yes Telconi, the public is allowed into the public gallery of the Senate. Trump wasn't calling that an embarrassment. Gravlen's already posted the transcript of his interview with the Daily Caller.

I’m amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I don’t know why they don’t, why they don’t take care of a situation like that because it’s terrible. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don’t even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it’s an embarrassment.

But he's wrong. They, the staff of the Sergeant-at-arms who provide security in and around the Senate, who I presume to be the relevant authorities here, don't allow that. They arrested over 70 people for that.

[Telconi]

Trump is wrong in the vein that yes they aren't "allowed" to do it, but we allow it to happen by letting in random morons and it's embarrassing.

If you find it embarrassing that the general public is allowed to view government proceedings, well, bully for you, but you aren't Donald Trump. Does Trump find it embarrassing that the public is allowed into the public gallery? He doesn't say that. He says it's embarrassing that people are allowed to interrupt the Senate and scream and protest. Which they are not allowed to do and were arrested for doing. No amount of scare quotes can make Trump right here.

---

They were allowed in were they not?

Yes Telconi, the public is allowed into the public gallery of the Senate. Trump wasn't calling that an embarrassment. Gravlen's already posted the transcript of his interview with the Daily Caller.

I’m amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I don’t know why they don’t, why they don’t take care of a situation like that because it’s terrible. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don’t even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it’s an embarrassment.

But he's wrong. They, the staff of the Sergeant-at-arms who provide security in and around the Senate, who I presume to be the relevant authorities here, don't allow that. They arrested over 70 people for that.

They should stop allowing random people into the gallery.

[Ifreann]

If you find it embarrassing that the general public is allowed to view government proceedings, well, bully for you, but you aren't Donald Trump. Does Trump find it embarrassing that the public is allowed into the public gallery? He doesn't say that. He says it's embarrassing that people are allowed to interrupt the Senate and scream and protest. Which they are not allowed to do and were arrested for doing. No amount of scare quotes can make Trump right here.

---

Yes Telconi, the public is allowed into the public gallery of the Senate. Trump wasn't calling that an embarrassment. Gravlen's already posted the transcript of his interview with the Daily Caller.

I’m amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I don’t know why they don’t, why they don’t take care of a situation like that because it’s terrible. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don’t even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it’s an embarrassment.

But he's wrong. They, the staff of the Sergeant-at-arms who provide security in and around the Senate, who I presume to be the relevant authorities here, don't allow that. They arrested over 70 people for that.

They should stop allowing random people into the gallery.

Nah, the public should be allowed into the public gallery. Even though it's the 21st century and there are plenty of other ways to watch the government in action, people should still be able to walk off the streets of the capital and watch what their government is doing. It is, after all, their government. If people are disruptive, they can be removed.

[The Black Forrest]

They should stop allowing random people into the gallery.

Nah, the public should be allowed into the public gallery. Even though it's the 21st century and there are plenty of other ways to watch the government in action, people should still be able to walk off the streets of the capital and watch what their government is doing. It is, after all, their government. If people are disruptive, they can be removed.

Indeed.

[Telconi]

They should stop allowing random people into the gallery.

Nah, the public should be allowed into the public gallery. Even though it's the 21st century and there are plenty of other ways to watch the government in action, people should still be able to walk off the streets of the capital and watch what their government is doing. It is, after all, their government. If people are disruptive, they can be removed.

Or not, CSPAN exists.