Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them. He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.
Here's what he actually said...
"We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."
Although I agree with the content of the law, I do not agree that it should be a federal law. This is something that the state should decide. What's okay in Hawaii may not be good in New York.
If you want a socialist government that builds their own refineries than you have a point. But in a free market economy, oil companies will ship oil to a refinery that will pay the most for the oil. If a company wants to build a refinery in Canada than so be it, but none have been built. Once you become a billionaire you can build a refinery in Canada, but I the meantime, stop trying to sirens other people's money.
More likely billionaire campaign contributor Tom Steyer is happy. The liberals keep talking about the Koch brothers ruining politics, but it's Stryker and George Soros who are the real threat.
It doesn't matter if we was born in the U.S. or not. His mother was an American citizen so he is a natural born citizen. The problem though is that he didn't live I the U.S. in his formative years when he was growing up, so essentially he probably doesn't think like most Americans.
No, We just haven't lost our moral compasses like you heathens. Plus, I'm not even religious. I'm agnostic border line atheist. However, I do know what's right and wrong. Some things are gray and murky, but Planned Parenthood has clearly crossed the line. Majority of Americans believe that late term abortion should be illegal, but yet our political leaders don;'t have the courage to stand up for what's most people feel is way over the line. This may be the turning point.
So you admit (indirectly) that money is indeed fungible. If we give money to the women's health care portion of PP, then the abortion clinic indirectly gets benefit.
OK. So give the money to organizations that have never dealt with abortions. Problem solved. PP is not closed but doesn't get taxpayer money while different women's health services are provided taxpayer money thus not increasing the cost of women's healthcare.
If this were to happen, then the debate would end.
It's not illogical to think that money you give an organization will benefit the activity that the same organization performs.
Your argument is not logical for a multitude of reasons. 1) No tax payer money is being given to grocery stores, taxi companies, construction companies. 2) these companies are separate organizations to Planned Parenthood.
I don't understand the argument why not to split PP into 2 separate entities: 1) a women's health clinic and an abortion clinic. If that were to happen, then the Women's health clinic could still refer women to the abortion clinics. But because the health clinic would be separate from the abortion clinic part of PP, the taxpayer money that is given to the women's health clinic wouldn't DIRECTLY benefit the abortion clinic.
Just split PP and this debate would be over. No one is saying in this current debate that the abortion clinics should close or that Roe v Wade should be repealed. Just stop funding organizations that conduct abortions. If you split PP then this debate is over.
1) what bombings? I could not find any info about recent bombings in Texas that were the cause of Planned Parenthood clinics for closing. Why would anyone bomb a clinic if they closed because of the stricter Texas law?
2) Your 2nd answer doesn't answer my question. Why did the clinics close if they could not conduct abortions anymore due to the stricter Texas law? Why couldn't they still stay open to provide the necessary women health services?
I think you are conflating issues. That's fine. Why don't you try again. Seriously, I am curious why Planned Parenthood clinics couldn't still stay open to provide the necessary women health services despite not being able to perform any abortions due to the stricter Texas law?
It is tax payer money. Money is fungible. If PP got split into two organizations that no longer have anything to do with one another (1) a women's health clinic and 2) an abortion clinic), then we wouldn't be having this debate.
PP doesn't want to do that. That's fine. Why not give the taxpayer money to another women's health organization that doesn't perform abortions?
If this is truly about women's health, then that should be okay. It wouldn't matter if the taxpayers were funding PP or a different women's health clinic if you are proposing that money is not fungible.
But you know money is fungible and you do want the taxpayers to pay for abortions.
That's fine. What these videos show is that there needs to be an investigation. Perhaps some wrongdoing has happened. Perhaps not. But an investigation is warranted.
Allow law enforcement to conduct undercover surveillance (within the boundaries of the law) . Based on the videos, it seems like PP is selling/haggling baby parts. It seems like they are changing how they perform procedure to get better specimens, which also illegal. And in some cases, the fetus MAY have been born and the abortion still took place despite the fetus being out of the womb even though that is illegal and they are required to perform life saving procedures.
Again all of this is alleged, but based on the videos a more thorough investigations are needed.
But in the meantime, people are advocating defunding PP with taxpayer money and reroute that money to other women's clinics that do not perform abortions.
You're conflating the issue. The issue is that Planned Parenthood is haggling and selling baby parts, which is illegal, The issue is Planned Parenthood is modifying the abortion procedure to get better specimens, which is also illegal.
If you want to talk about the debate about abortion in general, then if one believes that these "unborn children" are alive, then the mother has no right to kill it just as a mother has no right to kill a born child who is a few weeks old. But that is not the debate we are having here. We are debating about an organization that is possibly performing illegal activity. We are not talking about closing Planned Parenthood, but simply defunding it using taxpayer money. This is not a debate about overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.
I don't refute the fact that Planned Parenthood has costs to cover. My issue is that if they are indeed donating the tissue and only getting paid for their costs, then they should not be haggling over the price. If it costs them $200 - that's fine. But they should not be trying to get more money for it if that is truly how much it costs them to procure, store and transport the samples.
And fetuses/babies can't speak either. That is who the people fighting this fighting are trying to defend. Just like the animal activists defend animals who are defenseless, so too the pro-life people are doing for the babies.
If you destroy an endangered eagle egg, you are fined and risk imprisonment. Why not have the same protections for human fertilized egg? Because the eagle is endangered and humans aren't? Well that's just a sick outlook to life. Shouldn't all lives matter?
They were haggling. The one woman in one of the videos clearly stated that she wanted the buyers to say the price they'd want instead of just telling them the rate they need to cover their costs. She said she didn't want to be at a disadvantage because whomever offers a price 1st is usually the one at a disadvantage. She didn't want to go first because she didn't want to quote a price that was too low. She wanted the buyers to go first to see if they would offer a price that was higher than what she was expecting. That is indeed haggling.
Money is fungible. Why doesn't Planned Parenthood get broken up into two separate organizations: 1) a woman's clinic and 2) an abortion center? The woman's clinic can receive federal money and because the new abortion clinic organization is totally separate (with different leadership), then they don't need to receive a dime from the taxpayer.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
I would agree with you that they were donating the fetal parts if it weren't for the fact that they were haggling for a better price. If it were truly a donation, then Planned Parenthood should have provided a flat rate in which to offset their costs no matter if the samples are more intact or not. Instead they were shown to haggle for the price and asking for more money if the specimens were less "crunchy".
I was just about to comment with the same kind of thing. The edited videos came out along with the unedited videos.
Some have argued that the taped discussions that were conducted in California were done in a public setting (restaurant) and there isn't an expectation for privacy in those cases. There is case law that both agrees and disagrees with this.
It has also been said that the judge is pretty political. Judge William H. Orrick III is an Obama appointee and a major bundler and donor for Obama’s presidential campaign. Orrick raised at least $200,000 to the president’s campaign. Additionally, the judge donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.
Snowden used the tactic that Obama uses. Snowden knew he wasn't going to get anywhere going thru normal channels and wouldn't enact as much of a change that he wanted to make. So Snowden used his phone (called a reporter) and his pen (his computer) to get the change he so desired. Obama should be praising Snowden for following his lead.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump said he would 'get' Apple to make their products in America, not 'make' Apple. There's a difference. He's not going to force Apple to come to America but convince them. He's going to improve the business tax codes which Tim Cooke has said is a driving force for Apple to make their products overseas. Trump's statement is not so outlandish as some world make it to be.
Here's what he actually said...
"We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."
Although I agree with the content of the law, I do not agree that it should be a federal law. This is something that the state should decide. What's okay in Hawaii may not be good in New York.
If you want a socialist government that builds their own refineries than you have a point. But in a free market economy, oil companies will ship oil to a refinery that will pay the most for the oil. If a company wants to build a refinery in Canada than so be it, but none have been built. Once you become a billionaire you can build a refinery in Canada, but I the meantime, stop trying to sirens other people's money.
More likely billionaire campaign contributor Tom Steyer is happy. The liberals keep talking about the Koch brothers ruining politics, but it's Stryker and George Soros who are the real threat.
It doesn't matter if we was born in the U.S. or not. His mother was an American citizen so he is a natural born citizen. The problem though is that he didn't live I the U.S. in his formative years when he was growing up, so essentially he probably doesn't think like most Americans.
No, We just haven't lost our moral compasses like you heathens. Plus, I'm not even religious. I'm agnostic border line atheist. However, I do know what's right and wrong. Some things are gray and murky, but Planned Parenthood has clearly crossed the line. Majority of Americans believe that late term abortion should be illegal, but yet our political leaders don;'t have the courage to stand up for what's most people feel is way over the line. This may be the turning point.
So you admit (indirectly) that money is indeed fungible. If we give money to the women's health care portion of PP, then the abortion clinic indirectly gets benefit.
OK. So give the money to organizations that have never dealt with abortions. Problem solved. PP is not closed but doesn't get taxpayer money while different women's health services are provided taxpayer money thus not increasing the cost of women's healthcare.
If this were to happen, then the debate would end.
It's not illogical to think that money you give an organization will benefit the activity that the same organization performs.
Your argument is not logical for a multitude of reasons.
1) No tax payer money is being given to grocery stores, taxi companies, construction companies.
2) these companies are separate organizations to Planned Parenthood.
I don't understand the argument why not to split PP into 2 separate entities: 1) a women's health clinic and an abortion clinic. If that were to happen, then the Women's health clinic could still refer women to the abortion clinics. But because the health clinic would be separate from the abortion clinic part of PP, the taxpayer money that is given to the women's health clinic wouldn't DIRECTLY benefit the abortion clinic.
Just split PP and this debate would be over. No one is saying in this current debate that the abortion clinics should close or that Roe v Wade should be repealed. Just stop funding organizations that conduct abortions. If you split PP then this debate is over.
You have no argument from me about giving Israel or any foreign country our money.
1) what bombings? I could not find any info about recent bombings in Texas that were the cause of Planned Parenthood clinics for closing. Why would anyone bomb a clinic if they closed because of the stricter Texas law?
2) Your 2nd answer doesn't answer my question. Why did the clinics close if they could not conduct abortions anymore due to the stricter Texas law? Why couldn't they still stay open to provide the necessary women health services?
I think you are conflating issues. That's fine. Why don't you try again. Seriously, I am curious why Planned Parenthood clinics couldn't still stay open to provide the necessary women health services despite not being able to perform any abortions due to the stricter Texas law?
Please answer me that question.
It is tax payer money. Money is fungible. If PP got split into two organizations that no longer have anything to do with one another (1) a women's health clinic and 2) an abortion clinic), then we wouldn't be having this debate.
PP doesn't want to do that. That's fine. Why not give the taxpayer money to another women's health organization that doesn't perform abortions?
If this is truly about women's health, then that should be okay. It wouldn't matter if the taxpayers were funding PP or a different women's health clinic if you are proposing that money is not fungible.
But you know money is fungible and you do want the taxpayers to pay for abortions.
That's fine. What these videos show is that there needs to be an investigation. Perhaps some wrongdoing has happened. Perhaps not. But an investigation is warranted.
Allow law enforcement to conduct undercover surveillance (within the boundaries of the law) . Based on the videos, it seems like PP is selling/haggling baby parts. It seems like they are changing how they perform procedure to get better specimens, which also illegal. And in some cases, the fetus MAY have been born and the abortion still took place despite the fetus being out of the womb even though that is illegal and they are required to perform life saving procedures.
Again all of this is alleged, but based on the videos a more thorough investigations are needed.
But in the meantime, people are advocating defunding PP with taxpayer money and reroute that money to other women's clinics that do not perform abortions.
p.s. I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell. Sorry. I should have used the sarc mark. (/s)
You're conflating the issue. The issue is that Planned Parenthood is haggling and selling baby parts, which is illegal, The issue is Planned Parenthood is modifying the abortion procedure to get better specimens, which is also illegal.
If you want to talk about the debate about abortion in general, then if one believes that these "unborn children" are alive, then the mother has no right to kill it just as a mother has no right to kill a born child who is a few weeks old. But that is not the debate we are having here. We are debating about an organization that is possibly performing illegal activity. We are not talking about closing Planned Parenthood, but simply defunding it using taxpayer money. This is not a debate about overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.
ah! You got me there!!!
Clearly you are the moron!
I don't refute the fact that Planned Parenthood has costs to cover. My issue is that if they are indeed donating the tissue and only getting paid for their costs, then they should not be haggling over the price. If it costs them $200 - that's fine. But they should not be trying to get more money for it if that is truly how much it costs them to procure, store and transport the samples.
They were animal activists who got employed for the sole purpose to make these videos.
And fetuses/babies can't speak either. That is who the people fighting this fighting are trying to defend. Just like the animal activists defend animals who are defenseless, so too the pro-life people are doing for the babies.
If you destroy an endangered eagle egg, you are fined and risk imprisonment. Why not have the same protections for human fertilized egg? Because the eagle is endangered and humans aren't? Well that's just a sick outlook to life. Shouldn't all lives matter?
They were haggling. The one woman in one of the videos clearly stated that she wanted the buyers to say the price they'd want instead of just telling them the rate they need to cover their costs. She said she didn't want to be at a disadvantage because whomever offers a price 1st is usually the one at a disadvantage. She didn't want to go first because she didn't want to quote a price that was too low. She wanted the buyers to go first to see if they would offer a price that was higher than what she was expecting. That is indeed haggling.
Money is fungible.
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood get broken up into two separate organizations: 1) a woman's clinic and 2) an abortion center? The woman's clinic can receive federal money and because the new abortion clinic organization is totally separate (with different leadership), then they don't need to receive a dime from the taxpayer.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
I would agree with you that they were donating the fetal parts if it weren't for the fact that they were haggling for a better price. If it were truly a donation, then Planned Parenthood should have provided a flat rate in which to offset their costs no matter if the samples are more intact or not. Instead they were shown to haggle for the price and asking for more money if the specimens were less "crunchy".
And the animal rights activists posed as employees to get their video. Uncovering illegal/unethical behavior should be encouraged.
I was just about to comment with the same kind of thing. The edited videos came out along with the unedited videos.
Some have argued that the taped discussions that were conducted in California were done in a public setting (restaurant) and there isn't an expectation for privacy in those cases. There is case law that both agrees and disagrees with this.
It has also been said that the judge is pretty political. Judge William H. Orrick III is an Obama appointee and a major bundler and donor for Obama’s presidential campaign. Orrick raised at least $200,000 to the president’s campaign. Additionally, the judge donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.
Snowden used the tactic that Obama uses. Snowden knew he wasn't going to get anywhere going thru normal channels and wouldn't enact as much of a change that he wanted to make. So Snowden used his phone (called a reporter) and his pen (his computer) to get the change he so desired. Obama should be praising Snowden for following his lead.
I'm sure the Left would love online voting. They could more easily vote for their friends, family, strangers, etc.