President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Commando]

Sort of. But abortion is not in the constitution, as you know, but I am not sure if she knows that.

She never said it was-- in fact she specifically cited Roe vs. Wade and mentioned that the President, professing to be a strict constitutionalist, wouldn't be able to overturn it acting alone. At least that's how I heard it on one viewing. Maybe if I rewind it, the title of the video (that she thinks abortion is in the constitution) comes true.

[Commando]

I didn't see the show but I think she's talking about Gorsuch, not Trump. But she's mistaken that Gorsuch (or more accurately, the Court) can't overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court overturns earlier decisions occasionally; perhaps she's arguing that Dred Scott needs to be reinstated.

I may be mistaken, then. If she is referring to Gorsuch, then clearly he can vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[byu71]

Not familiar wityh Roe v Wade. Does it allow abortions right up until delivery? If not, when does it say you can't abort?

[BlueK]

Not familiar wityh Roe v Wade. Does it allow abortions right up until delivery? If not, when does it say you can't abort?

The decision allowed for restrictions after the end of the second trimester if a state wanted to implement those.

[creekster]

She never said it was-- in fact she specifically cited Roe vs. Wade and mentioned that the President, professing to be a strict constitutionalist, wouldn't be able to overturn it acting alone. At least that's how I heard it on one viewing. Maybe if I rewind it, the title of the video (that she thinks abortion is in the constitution) comes true.

Surely you see how jumbled up her thinking is? There is nothing to strictly construe about abortion., And of course Trump cant overturn a court decision alone. Is she arguing that he said he could? I don't think so.

Like you, I only watched it quickly once. If you find her position coherent and sensical, thats ok with me. I am not really putting much import on con law by Whoopi either way.

[BlueK]

Why mention Mark Cuban unless you were using him as a credible source. Hell, I think you, PAC, JL and some of the other Trump haters are brighter than Cuban

I watch TV. I see the protests. I know a lot of people are in pain over Trump winning. I am just trying to look at the possible positive side.

I mostly mentioned Mark Cuban just to introduce the topic. What I wrote after that was just a mix of what he said and my own thinking on it. Whether you think he's a bright guy or some kind of dummy, what he said in the interview was based on what he was getting from talking to CEOs of silicon valley tech companies, and what they were thinking about what Trump is signalling he's going to do next, and why they were nervous about it. I don't think whether he was lucky or not in how he managed to time the sale of his company to Yahoo has much to do with what he was saying. If you ask me, he was smarter than Yahoo because he was clearly way overpaid, but that's another topic. Not every argument has to have an appeal to authority before you can talk about it on its own merits, does it?

[byu71]

The decision allowed for restrictions after the end of the second trimester if a state wanted to implement those.

Until persuaded otherwise, I would be in the camp to not overturn it. Those on here who know some of my friends and family, please don't let them know I said that.

[Northwestcoug]

All this talk about Cuban reminds me about the podcast "How I built this" by NPR. He was interviewed about a month ago. He has an interesting story. I recommend it.

[Paperback Writer]

I was listening to Mark Cuban the other day talking about how Silicon Valley is starting to get pretty nervous that Trump is next going to try to crack down on legal immigration as well. I am very pro-free market because I believe the market can manage the economy a lot better than the government can. Ask the Soviet Union about that. The problem I have with super strict immigration laws is that it boils down to the government telling business that they're only allowed to hire certain people and not others. We wouldn't tolerate that in any other part of business. At least, conservatives wouldn't. Socialists would.

From an economics perspective, it's no different than the government mandating the amount of steel you can use or the number of goods you can produce. If the government suddenly tells buinesses they can't hire that bright engineer from India even though he is clearly the best person for the job, then it will limit that company's competitiveness in the global marketplace and they either start to fade or they choose to relocate somewhere else where they are more free to hire the best people possible.

There really aren't very strong economic arguments for limiting immigration when it comes down to it. (unless you're not really in favor of free enterprise, which is another issue altogether). But if you are, then the real reason to limit immigration is social and cultural, but no one really wants to go there, so they use the economic stuff as a smokescreen to cover that they don't really care much for folks who bring a different culture and language when they come here.

I think you miss the job aspect of Silicon Valley or the IT industry. It's not about being able to hire that bright engineer from India. It's about the thousands of IT workers being laid off because their jobs can be off-shored to India. It's about importing IT professionals through visas not because they are really needed but as a check to keep IT salaries "in line". The argument people might have for limiting immigration is not social or cultural it is the reality of being unemployed because it's cheaper to hire an immigrant or move labor off-shore. That's economics in a personal sense. In short, it's about jobs not bigotry - it's not a smokescreen.

[byu71]

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

I found this interesting. I think I will Bing to see if a site has any reason for depending on your occupation how you would vote (percentage wise not everyone the same).

For instance why a pshychiatrist would have a tendency to vote democrat and a neurosurgeon would vote republican. Myself and my field matched up with how I vote.

This is Trumps fault just like the protests during the campaign was his fault.

[BlueK]

I think you miss the job aspect of Silicon Valley or the IT industry. It's not about being able to hire that bright engineer from India. It's about the thousands of IT workers being laid off because their jobs can be off-shored to India. It's about importing IT professionals through visas not because they are really needed but as a check to keep IT salaries "in line". The argument people might have for limiting immigration is not social or cultural it is the reality of being unemployed because it's cheaper to hire an immigrant or move labor off-shore. That's economics in a personal sense. In short, it's about jobs not bigotry - it's not a smokescreen.

slamming the door on immigration isn't going to help with the problems you're talking about, IMO.

[byu71]

slamming the door on immigration isn't going to help with the problems you're talking about, IMO.

I would hate to see us slam the door on immigration. Could you give me some statement made by Preibus (sp) Bannon, Ryan, McConnell, Kelly the SCOTUS candidate or Trump himself that would cause me to worry too.

[Commando]

Surely you see how jumbled up her thinking is? There is nothing to strictly construe about abortion., And of course Trump cant overturn a court decision alone. Is she arguing that he said he could? I don't think so.

Like you, I only watched it quickly once. If you find her position coherent and sensical, thats ok with me. I am not really putting much import on con law by Whoopi either way.

I was corrected by PAC-- I previously thought she was talking about Trump so it made sense.

[BlueK]

I would hate to see us slam the door on immigration. Could you give me some statement made by Preibus (sp) Bannon, Ryan, McConnell, Kelly the SCOTUS candidate or Trump himself that would cause me to worry too.

It seems Trump is about to target H1-b visas, which is what high tech companies use a lot. That's what Mark Cuban's friends are getting nervous about. I think it's dumb to keep smart people out of the country. They don't necessarily work for less either. In the high tech industry this isn't just about cheaper labor. Try telling that to a recent grad of Stanford who happens to have been born in India. His student visa doesn't apply anymore but he would now love to stay and work for a great company and has the education and intelligence to work in a good high tech job. They don't want to and won't work for less. If the company across the street offers more, he'll work there. Just let the market play this out. If there isn't demand they'll go home. When the government tries to monkey around with things that deal with the economy, no matter how well intentioned, they're going to screw it up most of the time. Keeping them out assumes they have nothing worthwhile to add to our economy or country, and I think that's just wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c52829a53ce9

https://qz.com/898745/trumps-executi...ilicon-valley/

[Commando]

Trump is being goaded into giving smart jobs to dumb Americans. Maybe if we got those math scores up a bit we could absorb this a bit better.