# The Battle Between Uber And Lyft Has Become Political - BuzzFeed 1/29/17



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/priya/the-battle-between-uber-and-lyft-has-become-political
*The Battle Between Uber And Lyft Has Become Political*
A sudden twist in a long-running ride-hail rivalry shows how brands will be forced to take sides as the US grapples with political divisions.
Priya Anand *BuzzFeed* 29 January 2017

In the 36 hours between President Trump's signing of an executive order restricting immigration and the same rule's effects being halted by a federal judge in New York, the rivalry between Uber and Lyft abruptly became political. Largely as a result of its CEO's decision to serve as a Trump advisor, Uber is facing a hashtag-driven social media revolt - even though it appears to be doing more to support drivers affected by the new immigration ban than Lyft.

In Trump's politicized America, brands are caught up in a rapidly evolving political crisis, and are being forced to take sides. Trump's executive order suspended the intake of all refugees for 120 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also blocked people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days. In the hours following the order, as the scope of the order became clear, pressure mounted on tech companies - who employ many immigrants on H1B visas - to publicly respond. For Uber and Lyft, who already compete for users with nearly identical services in a number of deeply anti-Trump cities, the ramifications of their political statements were immediately evident. By Saturday evening #DeleteUber was trending on Twitter. Meanwhile, Lyft was being touted as an easy Uber alternative and lauded for its denunciation of Trump's order and $1 million donation to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Shortly after noon on Saturday - less than 10 hours after Trump signed the executive order - Uber told BuzzFeed it had reached out to about a dozen employees who may be affected with offers of support, including legal help. Travis Kalanick, the ride-hail giant's chief executive, who has agreed to sit on Trump's economic advisory group, prompting protests outside Uber's San Francisco headquarters, emailed staff at 1:20PM.









If any Uber driver was outside the country and could not reenter as a result of the executive order, Uber would compensate that driver pro bono "to help mitigate some of the financial stress and complications with supporting their families and putting food on the table."

Uber has disagreed with governments across the world before, Kalanick said, adding that it has effected change by fighting in some cases, and in others, "from within through persuasion and argument." He promised that the executive order, shortened as #MuslimBan on social media, was "an issue that I will raise this coming Friday when I go to Washington for President Trump's first business advisory group meeting."

Five hours later, Lyft's cofounders emailed their staff, too.










What people saw when they compared the statements: Uber is willing to work with Trump. Lyft is "firmly against" Trump's actions. . . .

[ _*READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE, ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED TWEETS AND EMAILS, HERE*_ ]​


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Clearly Uber can't win in this situation. Atleast they were trying. No matter what they do, the people against Trump's policies are going to find a way to criticize it. I'm not even a Trump supporter but if he did nothing, he would get criticized. He's not banning Muslims, he's banning non citizens from countries where more terrorist activity is occurring and originating from. We need to have borders, that's why we have a country. We can't just let every Tom, Dick, and Harry come in. 

While I abhor a lot of things Trump has done and said, not everything he says and does is bad. This country has basically been letting everyone in. That has to stop.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly Uber can't win in this situation. Atleast they were trying. No matter what they do, the people against Trump's policies are going to find a way to criticize it. I'm not even a Trump supporter but if he did nothing, he would get criticized. He's not banning Muslims, he's banning non citizens from countries where more terrorist activity is occurring and originating from. We need to have borders, that's why we have a country. We can't just let every Tom, &%[email protected]!*, and Harry come in.


How about those who already live here as permanent residents - with green cards and work permits - and families - and jobs... just trying to get 'home' from visiting family and friends? How about those who have gone through the legal process of seeking asylum and been fully vetted for years?

*UPDATE: Mon 1/30 - The White House announced on Sunday that it had reversed itself and going forward will not prevent green card holders from returning to the US.*



> This country has basically been letting everyone in.


That's a talking point with no basis in fact.
If it's not, then please provide the facts.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's a talking point with no basis in fact.
> If it's not, then please provide the facts.


It's a fact. If it wasn't, then nobody would be protesting. They are protesting because everyone "seeking asylum" was being allowed in.

Perhaps you need to read the exact order. It doesn't ban citizens.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://www.buzzfeed.com/priya/the-battle-between-uber-and-lyft-has-become-political
> *The Battle Between Uber And Lyft Has Become Political*
> A sudden twist in a long-running ride-hail rivalry shows how brands will be forced to take sides as the US grapples with political divisions.
> Priya Anand *BuzzFeed* 29 January 2017
> ...


Well, LYFT is for sale.
Any Radical groups wish to own the number 2 rideshare in America ?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's a fact. If it wasn't, then nobody would be protesting. They are protesting because everyone "seeking asylum" was being allowed in.
> 
> Perhaps you need to read the exact order. It doesn't ban citizens.


Ask Angela Merkle about the increased level of rapes and molestations of women and children due to the influx of " refugees" in her country. Ask the German People how they feel about Angela Merkle !
Sweden suppresses the actual figures of rampant refugee crime from its people. They fear incidents such as what Trudeau in Canada is dealing with. The PEOPLE of Canada are not happy.
The People of Germany are not happy.
The People of Sweden are not happy.
Too often,Government Coerces the People against their will.
Global elections are showing the backlash !
Trudeau says all are welcome,bring bullet proof vest.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

If there is/was ever a time for Lyft to raise the per mile rate, this is it . I call it, "It's just good business." East India Trading Company.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://www.buzzfeed.com/priya/the-battle-between-uber-and-lyft-has-become-political
> *The Battle Between Uber And Lyft Has Become Political*
> A sudden twist in a long-running ride-hail rivalry shows how brands will be forced to take sides as the US grapples with political divisions.
> Priya Anand *BuzzFeed* 29 January 2017
> ...


Why was there no public outcry or media attention given to Obama's N.D.A.A. authorization ?!?!
Selective reporting ?
The A.C.L.U . decried that !
Where was the support then ?
This is a staged event !
Americans should not be protected ?
Trump is enforcing Laws Obama has also used. Why the outcry now ?


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

And to further add...


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/lyft-and-ubers-immigration-ban/514889/
> *Lyft and Uber's Public-Relations Battle Over the Immigration Ban*
> The two ride-hailing services were seen as taking opposing positions in the controversy over President Trump's recent executive order
> ADAM CHANDLER - The Atlantic - 29 January 2017
> ...


No,I think the MEDIA is putting people in danger.
The results can be seen at a Mosque in Canada this morning !
The Media throws blood in the water then blames Trump when the sharks they were awaiting arrive !
Not civically responsible Journalism.
Fanning the flames of " Widespread Panic". Humming " Dirty Laundry"- by Don Henley.
We know how issues are crafted. Crafted to sell. Commercial sales are the Media goal.
Well, now Trudeau can tend to his own back yard. Keep us posted on your violent assault rates on women and children in a year Mr. Trudeau.

Canada's " Honey moon" with Trudeau shall be ending shortly.


----------



## Jurisinceptor (Dec 27, 2016)

Did Uber or Lyft take any stand, or steps, following the Pulse attack in Orlando? This is not rhetorical, I really would like to know. Thanks.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Travis stepped in poop and it's permanently affixed to his shoe.
No matter your Ayn Randian leanings, your business should remain neutral regarding politics.
#deleteuber lol.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Jurisinceptor said:


> Did Uber or Lyft take any stand, or steps, following the Pulse attack in Orlando? This is not rhetorical, I really would like to know. Thanks.


EXACTLY ! NOPE ! THANK YOU !



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Travis stepped in poop and it's permanently affixed to his shoe.
> No matter your Ayn Randian leanings, your business should remain neutral regarding politics.
> #deleteuber lol.


Travis is an Advisor to the President of the United States of America !
He and President Trump have my full support in this Patriotic Endeaver !
Make America Great Again.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

Turn the app on and ignore as many pings till they offline you,then log back in and repeat.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> And to further add...


This guy is Hilarious !
And informative. He could do stand up comedy !
Chuck Schumer wasn't crying,he was Choking on his own rehearsed B.S. ! AS HE SHOULD, was painful to watch for me such shoddy theatrics !
Inane groveling to endear himself for future power plays !
I didn't know they stacked Fertilizer that high without E.P.A. VIOLATIONS !


----------



## roadman (Nov 14, 2016)

Tnasty said:


> Turn the app on and ignore as many pings till they offline you,then log back in and repeat.


or accept all the pings just don't move. Riders waiting longer means quicker rider pickups.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

Both are despicable. I really wish more *drivers* would delete their app - on both platforms. 

Not a fan that Uber would pay drivers who would otherwise be here illegally (who drives Uber who can travel back and forth to Yemen? I can barely afford Amtrak!).

Not a fan that Lyft gives to the American Criminal Lover's Union.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Yellow Cab always maintained neutrality toward both political parties, but since their successors in the Ride Share industry are transnational, I guess they figure they have to get involved in this sticky wicket.

Lyft definitely has the inside position in this race. Although half the American people support President Trump, that isn't the case in the very large, liberal cities like NY, SF and Washington DC which is where most of the money is in the ride share racket.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Jurisinceptor said:


> Did Uber or Lyft take any stand, or steps, following the Pulse attack in Orlando? This is not rhetorical, I really would like to know. Thanks.


I would hope they were against it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's a fact. If it wasn't, then nobody would be protesting. They are protesting because everyone "seeking asylum" was being allowed in.
> 
> Perhaps you need to read the exact order. It doesn't ban citizens.


In other words, you can't point to anything that shows your statement is factual.
And perhaps you, my friend, need to learn what permanent resident status is.

update: The administration has now corrected the error in banning the permanent residents.
NYTimes 1/30: _Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on Sunday that green card holders from the seven banned countries would not be prevented from returning to the United States "going forward." That appeared to be a reversal from one of the order's key components._​
But, back to the topic at hand: Lyft and Uber: *Principled Positions or Strategic Marketing and Showboating*?


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

I emailed Lyft back asking how comes they have $1 mil laying around and their full-time drivers are in poverty ?


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> But, back to the topic at hand: Lyft and Uber: *Principled Positions or Strategic Marketing and Showboating*?


A little bit from both categories A and B,I'm sure. I'm sure they have political positions and principles, but they know what the positions and principles of most of their riders are and don't want to ruffle feathers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> your business should remain neutral regarding politics.


Why?
If corporate money can be used to support political campaigns and candidates - why should a business remain neutral? What if your 'business' IS political? What if you are the owner of Hobby Lobby?
Personally, I agree with you, but the law doesn't.



7Miles said:


> I emailed Lyft back asking how comes they have $1 mil laying around and their full-time drivers are in poverty ?


Well, to be fair, Lyft only pledged $1,000,000 over 4 years.
Maybe they're putting $21,000 on a credit card each month and using the airline miles to fly their management teams around?
..._hehe



tohunt4me said:



This is a staged event !
Americans should not be protected ?

Click to expand...

_The 'staged event' is the executive order.
If it were well thought out and based on reality, wouldn't you think the countries of origin of the 9/11 terrorist-hijackers would be on the list of countries?
They're not.
In fact, not one of the seven countries on the list is the 'country of origin' of any of the terrorists who committed those atrocities ending 3,000 lives in the US.

9/11 Hijackers by Nationality:
Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates​7 countries covered in Pres. Trump's Executive Order:
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen​
_-------------------------------------------_
*Number of refugees who have been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack 
on U.S. soil since the Refugee Act of 1980 = ZERO*
​


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JimS said:


> Both are despicable. I really wish more *drivers* would delete their app - on both platforms.
> 
> Not a fan that Uber would pay drivers who would otherwise be here illegally (who drives Uber who can travel back and forth to Yemen? I can barely afford Amtrak!).
> 
> Not a fan that Lyft gives to the American Criminal Lover's Union.


A lot of these guys are not here illegally.

When I was in college, I knew a lot of guys from Iran who were here on student visas. Because of this order, these guys can't go back home to visit their families without getting banned from coming back which would interrupt their education and research. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks who are here on a student visa might drive for Uber.


----------



## goon70056 (Apr 21, 2016)

Why is it that both of these companies have this kind of money to throw around, except when it comes to paying their drivers a decent wage?


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> A lot of these guys are not here illegally.
> 
> When I was in college, I knew a lot of guys from Iran who were here on student visas. Because of this order, these guys can't go back home to visit their families without getting banned from coming back which would interrupt their education and research. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks who are here on a student visa might drive for Uber.


If they have a valid student visa, it'll be handled on a case by case basis. At any rate, for ad-hoc citizens, it will be a 90 day inconvenience for most folks.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JimS said:


> ... it will be a 90 day inconvenience for most folks.


Hey, I 'get it', but that's easy for you to say -
you don't employ the doctors at the Cleveland Clinic that can't get back into the country who have surgeries planned - patients waiting, staff scheduled to work with them, not to mention mortgages and car payments to make, house to maintain, etc) - or who were scheduled to be on vacation in the coming weeks and have made their work arrangements, spent thousands on airline tickets for their spouse and kids (and now can't go because they can't get back to here).

UPDATE: Looks like the adminsitration has already revered itself - or corrected their oversight: according to the NYTimes, _"Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on Sunday that green card holders from the seven banned countries would not be prevented from returning to the United States "going forward." That appeared to be a reversal from one of the order's key components"_


> If they have a valid student visa, it'll be handled on a case by case basis


I know this is all unfolding quickly (and the administration is already making adjustments to the order (which should have been included to begin with!) - but can you point me to something that details the 'case-by-case' scenario you mention?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And perhaps you, my friend, need to learn what permanent resident status is.
> But, back to the topic at hand: Lyft and Uber: *Principled Positions or Strategic Marketing and Showboating*?


I told you you need to reread the order and it appears you didn't.



> The order targets three groups: refugees from any country, who are blocked from entering the United States for the next 120 days; refugees from Syria, who are barred indefinitely; and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, who are barred from entering the United States for at least 90 days. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
> 
> But what all that means in practice is not clear, which has led to disorder in its application.
> 
> ...


There is nothin in the order that bans legal permanent residents. It's clear the goal is to cut back on refugees. You should stop blindly trusting the mainstream news and other people making up reasons to hate on Trump.

This order is clearly NOT a ban on muslims. If it was then the order would actually ban only muslims, which it doesn't.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

when twittering don't forget to add #tipyouruberdriver


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> There is nothin in the order that bans legal permanent residents.


If that were true, then the White House would not have had to change the order yesterday to allow permanent residents to return. to the US.


----------



## Frankx (Nov 3, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How about those who already live here as permanent residents - with green cards and work permits - and families - and jobs... just trying to get 'home' from visiting family and friends? How about those who have gone through the legal process of seeking asylum and been fully vetted for years?
> 
> *UPDATE: Mon 1/30 - The White House announced on Sunday that it had reversed itself and going forward will not prevent green card holders from returning to the US.*
> 
> ...


Uber needs to stay out of politic. I found the email sent to drivers insulting. How can they not recognize that we are not all moonbat progressives. I am sure more than have the drivers believe in traditional American value, not the progressive socialist values our last President represented. It was great for the drivers in NY that they eliminated surge pricing during the prices. So Uber showed no compassion for its drivers who want the surge. Why only suspend the surge for liberal protests and not the march for life or any other conservative march


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If that were true, then the White House would not have had to change the order yesterday to allow permanent residents to return. to the US.


You say that uberdriverfornow is wrong, and then mention a White House policy clarification that proves him right? Confusing.


----------



## UberAnt39 (Jun 1, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Well, LYFT is for sale.
> Any Radical groups wish to own the number 2 rideshare in America ?


Calling Soros...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Yellow Cab always maintained neutrality toward both political parties, but since their successors in the Ride Share industry are transnational, I guess they figure they have to get involved in this sticky wicket.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-companies-dragged-immigration-debate-n713831
*Uber vs. Lyft: Rideshare Companies Dragged Into Immigration Debate*
by AVALON ZOPPO NBC News 29 Jan 2017

The CEOs of two of Silicon Valley's biggest rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft, found themselves embroiled in the political firestorm over President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.

It began Saturday, when the New York Taxi Alliance called off pickups at John F. Kennedy Airport for one hour as hundreds of people flocked to the airport to protest Trump's order, which barred citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely...

[ _read the full article_ ]


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> You say that uberdriverfornow is wrong, and then mention a White House policy clarification that proves him right? Confusing.


It is indeed: (because things are changing very quickly)
When the order was issued on Fri 1/28, the instructions provided to immigration and border control were to refuse entry to everyone from the 7 listed countries (and thus a lot of the outrage ensued).
By Saturday federal judges were already issuing orders of stay on limited portions of the instructions - and law suits were being filed.
On Saturday, several residents of the US were detained at airports, unable to enter the US - the judges orders forbid the administration from returning any of the detained residents or detainees with valid visas to their country of origin (and a MA federal judge ordered the resident detainees released into the US. It appears that by Sat evening or Sunday most, if not all, of the detainees were properly processed in accordance with the Executive Order, in light of the court orders.
On Sunday, the administration revered itself in order to comply with the federal judges ruling(s) going forward, allowing those with permanent residency status to regain entry to the US.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberAnt39 said:


> Calling Soros...


Soros might buy it.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad (Apr 7, 2016)

Screw Lyft and their opinion. Trump won, the Islamists and illegal aliens are on their way out. Get over it. 

Uber drivers are independent operators, we have all invested in our equipment, and many rely on it for income. We drive when and where we want. Anyone who has a problem with that needs to accompany their request with payment, or it will be ignored.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

As a cab driver, I was strictly non-partisan, was sympathetic to member of all religion and whatever form of alternative sexuality you chose to participate in or to condemn.

Enabled me to get tips from local marxists and the successors of HC Frick on the same shift.

For Uber and Lyft to get involved in this political controversy is pure foolishness.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> A lot of these guys are not here illegally.
> 
> When I was in college, I knew a lot of guys from Iran who were here on student visas. Because of this order, these guys can't go back home to visit their families without getting banned from coming back which would interrupt their education and research. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks who are here on a student visa might drive for Uber.


Just a note:

Most people on student visas are not allowed to hold jobs (beyond what they are doing at their institution, where they often get a stipend, many times the same amount as a new employee fresh out of college, btw). Uber gets around that by not calling them employees.

The number of drivers would be immediately reduced if all the drivers who can't be EMPLOYEES were not driving for uber.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Just a note:
> 
> Most people on student visas are not allowed to hold jobs (beyond what they are doing at their institution, where they often get a stipend, many times the same amount as a new employee fresh out of college, btw). Uber gets around that by not calling them employees.
> 
> The number of drivers would be immediately reduced if all the drivers who can't be EMPLOYEES were not driving for uber.


If you are a foreign national who isn't allowed to work, and you don't have any income that is taxable in the United States, you can't get a social security number and you wouldn't be able to sign up for Uber.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If that were true, then the White House would not have had to change the order yesterday to allow permanent residents to return. to the US.


The DHS clearly misread the order, as did you and all the people that want to create a story that the order somehow bans all muslims, which, again, it doesn't do, in any fashion.


----------



## Mido toyota (Nov 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly Uber can't win in this situation. Atleast they were trying. No matter what they do, the people against Trump's policies are going to find a way to criticize it. I'm not even a Trump supporter but if he did nothing, he would get criticized. He's not banning Muslims, he's banning non citizens from countries where more terrorist activity is occurring and originating from. We need to have borders, that's why we have a country. We can't just let every Tom, &%[email protected]!*, and Harry come in.
> 
> While I abhor a lot of things Trump has done and said, not everything he says and does is bad. This country has basically been letting everyone in. That has to stop.


How about saudi Arabia, Emirates, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, you guys really have short memory , and don'the just lie and say you aren't a trump supporter , you are a brain washed trump follower


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

JimS said:


> Not a fan that Uber would pay drivers who would otherwise be here illegally (who drives Uber who can travel back and forth to Yemen? I can barely afford Amtrak!).
> 
> Not a fan that Lyft gives to the American Criminal Lover's Union.





Michael - Cleveland said:


> Why?
> If corporate money can be used to support political campaigns and candidates - why should a business remain neutral? What if your 'business' IS political? What if you are the owner of Hobby Lobby?
> Personally, I agree with you, but the law doesn't.
> 
> ...


Cogent. Very cogent.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Soros might buy it.


Only if he can figured out an angle to use it as a tool to employ Millennials as saboteurs.


----------



## Milito (Apr 26, 2016)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Yellow Cab always maintained neutrality toward both political parties, but since their successors in the Ride Share industry are transnational, I guess they figure they have to get involved in this sticky wicket.
> 
> Lyft definitely has the inside position in this race. Although half the American people support President Trump, that isn't the case in the very large, liberal cities like NY, SF and Washington DC which is where most of the money is in the ride share racket.


Here in Miami dade county when you apply for the hack license the first thing they tell you is to stay out of politics and religion


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

circle1 said:


> Cogent. Very cogent.


Cogent indeed. That's a cool sounding word.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How about those who already live here as permanent residents - with green cards and work permits - and families - and jobs... just trying to get 'home' from visiting family and friends? How about those who have gone through the legal process of seeking asylum and been fully vetted for years?


This is what I find more annoying about this than anything else. The Donald _*ain't givin' nobody no time to get in no compliance with this hyar' Eggs-ECCH-yoo-Tive Orner.*_ If you are going to change policy, at least let people know and give them a chance to get into line with it.

You are not going to accept any new applications. People will not agree, but, if that is what you must do, at least process the applications that you have in hand.

People who have valid travel or other documents issued under the old rules should be permitted to re-enter. These people were legal under the rules then on the books. If implement this you must, at least give them some warning. Tell those in the countries that you have listed that they have until 3 March (or whatever date at least thirty days into the future) to get out of the blacklisted country and back here. Give people a chance to comply. The order may be screwball and unfounded (and illegal, at least in the case of those with valid documents, at least to read what some judges have to say about it), but, at least give people the opportunity to comply with your order.

I have had more than a few whack-0 orders and regulations dumped on me in my lifetime, but have managed to comply if given the time. In fact, when I did not have a chance to comply, the source of said whackjobbery was the Left. When I lamented of no opportunity to comply, these people told me that it was too bad for me, now comply yesterday or pay up (or both).

The Donald would have us believe that this situation is temporary. To be sure, there have been similar "temporary" situations such as this, in the past. Still, there has been more than one "temporary" thing from the gubbamint that never did go away (income tax). This is a case of a bad idea poorly implemented. The money that it is going to cost to implement it could be better spent doing a proper vetting of applicants. If you find out that the applicant is involved with Daesh or Al-Qaida, of course keep him out of here. If he has a criminal record, do not admit him. If he is allright, why not let him come?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The DHS clearly misread the order, as did you and all the people that want to create a story that the order somehow bans all muslims, which, again, it doesn't do, in any fashion.


yeah... makes perfect sense that it's everyone's fault (including the administration's own departments), except the executive who wrote, signed and executed the order... it's everyone else's fault that the administration didn't take the time to write an order with input from it's own affected departments or provide clarity on implementation.

They're amateurs... (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way).

Agree or disagree with a policy of the administration, personally, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and hope hope they do a better job of including their own administrators in the process and communicating how they want something executed in the field.

In the end, it appears the administration made blunders and a lot of people took notice
(yes, some with feigned outrage - others with legitimate outrage).

*So - is LYFT's outrage 'feigned' - marketing move or a stand on principle?
What about Kalanick and Uber's wishy-washy response and backtracking?*


----------



## 8bitJermaine (Oct 29, 2016)

Y'all are funny


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

No matter what you do as a driver you are screwed in the Seattle market. I have to say that Lyft was busy and the 21 rides I did on Monday 10 were new Lyft riders supporting Lyft and boycotting Uber. I drive for both in Seattle(pay sucks for both). The atmosphere here is very progressive and full of hate and intolerance. As a driver because of the political activities of the CEO's of these companies, they force me into a place that I don't like being in. If you pick up a Lyft you are a Progressive. If you pick up an Uber you are a Trump supporter. Lots of assumptions are made by the riders. I am tired of being put in a position not of my choosing. 

Ratings go down if you do both. People engage in political conversations and attempt to draw you in to the fray. I try to smile and drive and abhor both of these companies for the sh!t they pull. Yesterday was difficult, my work was made more difficult because of the activities of 3 people who are in control of the two companies I contract with. Travis, John, and Logan #STFU and stay out of the politics. 

You treat us like sh!t and think we are all stupid people. I have met bright and talented people doing this work and we all have our reasons for doing this work. Respect us as humans regardless of where we come from! We deserve the respect and proper compensation because with out us, you have nothing but software. We deal with all the people who are rude, drunk and treat us like sub-humans. We also deal with the decent ones and we reduce DUI's on the streets of every market we drive. We don't get to choose those we provide rides for, we do get to rate though and I shutter to think what would happen if we spoke our mind through the rating system of the riders. 


Thanks.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JJS said:


> No matter what you do as a driver you are screwed in the Seattle market....As a driver because of the political activities of the CEO's of these companies, they force me into a place that I don't like being in. If you pick up a Lyft you are a Progressive. If you pick up an Uber you are a Trump supporter. Lots of assumptions are made by the riders. I am tired of being put in a position not of my choosing.


Come to the 216!
The pay sucks, but the cost of living is low - 
and no one gives a sh*t about your politics - 
just get them where they are going.
1 out of 10 even tips.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

JJS said:


> No matter what you do as a driver you are screwed in the Seattle market. I have to say that Lyft was busy and the 21 rides I did on Monday 10 were new Lyft riders supporting Lyft and boycotting Uber. I drive for both in Seattle(pay sucks for both). The atmosphere here is very progressive and full of hate and intolerance. As a driver because of the political activities of the CEO's of these companies, they force me into a place that I don't like being in. If you pick up a Lyft you are a Progressive. If you pick up an Uber you are a Trump supporter. Lots of assumptions are made by the riders. I am tired of being put in a position not of my choosing.
> 
> Ratings go down if you do both. People engage in political conversations and attempt to draw you in to the fray. I try to smile and drive and abhor both of these companies for the sh!t they pull. Yesterday was difficult, my work was made more difficult because of the activities of 3 people who are in control of the two companies I contract with. Travis, John, and Logan #STFU and stay out of the politics.
> 
> ...


Not sure why you think because people drive for Uber they support Trump. That's really ridiculous. Nobody would ever really think something like that unless they are biased against Trump and simply want something to cry about. Uber drivers are regular people like anyone else just trying to earn money. You don't have to pledge alligiance to Trump to drive for Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not sure why you think because people drive for Uber they support Trump. That's really ridiculous. Nobody would ever really think something like that unless they are biased against Trump and simply want something to cry about. Uber drivers are regular people like anyone else just trying to earn money. You don't have to pledge alligiance to Trump to drive for Uber.


He didn't say _HE_ felt that way - he said that's the attitude in Seattle.

People are idiots... most don't know that whether they use Lyft or Uber they're can easily get the same driver/car..


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> He didn't say _HE_ felt that way - he said that's the attitude in Seattle.
> 
> People are idiots... most don't know that whether they use Lyft or Uber they're can easily get the same driver/car..


My first "you" was directed at him but the rest was directed at the people he is referring to.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> My first "you" was directed at him but the rest was directed at the people he is referring to.


I know.


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

My apologies. Apparently I was not writing in English. I didn't say anything about supporting either I was stating the things I hear from the riders and how they put that sh!t on me. I avoid conversations as much as I possibly can. The last couple of days have sucked because of the sh!t that the 3 idiots running these companies have done. I politely refuse to engage in any conversations that don't include the weather. There aren't many Trump folks up here and the people are the very definition of a snowflake. and if you turn up the heat and question them about their emotional reactions they meltdown.

Frankly it is no one's business what I believe, I provide you a ride as requested. Leave the politics outside of my car.

#STFU smile and drive.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Wait wait wait. I received this email saying Uber is going to do all of these wonderful things to help support their drivers affected by President Trump's immigration ban. I'm pretty sure that every driver received it. It says Uber will:

"• Provide *24/7 legal support* for drivers who are trying to get back into the country. Our lawyers and immigration experts will be on call 24/7 to help.
• *Compensate drivers* for their lost earnings. This will help them support their families and put food on the table while they are banned from the US.
• *Urge the government* to reinstate the right of US residents to travel-whatever their country of origin-immediately.
• Create a *$3 million legal defense fund* to help drivers with immigration and translation services."

** Isn't this the same company that purchased and deployed driver less cars in September 2016? https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-launches-groundbreaking-driverless-car-101803072.html
* Then in December they put them on the roads in San Francisco http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...ncisco-self-driving-driverless-Volvo-XC90-SUV
• When that failed they sent them to Arizona http://fortune.com/2016/12/22/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona-2/*

Do you really think Uber cares about their drivers while they are trying to replace drivers all together? HA HA HA HA! Travis didn't get rich by being stupid did he? The email itself is a joke.


----------



## Dutch-Ub (Mar 1, 2016)

Typical immigrant job. In Dubai people from India and Bangladesh drive cabs, in Berlin Turkish and people from former Yugoslavia drive cabs, in Amsterdam Moroccan and Turkish, and if i can believe those wonderfull Hollywood movies, in NY it's the Pakistani and Russian people. Yea.. i can see how immigration is quite important in the taxi/ride-app business. Still better to keep it neutral.

I actually planned a trip to the US, but won't go anymore. Do not want to see yet another abrupt policy change that would void my tickets. 

Now lets get a bit more serious. Uber has bigger issues. Protectionist trade measures (anti-globalism) from the Trump-government could result in finally giving Europe a reason they(we) are looking for to break the supremacy of US online business. It is a big pain in the ass that US companies pretty much rule all, the EU has been sleeping while a lot of US companies came sweeping evertything up. Examples such as social media FB, Twitter, LinkedIn to Netflix, Google etc. Pretty impressive. Most easy target would be Uber to start with, they still do not comply with regulations in a lot of EU countries and can be shut down easily. All could easily be replaced by European companies. And when Trump is done, after four or eight years and you guys decide to vote for another guy to fix everything, all will go back to normal. Only now the US companies have already been forced out of the European market. 

Be very aware of a trade war. Luckily for Trump he has TK as an advisor hm.. betcha he's got the same thing to say right after Trump confronts him with signing up with Toyota, Volvo and Mercedes Benz........


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Every politian is crooked. We needed a change trumps in. Call me what ever but bush and obama didnt do good but weaken us. Near the end of obamas administration we got put on the list of 15 countries of worst place for christins to live. 

We have been im a war for a long time now just noone saw till trump comes in and is trying to do something. Im not all for him i see what he tryimg to do but its radical. I thought he just wanted illegals who were criminals? 

We prolly screwed either way as clintin wanted open boarders and no states but FEMA regions.


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

There is an elite class in this country and they have managed to gain control of media, politics and schools. the programming is in place and we are seeing the results. For those with a brain in their head and understand critical thinking and have some discernment, there was no other choice. Shake it up, give it a chance. He is not playing golf every other day and seems to understand the idea of follow through. The elite class is losing their minds. We shall see if there is a change.

We are all responsible for ourselves and families. We work hard for these companies and have no control over what they do to us other than to not drive for them. This is a choice, however we all have reasons that keep us in this position. Those in control of these companies are a product of that elite environment so you can discern what to expect from them.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> This guy is Hilarious !
> And informative. He could do stand up comedy !
> Chuck Schumer wasn't crying,he was Choking on his own rehearsed B.S. ! AS HE SHOULD, was painful to watch for me such shoddy theatrics !
> Inane groveling to endear himself for future power plays !
> I didn't know they stacked Fertilizer that high without E.P.A. VIOLATIONS !


I have much more where that came from "can't link videos yet", and the guy in the video is fantastic, the MSM is in panic mode, as they have been exposed for the frauds that they are.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not sure why you think because people drive for Uber they support Trump. That's really ridiculous. Nobody would ever really think something like that unless they are biased against Trump and simply want something to cry about. Uber drivers are regular people like anyone else just trying to earn money. You don't have to pledge alligiance to Trump to drive for Uber.


That's life in Seattle!! A lot of the vocal people are for division rather than finding common ground. If civil war does breakout you'd better either lie about your beliefs or keep yer mouth shut!


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

People in Seattle have begun to assume you're a Trump supporter because you drive for Uber. Yeah, no sh!t. And they get openly sh!tty toward you just having the GD placard in your window. . guess were my ratings have gone.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

JJS said:


> People in Seattle have begun to assume you're a Trump supporter because you drive for Uber. Yeah, no sh!t. And they get openly sh!tty toward you just having the GD placard in your window. . guess were my ratings have gone.


Most of them don't even know why they hate President Donald Trump "only what they heard from the corrupt MSM", and if they do, never give you any good reason, nothing but nonsensical gibberish, all feelings based nonsense, critical thinking is not their forte.


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't tell them anything about me and just ask simple common sense questions about the things they are saying. the metaphorical 2x4


----------



## UberxGTA (Dec 1, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> No,I think the MEDIA is putting people in danger.
> The results can be seen at a Mosque in Canada this morning !
> The Media throws blood in the water then blames Trump when the sharks they were awaiting arrive !
> Not civically responsible Journalism.
> ...


The honeymoon is already over. Trudeau's approval rating is sliding fast.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JJS said:


> There is an elite class in this country and they have managed to gain control of media, politics and schools. the programming is in place and we are seeing the results. For those with a brain in their head and understand critical thinking and have some discernment, there was no other choice. Shake it up, give it a chance. He is not playing golf every other day and seems to understand the idea of follow through. The elite class is losing their minds. We shall see if there is a change.
> 
> We are all responsible for ourselves and families. We work hard for these companies and have no control over what they do to us other than to not drive for them. This is a choice, however we all have reasons that keep us in this position. Those in control of these companies are a product of that elite environment so you can discern what to expect from them.


I find it sad that you believe the 'elite class' includes only left leaning progressives and not also the right leaning conservatives. Neither the 'elite' on the right or the left are fully vested in the principles of the US constitution - they see only what they want to see.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/lyft-and-ubers-immigration-ban/514889/
*Lyft and Uber's Public-Relations Battle Over the Immigration Ban*
The two ride-hailing services were seen as taking opposing positions in the controversy over President Trump's recent executive order
ADAM CHANDLER - The Atlantic - 29 January 2017

On Saturday, as demonstrators gathered at John F. Kennedy International Airport to protest President Trump's immigration ban, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) released a statement condemning the administration's controversial executive order. "By sanctioning bigotry with his unconstitutional and inhumane executive order banning Muslim refugees from seven countries, the president is putting professional drivers in more danger than they have been in any time since 9/11 when hate crimes against immigrants skyrocketed," it read...

 [ _read the full article_ ]


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> Most of them don't even know why they hate President Donald Trump "only what they heard from the corrupt MSM", and if they do, never give you any good reason, nothing but nonsensical gibberish, all feelings based nonsense, critical thinking is not their forte.


Your insight into what other people think and why is less than inspiring.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

JJS said:


> There is an elite class in this country and they have managed to gain control of media, politics and schools. the programming is in place and we are seeing the results. For those with a brain in their head and understand critical thinking and have some discernment, there was no other choice. Shake it up, give it a chance. He is not playing golf every other day and seems to understand the idea of follow through. The elite class is losing their minds. We shall see if there is a change.
> 
> We are all responsible for ourselves and families. We work hard for these companies and have no control over what they do to us other than to not drive for them. This is a choice, however we all have reasons that keep us in this position. Those in control of these companies are a product of that elite environment so you can discern what to expect from them.


Some people in Seattle are about to set fire to themselves . . .


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

JJS said:


> There is an elite class in this country and they have managed to gain control of media, politics and schools. the programming is in place and we are seeing the results. For those with a brain in their head and understand critical thinking and have some discernment, there was no other choice. Shake it up, give it a chance. He is not playing golf every other day and seems to understand the idea of follow through. The elite class is losing their minds. We shall see if there is a change.
> 
> We are all responsible for ourselves and families. We work hard for these companies and have no control over what they do to us other than to not drive for them. This is a choice, however we all have reasons that keep us in this position. Those in control of these companies are a product of that elite environment so you can discern what to expect from them.


Its all a show. Its gonna be made into "their" world. The land of the free home of the brave is gone. Its land of the elites and home to the franchise.

Everything is building building and building till war actually happens. Alot of people will die as the internet will crash and mass pandamic will happen cuz these people relyed on buisnesses and government to do everything for them. People in trasportation section r the most down to earth people as all they want is to help people and care for themselves. Millinails and liberals r giveing blue collar bad rap cuz they think cuz u not spimeless and wearing a suit u trash. No no its oppisite U TRASH U SPINELESS SUITS THAT WILL DO ANYTHING POSSABLE TO BE RICH!


----------



## UberFizzle (Sep 16, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly Uber can't win in this situation. Atleast they were trying. No matter what they do, the people against Trump's policies are going to find a way to criticize it. I'm not even a Trump supporter but if he did nothing, he would get criticized. He's not banning Muslims, he's banning non citizens from countries where more terrorist activity is occurring and originating from. We need to have borders, that's why we have a country. We can't just let every Tom, &%[email protected]!*, and Harry come in.
> 
> While I abhor a lot of things Trump has done and said, not everything he says and does is bad. This country has basically been letting everyone in. That has to stop.


It may not explicitly be labeled as a Muslim ban in the EO, but the fact that it's targeting Muslim majority countries basically makes it a Muslim ban. Additionally, there have been zero fatal terror attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump targeted with the immigration ban, further highlighting the needlessness and cruelty of the president's executive order.

Want more? Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil. And a there was a report that shows that Muslim Americans with family in backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

UberFizzle said:


> It may not explicitly be labeled as a Muslim ban in the EO, but the fact that it's targeting Muslim majority countries basically makes it a Muslim ban. Additionally, there have been zero fatal terror attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump targeted with the immigration ban, further highlighting the needlessness and cruelty of the president's executive order.
> 
> Want more? Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil. And a there was a report that shows that Muslim Americans with family in backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93


Again, it is NOT a Muslim ban, how hard is this for you to comprehend, if it was a Muslim ban than all these countries would be on the list. The Huffington post is a left wing ass wiping toilet paper rag, anyone who reads that crap for informative information needs to think again.

The population of Saudi Arabia is 28.83 million. 98%-99% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Indonesia is 249.9 million. 87.2% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Pakistan is 182.1 million. 96.4% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Turkey is 74.93 million. 98% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Morocco is 33.01 million. 98.7% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Egypt is 80 million. 88% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Uzbekistan is 30.24 million. 96.3% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Jordan is 6.45 million. 93% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. India is a little different. The population of India is 1.32 billion. 14.9% are Muslim. That seems trivial until you remember that 14.9% of 1.32 billion amounts to roughly 180 million Muslims. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. I could go on with dozens of more statistics from the roughly 40 predominately Muslim nations on the planet. The numbers clearly indicate that President Trump's Executive order on enforcing the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 in which Congress identified 7 nations and President Obama signed off on is absolutely not a "Muslim ban." It is not any more of a "Muslim ban" than suspending German nationals from entry into the United States during WWI and WWII was a "Christian ban" You can argue that the wrong nations are targeted (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) You can argue that it's an affront to the American idea of freedom that's repeated incessantly. You can argue that it's not the best solution. And may even have some unintended consequences. It is a hastily made, intellectually dishonest, and logically flawed assertion to say that there is a "Muslim ban" in place. Even the word ban is misleading. It is a 120 day suspension


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

UberFizzle said:


> It may not explicitly be labeled as a Muslim ban in the EO, but the fact that it's targeting Muslim majority countries basically makes it a Muslim ban. Additionally, there have been zero fatal terror attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump targeted with the immigration ban, further highlighting the needlessness and cruelty of the president's executive order.
> 
> Want more? Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil. And a there was a report that shows that Muslim Americans with family in backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93


The countries on the list where implemented by Barack Obama, the reason is they have no central governments to speak of, and are all infiltrated and run by ISIS, how hard is that for you to comprehend, vetting from this region of states is extremely hard and easily manipulated, reason being they have NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS to speak of. Also when Obama did the same with Iraq "6 month moratorium" during the days of mass killings by radical Muslim groups in the region, no one said anything. Now that is is Donald Trump everyone cries foul, the reason is the MSM got exposed for the frauds that they are, and they are doing anything in their power to discredit the man, which entails brainwashing the masses, who are extremely gullible like small children, never doing any research or using CRITICAL thinking. Everything that was done, was done by the books and the Constitutional laws of this nation, and for the people that do not know the history of American, America is a Constitutional Republic, time to start reading up on the Constitution and it's ideals which is the foundation of this Nation.


----------



## UberFizzle (Sep 16, 2014)

TheFixer1 said:


> Again, it is NOT a Muslim ban, how hard is this for you to comprehend, if it was a Muslim ban than all these countries would be on the list. The Huffington post is a left wing ass wiping toilet paper rag, anyone who reads that crap for informative information needs to think again.
> 
> The population of Saudi Arabia is 28.83 million. 98%-99% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Indonesia is 249.9 million. 87.2% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Pakistan is 182.1 million. 96.4% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Turkey is 74.93 million. 98% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Morocco is 33.01 million. 98.7% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Egypt is 80 million. 88% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Uzbekistan is 30.24 million. 96.3% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Jordan is 6.45 million. 93% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. India is a little different. The population of India is 1.32 billion. 14.9% are Muslim. That seems trivial until you remember that 14.9% of 1.32 billion amounts to roughly 180 million Muslims. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. I could go on with dozens of more statistics from the roughly 40 predominately Muslim nations on the planet. The numbers clearly indicate that President Trump's Executive order on enforcing the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 in which Congress identified 7 nations and President Obama signed off on is absolutely not a "Muslim ban." It is not any more of a "Muslim ban" than suspending German nationals from entry into the United States during WWI and WWII was a "Christian ban" You can argue that the wrong nations are targeted (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) You can argue that it's an affront to the American idea of freedom that's repeated incessantly. You can argue that it's not the best solution. And may even have some unintended consequences. It is a hastily made, intellectually dishonest, and logically flawed assertion to say that there is a "Muslim ban" in place. Even the word ban is misleading. It is a 120 day suspension


The only problem with your argument of these other countries is that Trump has business interests in them. That's why they're not on the list. Think about it.

In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.

If the real concern here was preventing another terrorist attack, then we should vet anyone and everyone trying to enter the country. Think about how many terrorist attacks have taken place by non-Muslims. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim.

I'd also appreciate it if you could hold a mature debate, rather than say things like "how hard is that for you to comprehend".


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

UberFizzle said:


> The only problem with your argument of these other countries is that Trump has business interests in them. That's why they're not on the list. Think about it.
> 
> In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.
> 
> ...


This has NOTHING to do with any business interests, and again is NOT A MUSLIM BAN, how hard is this for you to understand, you are seriously misguided with your blind hate for President Donald Trump,"no one hated the man before he ran for President against the globalist machine, who have brainwashed the masses to do their bidding", he can not add any other countries until his cabinet if concluded, which is a hard thing to do with the Democrats not even showing up in Congress, the 7 countries on the list where implemented by Barack Obama and where passed by CONGRESS, without congress approval this is NOT possible, why is this so HARD for you to comprehend.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Yeah I just found that email from Lyft in my spam folder. It pisses me off that they're playing cynical political games instead of actually improving their business. $1M for the American Criminal Liberties Union right after they drop rates and screw drivers over AGAIN? Eff you, "John & Logan". Eff you very much. There is no "we", (you don't even provide basic benefits, yet treat me like an employee), and I most certainly do NOT "stand with you".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> This has NOTHING to do with any business interests,


 Oh - that's just a coincidence.... ok


> and again is NOT A MUSLIM BAN, how hard is this for you to understand, you are seriously misguided with your blind hate for President Donald Trump,


 - really - you're going to continue the administrations silly semantics' claim? Fine - it's not a 'ban' it's a 'suspension' that jusy happens to ban Muslims. Happy now?


> "no one hated the man before he ran for President against the globalist machine


Obviously you are not a New Yorker, a banker or a Trump properties supplier. The man is reviled by those who have done business with him - hence the many law-suits brought against him. ...why is this so HARD for YOU to comprehend?


----------



## cheesyone (Feb 1, 2017)

FDR stopped ALL immigration, Eisenhower deported 6 million illegals, Carter cancelled student visas from and stopped immigration from Iran, Regan issued a few bans, both Bush's, Clinton, and Obama issued bans, but there was never an outcry, So why now? Because the Washington elite didn't get to choose the new President! No other reason, good, bad, or otherwise! They hate him because they didn't get to choose him, and now they will do anything to undermine his presidency. And yes, companies should stay the hell out of politics, but if they want to get involved, they should accept the fallout whatever it may be.


----------



## UberFizzle (Sep 16, 2014)

TheFixer1 said:


> This has NOTHING to do with any business interests, and again is NOT A MUSLIM BAN, how hard is this for you to understand, you are seriously misguided with your blind hate for President Donald Trump,"no one hated the man before he ran for President against the globalist machine, who have brainwashed the masses to do their bidding", he can not add any other countries until his cabinet if concluded, which is a hard thing to do with the Democrats not even showing up in Congress, the 7 countries on the list where implemented by Barack Obama and where passed by CONGRESS, without congress approval this is NOT possible, why is this so HARD for you to comprehend.


You can say it's not a Muslim ban all you want. You have a right to your views. But I disagree, as do many others (Americans and non-Americans).

Any hatred I may have for Trump is not misguided. Making blanket statements won't really get you anywhere. Any feelings I have for Trump are based on what I know or have read about him. I like to do my homework before taking a stance. So, if I were to say that I hate him, I'd have plenty of reasons to feel that way.

"&#8230; no one hated the man before he ran for President against the globalist machine". Really? Maybe you should ask the contractors he worked with. I'll leave it there. But let's assume, hypothetically, that most people loved him before he ran. As soon as he ran for presidency and made his bigoted and racist views toward minorities abundantly clear, the hatred became justifiable.

Obama's admin may have identified those countries, but he never placed a ban on them. Obama signed into law a measure placing some restrictions on certain travelers from Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria. Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Trump's order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries. It's a horrible move as it feeds right into ISIS to do more recruiting, thus putting us in more danger. And to top it all off, the government created ISIS (look at history).

By the way, the 7 banned countries are the same countries that the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs on last year. We made the refugees, but don't want anything to do with them.

You're also ignoring the fact that we're banning people who haven't harmed us.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

UberFizzle said:


> You can say it's not a Muslim ban all you want. You have a right to your views. But I disagree, as do many others (Americans and non-Americans).
> 
> Any hatred I may have for Trump is not misguided. Making blanket statements won't really get you anywhere. Any feelings I have for Trump are based on what I know or have read about him. I like to do my homework before taking a stance. So, if I were to say that I hate him, I'd have plenty of reasons to feel that way.
> 
> ...


When you can come back and back up your nonsensical statements with FACTS, like I have, then we can continue this discussion, you are making nothing more than feelings based assertions, until then all you are doing is just wasting my time.


----------



## UberFizzle (Sep 16, 2014)

TheFixer1 said:


> When you can come back and back up your nonsensical statements with FACTS, like I have, then we can continue this discussion, you are making nothing more than feelings based assertions, until then all you are doing is just wasting my time.


Facts? Did you even read anything I wrote? I think if anyone is lacking facts (or proof), it's you. I wonder if you even looked at the links I provided.

But, you're right. There are better ways to spend my time than argue with a Trump supporter.


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

Sir, I would suggest you read the EO signed by Obama and the one Signed by Trump. Same language same suspension. Obama went 6 months Trump went 4. Stop paying attention to the main media here in the US. It is the same as the state media i'm guessing you are familiar with. 

Trump is a patriot neither Republican or Democrat that is more important then the crooked parties who are interested in maintaining their importance and above all power over the people


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberFizzle said:


> It may not explicitly be labeled as a Muslim ban in the EO, but the fact that it's targeting Muslim majority countries basically makes it a Muslim ban. Additionally, there have been zero fatal terror attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump targeted with the immigration ban, further highlighting the needlessness and cruelty of the president's executive order.
> 
> Want more? Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil. And a there was a report that shows that Muslim Americans with family in backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93


There is literally NOTHING whatsoever in the order that says that only Muslims are banned. The word "Muslims" NEVER even appears in the order.

Yes, the countries named in the order are predominantly Muslim but that DOES NOT in any way, shape or form, mean that he is only banning Muslims. Yes, I get it, you don't like Trump. Yes, I get it, you have Muslim friends being affected by this. I totally get it. I don't like Trump, in fact, I hate him, but that doesn't mean you can twist and deliberately lie about what this order says. Anyone with half a brain can see that this order does not ban only Muslims from those countries from entering this country. Case Closed. End of story.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> When you can come back and back up your nonsensical statements with FACTS, like I have, then we can continue this discussion, you are making nothing more than feelings based assertions, until then all you are doing is just wasting my time.


lol... you keep posting your opinions (which is fine and appreciated) but then calling them 'facts' - when, in fact, many simply have no basis in truth - so instead of challenging people who disagree with you and question your 'facts', can we just agree to disagree? You think some of us are 'misguided' - and we think the same of you. <shrug> That's what makes the world go 'round.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

UberFizzle said:


> Facts? Did you even read anything I wrote? I think if anyone is lacking facts (or proof), it's you. I wonder if you even looked at the links I provided.
> 
> But, you're right. There are better ways to spend my time than argue with a Trump supporter.


You have proven by your posts that you could care less that NO LAWS where broken, but continue to insist otherwise, you don't have to say it out loud that you hate Donald Trump, your posts speak volumes.
As I stated, when you can come back without feelings based assertions, until then you are just like all the rest of the neo liberal lunatics who are doing nothing more than spewing HOT AIR.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lol... you keep posting your opinions (which is fine and appreciated) but then calling them 'facts' - when, in fact, many are simply have no basis in truth - so instead of challenging people who disagree with you and question your 'facts', can we just agree to disagree? You think some of us are 'misguided' - and we think the same of you. <shrug> That's what makes the world go 'round.


I am not posting OPINIONS, come again.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JJS said:


> Sir, I would suggest you read the EO signed by Obama and the one Signed by Trump. Same language same suspension. Obama went 6 months Trump went 4. Stop paying attention to the main media here in the US. It is the same as the state media i'm guessing you are familiar with.
> 
> Trump is a patriot neither Republican or Democrat that is more important then the crooked parties who are interested in maintaining their importance and above all power over the people


Business crook - Political crook.
You think there's a difference?
Anyone can wrap themselves in the flag and be recognized as a patriot by those who support their views.
It's another meaningless term.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

TheFixer1 said:


>


You can't correct a scoffer. Some people have made up their minds that they are going to criticize each and every thing Trump will ever do and they will continue to deliberately lie in order to do that. It's best to make your argument and just leave em be. They're not going to get it. The mainstream media is bombarding us with lies and most people that have no comprehension skills are going to believe it blindly.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Business crook - Political crook.
> You think there's a difference?
> Anyone can wrap themselves in the flag and be recognized as a patriot by those who support their views.
> It's another meaningless term.


Your post right there just exposed your hate for the man, so no matter what he does, even though it is in the rules of the law, you will not be happy, we get it, there is no open dialog with you, it's only one sided.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> I am not posting OPINIONS, come again.


hehe... yeah - ok, if that's what you think then it's a waste of time trying to have a real conversation with you - which is a shame.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> Your post right there just exposed your hate for the man, so no matter what he does, even though it is in the rules of the law, you will not be happy, we get it, there is no open dialog with you, it's only one sided.


Grow up and stop telling other people what they think and why. You're talking g to a 60 year old New Yorker who's watched Trump's dealings since the guy was a 20something. I'm not telling you how to 'feel' about the guy and couldn't care less if you support him personally, his work as a whole or an individual agenda item. When you tell me (or anyone else) how I should think about the man, his work or his agenda, your just being arrogant.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Grow up and stop telling other people what they think and why. You're talking g to a 60 year old New Yorker who's watched Trump's dealings since the guy was a 20something. I'm not telling you how to 'feel' about the guy and couldn't care less if you support him personally, his work as a whole or an individual agenda item. When you tell me (or anyone else) how I should think about the man, his work or his agenda, your just being arrogant.


So you are good with all the crook Democratic leftists running our state like Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio "who is under FBI investigation". I get it you have "no clue about Donald Trump", just what you read in your liberal leftist run news publications, but still hate the man because you are envious of his success, like most tax grubbing leftists. I am sure you are such a perfect man.


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

Well, I'm a patriot neither Republican or Democrat. So, I'm meaningless. The beauty here is a person can move. If you don't like it move. Certainly you may be able to find a country that will except you. You may want to look at the requirements before you move.

It seems having an open conversation with you is not possible. 

The opposite is true of what is stated. 

It is unfortunate the hatred and intolerance I continue to see in these forums.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JJS said:


> Sir, I would suggest you read the EO signed by Obama and the one Signed by Trump.


I have to respectfully disagree - they are NOT the same:

*1. Much narrower focus. *The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

*2. Not a ban. *Contrary to Trump's Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not "ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months." For one thing, refugees don't travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration's review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

*3. Grounded in specific threat.* The Obama administration's 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.

*4. Orderly, organized process.* The Obama administration's review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving cabinet and deputy cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies - including the State, Homeland Security, and Justice departments - and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a _fait accompli_. This is not just bad policymaking practice; it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: "Does this apply to green card holders?") once the train had left the station.

*5. Far stronger vetting today.* Much has been made of Trump's call for "extreme vetting" for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration's 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

[ source & full article ]


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> So you are good with all the crook Democratic leftists running our state like Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio "who is under FBI investigation". I get it you have "no clue about Donald Trump", just what you read in your liberal leftist run news publications, but still hate the man because you are envious of his success, like most tax grubbing leftists. I am sure you are such a perfect man.


yeah - you know what I think and why.
so I guess there's no further reason to speak with you since you know me so much better than I do.

So - are you going to make even one comment of the TOPIC of this thread - or just use Uberpeople.net as a soapbox for your personal politics? In other words: Do you have ANYTHING relevant to add to the conversation?

(and please spare me the notion that I don't know what the topic is about. It's a topic I started and you have hi-jacked for your own agenda)


----------



## JJS (Jan 5, 2016)

Both companies [email protected]#$ us drivers and they should have kept there mouths shut. Not smart enough though to do that. 

Stop it because you are wasting precious resources.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I have to respectfully disagree - they are NOT the same:
> 
> *1. Much narrower focus. *The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
> 
> ...


The population of Saudi Arabia is 28.83 million. 98%-99% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Indonesia is 249.9 million. 87.2% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Pakistan is 182.1 million. 96.4% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Turkey is 74.93 million. 98% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Morocco is 33.01 million. 98.7% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Egypt is 80 million. 88% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Uzbekistan is 30.24 million. 96.3% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. The population of Jordan is 6.45 million. 93% are Muslim. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. India is a little different. The population of India is 1.32 billion. 14.9% are Muslim. That seems trivial until you remember that 14.9% of 1.32 billion amounts to roughly 180 million Muslims. Their entry into the United States is not suspended by this executive order. I could go on with dozens of more statistics from the roughly 40 predominately Muslim nations on the planet. The numbers clearly indicate that President Trump's Executive order on enforcing the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 in which Congress identified 7 nations and President Obama signed off on is absolutely not a "Muslim ban." It is not any more of a "Muslim ban" than suspending German nationals from entry into the United States during WWI and WWII was a "Christian ban" You can argue that the wrong nations are targeted (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) You can argue that it's an affront to the American idea of freedom that's repeated incessantly. You can argue that it's not the best solution. And may even have some unintended consequences. It is a hastily made, intellectually dishonest, and logically flawed assertion to say that there is a "Muslim ban" in place. Even the word ban is misleading. It is a 120 day suspension.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I hear your opinion - and disagree. The statistic that matters to me is that not a single Muslim refugee has participated in any terrorist attack in the US since long before the 1980 Immigration Act was passed. Not one. As Mr. Trump is now pointing out, the Obama administration tightened security measures and vetting processes in 2012 - in response to a credible threat - and again, not a single terrorist event in the US has taken place that involved a Muslim refugee. In my view (and my view only) it is the current president's executive order that was "hastily made, intellectually dishonest, and logically flawed".
ymmv


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I hear your opinion - and disagree. The statistic that matters to me is that not a single Muslim refugee has participated in any terrorist attack in the US since long before the 1980 Immigration Act was passed. Not one. As Mr. Trump is now pointing out, the Obama administration tightened security measures and vetting processes in 2012 - in response to a credible threat - and again, not a single terrorist event in the US has taken place that involved a Muslim refugee. In my view (and my view only) it is the current president's executive order that was "hastily made, intellectually dishonest, and logically flawed".
> ymmv


You're trying to change the argument from "is this a ban on all Muslims" to whether the ban should be in place in the first place.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

JJS said:


> Both companies [email protected]#$ us drivers and they should have kept there mouths shut. though to do that.


I'm not so sure... it would be hypocritical of me to say a company's leadership/owners should stay silent on an issue I disagree with them on - and then applaud their public stands when they comment on issues I do agree with them on.


> Not smart enough


I wish I were dumb enough to build my business to international status with valuations in the billions. 



uberdriverfornow said:


> You're trying to change the argument from "is this a ban on all Muslims" to whether the ban should be in place in the first place.


Indeed - because the argument over whether it's a 'ban' (the word used by both President Trump and his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer until they were called out on it) or a 'suspension' is an argument over semantics. 
I don't care about the semantics.
I am anti-semantic.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

circle1 said:


> That's life in Seattle!! A lot of the vocal people are for division rather than finding common ground. If civil war does breakout you'd better either lie about your beliefs or keep yer mouth shut!


Here . . . THIS is what I'm talking about:

*Seattle Social Justice Warrior Demands 'Reparations' Or "We Need To Start Killing People..."*
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-reparations-or-we-need-start-killing-people


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

circle1 said:


> Here . . . THIS is what I'm talking about:
> 
> *Seattle Social Justice Warrior Demands 'Reparations' Or "We Need To Start Killing People..."*
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-reparations-or-we-need-start-killing-people


She needs to be arrested for saying ridiculous stuff like that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

circle1 said:


> Here . . . THIS is what I'm talking about:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-reparations-or-we-need-start-killing-people


Yes, we have nutcases - and angry nutcases - in our country.
Are you suggesting this woman is representative of even a small minority of people?


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes, we have nutcases - and angry nutcases - in our country.
> Are you suggesting this woman is representative of even a small minority of people?


So the facts I posted did not fit your narrative, so you reported me to the mods, typical leftist reaction.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

So just to summarize, Uber promised to actually help those drivers affected by the order while Lyft simply stated it was going to donate to the ACLU, who have done nothing for drivers whatsoever at any time in our history and with no guarantee whatsoever that ANY money will go directly to drivers while Uber also agreed to be nice and promise no surge when demand was at its highest at the airport and somehow Uber is the villain ?


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

TheFixer1 said:


> The numbers clearly indicate that President Trump's Executive order on enforcing the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 in which Congress identified 7 nations and President Obama signed off on


This sentence^ is worthy of investigation. Good point.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

circle1 said:


> Here . . . THIS is what I'm talking about:
> 
> *Seattle Social Justice Warrior Demands 'Reparations' Or "We Need To Start Killing People..."*
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-reparations-or-we-need-start-killing-people


Where do these people live ?
Since they have TELEGRAPHED their intentions ?
That makes them fair game and it is open season.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

circle1 said:


> Here . . . THIS is what I'm talking about:
> 
> *Seattle Social Justice Warrior Demands 'Reparations' Or "We Need To Start Killing People..."*
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-reparations-or-we-need-start-killing-people


Another " Hammer wielding Protestor" ?


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

UberFizzle said:


> It's a horrible move as it feeds right into ISIS to do more recruiting, thus putting us in more danger. And to top it all off, the government created ISIS (look at history).
> 
> By the way, the 7 banned countries are the same countries that the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs on last year. We made the refugees, but don't want anything to do with them.


" . . . that the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs on last year." Yes, that's a very good point. And _*where*_ were all the liberals and people in Seattle who're now screaming about "killing the White House," when Obama made that happen??


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I have to respectfully disagree - they are NOT the same:
> 
> *1. Much narrower focus. *The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
> 
> ...


Ok, now we're talking . . .


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> She needs to be arrested for saying ridiculous stuff like that.


Disagree my friend!! On the contrary, people like that need to be seen in the most public way with the most intense light possible. Give them a platform. Free speech is necessary to root-out things like fascism, war-mongering and hate.

_*THIS*_ IS WHAT LIBERALS ARE SAYING THEY OPPOSE. Hate-filled speech.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So just to summarize, Uber promised to actually help those drivers affected by the order while Lyft simply stated it was going to donate to the ACLU, who have done nothing for drivers whatsoever at any time in our history and with no guarantee whatsoever that ANY money will go directly to drivers while Uber also agreed to be nice and promise no surge when demand was at its highest at the airport and somehow Uber is the villain ?


Well, that's to _characterize_ - not summarize - but your point is well-taken.

Uber is villainous for lots of other reasons (hehe...) but not those. What a lot of people were upset with was that before the White House made its clarifications of policy and took steps to assure that people with valid residency and travel permits would not be denied entry, detained or deported, Kalanick made wishy-washy statements. Some people jumped all over that - and have been slow to back-down since the clarifications were made and Kalanick had a chance to make more even handed remarks and put Uber programs and policies in place.

The whole thing seems to me like a lot of people taking reactionary stands - and missing the overall big picture -and that it all could have been avoided if the Executive Order had been administrated and communicated better. I hope the White House administration, as it gains experience, can help avoid this kind of thing in the future.



circle1 said:


> " . . . that the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs on last year." Yes, that's a very good point. And _*where*_ were all the liberals and people in Seattle who're now screaming about "killing the White House," when Obama made that happen??


could you get any further off topic? hehe... sheesh. 'Liberals' are no more monoloithic than 'Conservatives' - please don't paint people with that broad a brush just to make an argument.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Well, that's to _characterize_ - not summarize - but your point is well-taken.
> 
> Uber is villainous for lots of other reasons (hehe...) but not those. What a lot of people were upset with was that before the White House made its clarifications of policy and took steps to assure that people with valid residency and travel permits would not be denied entry, detained or deported, Kalanick made wishy-washy statements. Some people jumped all over that - and have been slow to back-down since the clarifications were made and Kalanick had a chance to make more even handed remarks and put Uber programs and policies in place.
> 
> ...


It seems like it's more along the lines of Travis being on one of his committes as the real reason.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It seems like it's more along the lines of Travis being on one of his committes at the real reason.


I suspect he'd have been just as wishy-washy and non-committal if he weren't on the Presidents Economic Advisers Committee. Seems to me he took a 'stand' only when Lyft did.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> So the facts I posted did not fit your narrative, so you reported me to the mods, typical leftist reaction.


gee - I didn't know I had a 'narrative' - and I must have missed it if you posted anything resembling facts because all I saw was spamming of this thread with off-topic posts confronting other users who disagree with you.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I suspect he'd have been just as wishy-washy and non-committal if he weren't on the Presidents Economic Advisers Committee. Seems to me he took a 'stand' only when Lyft did.


I wouldn't characterize attempting to help out drivers affected by the ban as being wishy-wishy.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I wouldn't characterize attempting to help out drivers affected by the ban as being wishy-wishy.


You're absolutely right - and it's probably unreasonable of those who oppose Trump's policies (myself included) to 'expect' Kalanick to resign from the committee in protest.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're absolutely right - and it's probably unreasonable of those who oppose Trump's policies (myself included) to 'expect' Kalanick to resign from the committee in protest.


You mean the same Kalanick who was in bed with the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign, and how he has employed many former government lobbyists that used to work in the Obama administration.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...er-obama/index.html?client=ms-android-verizon

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...age-a-war-on-taxis/?client=ms-android-verizon

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obama-white-house-staff-corporate-jobs-118786


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> You mean the same Kalanick who was in bed with the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign, and how he has employed many former government lobbyists that used to work in the Obama administration.


The one and the same. Which is why I called him wishy-washy (and implied unprincipled) - the one who does what's best for 'Travis'.
So, what's your point?

btw - he was not in bed with the DNC - The DNC refused to make a deal with Uber during the DNC - while the RNC did make a deal with Uber. And it has been the dems who have said that the brakes need to be put on companies like Uber until a gig-economy labor standards can be developed that protects workers from exploitation)


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The one and the same. Which is why I called him wishy-washy (and implied unprincipled) - the one who does what's best for 'Travis'.
> So, what's your point?


And what exactly was your point to begin with.


----------



## Karl Marx (May 17, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> No,I think the MEDIA is putting people in danger.
> The results can be seen at a Mosque in Canada this morning !
> The Media throws blood in the water then blames Trump when the sharks they were awaiting arrive !
> Not civically responsible Journalism.
> ...


I saw this in an abandoned storefront on Bloor Street on Saturday. Like my Grand Father always said, scratch a Liberal and you'll always find a Tory.


----------



## z289sec (Apr 6, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Clearly Uber can't win in this situation. Atleast they were trying. No matter what they do, the people against Trump's policies are going to find a way to criticize it. I'm not even a Trump supporter but if he did nothing, he would get criticized. He's not banning Muslims, he's banning non citizens from countries where more terrorist activity is occurring and originating from. We need to have borders, that's why we have a country. We can't just let every Tom, &%[email protected]!*, and Harry come in.
> 
> While I abhor a lot of things Trump has done and said, not everything he says and does is bad. This country has basically been letting everyone in. That has to stop.


And Lyft can only win, if you are an idiot. Carl Icahn, one of the men key to getting Trump elected, and a member of his regulatory advisory team, invested 100 million in Lyft.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

This is for the poor confused leftists, who blame everyone else for their misfortune, except themselves.


----------



## Honu (Nov 6, 2016)

The media, judges, all playing politics right now. The fact that the judges are ignoring the law here really bothers me, it sets a precedent for future judges, on both sides, to ignore orders based on how they feel. I am not saying the travel ban was right or wrong, but the law is clear, and the ban was not a Muslim ban it is easy to see that from reading the law, and the countries it excludes. Trump has all the authority to limit immigration.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Honu said:


> The media, judges, all playing politics right now. The fact that the judges are ignoring the law here really bothers me, it sets a precedent for future judges, on both sides, to ignore orders based on how they feel. I am not saying the travel ban was right or wrong, but the law is clear, and the ban was not a Muslim ban it is easy to see that from reading the law, and the countries it excludes. Trump has all the authority to limit immigration.


First - the judges have not ruled on the merits of the case, yet They have only ruled that the plaintiff provided enough evidence to to show that they are likely to succeed at trial - and are therefore entitled to a restraining order. They still have to win at trial to make the restraining order a permanent order. That's the how the law works. The judges aren't "ignoring the law" as you suggest - they are enfocing the law.

Second, riiiight... four highly educated and experienced judges have ruled that the State of Washington is likely to prevail in their claim that the Executive Order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the State of Washington and its citizens... four judges from three different generations - 2 republicans and 2 democrats - all reaching the same conclusion... and you think they are ignoring the law.

Sounds to me like you've confused your own political opinion with "the law".

Just because we don't like the decision a court reaches, doesn't mean the court is wrong on the law (President Trump would be well advised to understand that). For example, most people agree SCOTUS ruling in the 'Citizens United' case was detrimental to the country (as it allows for unlimited funds to flow in to political campaigns from corporations) - but most everyone also understands that because of the way the First Amendment is written, the ruling was legally correct.

Sometimes the constitution needs to be amended in order to provide a legal basis for things the authors could not foresee. That's why the authors made it possible to amend the thing - and made damn sure amending it was very difficult and time consuming to do.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Just because we don't like the decision a court reaches, doesn't mean the court is wrong on the law (President Trump would be well advised to understand that). For example, most people agree SCOTUS ruling in the 'Citizens United' case was detrimental to the country (as it allows for unlimited funds to flow in to political campaigns from corporations) - but most everyone also understands that because of the way the First Amendment is written, the ruling was legally correct.


Hmmm . . . your analysis is apt. However, let us not lose sight of the fact the the CU case was 5-4. See? Four of the Justices disagreed that this was "the way the First Amendment is written", or that, "the ruling was legally correct . . ." savvy?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

circle1 said:


> the CU case was 5-4. See? Four of the Justices disagreed that this was "the way the First Amendment is written", or that, "the ruling was legally correct . . ." savvy?


That's why the court isn't made up of just one justice. Unless we think the authors were stupid, then it's safe to assume that ambiguity on certain issues (maybe areas of 'original disagreement'?) is intentional and the authors meant for those areas to be interpreted by their successors, and in light of future time.

We do not look at at a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling as being any less legitimate than a unanimous ruling, any more than we look at an election as being less than legitimate because the margin of victory is small. We accept the results (even if we are not happy with them) and then continue on in pursuit of 'a more perfect nation'. Change is built into our system - Jefferson believed strongly in revolution by the people, and the constitution he, Madison, Paine and Adams gave us provides people with the power to do just that, without violence.


----------



## circle1 (Sep 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's why the court isn't made up of just one justice. Unless we think the authors were stupid, then it's safe to assume that ambiguity on certain issues (maybe areas of 'original disagreement'?) is intentional and the authors meant for those areas to be interpreted by their successors, and in light of future time.
> 
> We do not look at at a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling as being any less legitimate than a unanimous ruling, any more than we look at an election as being less than legitimate because the margin of victory is small. We accept the results (even if we are not happy with them) and then continue on in pursuit of 'a more perfect nation'. Change is built into our system - Jefferson believed strongly in revolution by the people, and the constitution he, Madison, Paine and Adams gave us provides people with the power to do just that, without violence.


Nobody's saying it wasn't legitimate. Just the same; one vote away from the case going in the opposite direction is an _indicator_ of how strong the argument _*for*_ Citizens United was. Weigh it in the balance. Put another way, had a different President been elected somewhere in the past, or had some historical sitting President been swayed to appoint someone else to the SCOTUS (or insert another alternate universe scenario here), then the case w(c)ould've gone the other way. My point being-the reasoning behind CU was weak and happened to be put in front of the SCOTUS at just the right time in history, no doubt planned that way for a decade or two as the PTB knew they had to have certain types of Justices on that bench to get the ruling they needed.

Would you not agree that the reason there were so many Bernie Sanders supporters is because, in addition to all the other cultural and societal changes sought after, they wanted to see CU overturned . . . ahhh, there's the concept I was looking for . . . *o v e r t u r n e d*!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

circle1 said:


> one vote away from the case going in the opposite direction is an _indicator_ of how strong the argument _*for*_ Citizens United was.


And to my point... if the court were a panel of one judge, it still would have been just one vote away from going the other way. 


> Would you not agree that the reason there were so many Bernie Sanders supporters is because, in addition to all the other cultural and societal changes sought after, they wanted to see CU overturned . . . ahhh, there's the concept I was looking for . . . *o v e r t u r n e d*!


No, I don't think I would agree with that at all. Too many assumptions in there - like assuming that everyone who voted for Bernie would have voted for Hillary (or DJT)... and we know that not to be true. It doesn't really matter how many people want to see CU overturned (and most people on both the right and left would like to see a different ruling)... the problem with CU isn't political, it's legal. The constitution protects all free speech (literally interpreted by the courts to mean 'political speech'. SCOTUS finds (correctly) that in light of the first amendment, limiting the amount of money that anyone spends on free speech (even through a private or public company) is tantamount to limiting free speech itself. A future SCOTUS would have to find a basis in law to reverse the conclusion of this ruling - and that's not easy to do once a SCOTUS has set a precedent. I'm not sure congress could even craft a law that would satisfy the court - and that leaves only a constitutional amendment - and that can take decades.


----------

