More people have been fired from government positions for saying political-incorrect things, after work hours, than for saying PC things. Where is their protection from persecution for their jerk-ish speech? (or tweets...)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook, Tech CEOs and Top Republicans Attend Secretive Meeting About Donald Trump
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More people have been fired from government positions for saying political-incorrect things, after work hours, than for saying PC things. Where is their protection from persecution for their jerk-ish speech? (or tweets...)
Their first amendment rights prevent them from being wrongfully jailed or prosecuted by the government. When they are hired they are willfully employed by the government under a contract independent of the employees first amendment rights. They cannot be jailed for what they say in public office, however the government and those in charge are not persecuting them by terminating a mutually agreed upon contract.
Again, inform yourself how the first amendment works before you blindly cite it.
I am totally down with the first amendment in every case. I actually wish more European countries such as Ireland, my own, were as absolute on this as the USA. Damn fine constitution you have over there. (That said I would rather live in the EU, but you guys actually have a stronger foundation. Europe seems to be a great society in spite of itself!)
Anyone should have the right to be a racist bigot as much as they like. Just hope they also enjoy getting hit with numerous fact based rebuttals from individuals such as myself.
Successful indeed, especially if you compare him against the people who inherit big money or even hit the lotto jackpot, only to end up broke some number of years later.
But the bigger indication of his success is a fact that most people take the exact opposite way from what it indicates: that Trump has survived several business bankruptcies, and still come out way ahead. That's the mark of a real businessman, one willing to take risks, but win overall in the end.
Steve Jobs learned much the same when he had to fold both Next's and Pixar's hardware groups (laying off a bunch of hardware engineers). Steve probably wouldn't have become the same businessman he did without taking those risks on eventually-failed hardware projects, and learning from that.
Former congress-critters and governors have only lost other people's money, not the same at all as risking and losing some of your own.
That Trump's pants are on fire.
They voted for President Obama twice, yes. They'd vote for him again today. They're probably going to vote for a slightly more progressive extension of his policies in November. Working towards the government the Constitution says we believe we deserve seems like a long haul but we'll get there eventually.
It's possible Monsanto may be less happy in future thanks to Sanders moving Clinton at least somewhat to the left. At least I hope they're less happy. I'm not sure I'll rely on the government to strive for that. I'm willing to work with NGOs towards that end. They have deeper pockets than I do once my paltry contributions get pooled with others who would also like to see the powers of our oligarchy reined in.
Stalin would love your interpretation. "We don't silence dissidents. We just offer to re-assign them to some most excellent new job positions at camps in Northern Siberia."
Those types of contracts should be illegal (just like government employers can't write or enforce contracts violating the U.S. 14th Amendment).
Most successful business leaders have had multiple failures. Most government leaders have had multiple failures. The difference is when private businesses fail taxpayers aren't normally on the hook for it... at least not until the last couple of decades.
Yes. Tyranny of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Majority_Rule.aspx
If you're going to argue politics, you may want to know what you are arguing about before spouting ad hominem attacks.
BL.
How do you go bankrupt if you're making 20% net profit? All your costs are factored in to that calculation so we're talking pure profit!
If you are talking about provisions of the Hatch Act, then their "protection from persecution" rests in their ability to read that act and understand the extent to which it applies to them. If it does apply to them, they are informed at point of employment. It's not like some fraternity's snipe hunt or similar "mission impossible" hazing of newbies.
There is so much fail here it is hard to believe. Have you even read the 14th Amendment? because it sounds like you haven't. And if you haven't, you're the type of person that Trump wants supporting him, because he loves the poorly educated and uneducated.
There is absolutely nothing in the 14th regrading writing or enforcing contracts. In fact, the only thing close to what you are stating is regarding the public debt of the country. So how about reading up on the Constitution before spouting off drivel like this.
BL.
Based on your own links provided the US has the systems in place to safeguard against the made up "tyranny of the majority".
I also find your use of the term "tyranny of the majority" to be a micro aggression.
Government employment is subject to contract with the government. I don't know why this is so difficult for you. Also, do not forget, first amendment rights are modified. You have never been able to say whatever you want. For example, you can't openly divulge government secrets and hide behind the first amendment. You can't incite a riot, either. The terms of your employment with the federal government are not subject to the first amendment as you cannot be jailed for saying something controversial while on the job.
Tell me you failed out of the US education system, because this is so basic.
We have. Hence why Prop. 8 should be a refresher for you regarding "the will of the people". By your own reckoning in this post, that 'will' failed, due to us having those safeguards in place (and rightfully so).
And "tyranny of the majority" is actually used to describe the dangers of what a direct democracy brings. Even James Madison alluded to that, as reasons to why we need a Bill of Rights, let alone forming this country as a Consitutional Republic.
So just to be clear, your statement above contradicts your previous statement about "the will of the people".
BL.
So he claimed he was worth $500 Million when he started out?
That's starting with $500 million?.... Not $1 Million loan, and not a quarter share of a $200 Million estate before taxes?
There is a gap from his "loan" of $1 Million to turning it into $500 Million. Lots of gaps, Lots of good business by Trump to make that $500 Million I would say, and lots of bogus calculations thrown at us after that.
It's all bullcrxp anyways, it's a rather poor argument IMHO.
Trump is a good businessman. This is very obvious I think.
Last edited:
We already have gridlock...why change anything now? Too many lifers in Congress (on both sides). It's been an 'old boys club' with too many deals in the back room.
Trump running could get the Demos out to vote in a frenzy. Popcorn time!
so you feel that it's ok for the majority to decide how another person should live their life?
Lots of ways... For your education, try could try looking at a list of the most profitable companies on the Fortune 500 list from 20 or so years ago and count the percentage that are no longer around.
The most important statement on financial reports is this:
"Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results"
He's actually not a good businessman because he couldn't outperform what he should have gotten?
The Forbes article started when he had $500 million and he got to $20 billion. A different article used his declared worth of $200 million in the '70s and if he had simply invested that money way back then, he would be worth $12 billion. The article also points out people in a similar life trajectory now have way more wealth than he. At any rate, the point is, he isn't the business genius he claims. How is he a good businessman when he has so many failed businesses, four company bankruptcies (where he had to sell off his assets to make payments), being sued for a bogus university, being sued for taking people's money for luxury condos and then not finishing the projects, etc. etc. Nowadays, much of his money is earned just for licensing his name to other people to give them a sheen of success. But that sheen is worth the same as all the brass he uses in his buildings to pretend it is gold.
OK, so I nearly flunked out of 5th grade (*) at the public school. But there are far more educated people than either of us (some formerly and perhaps currently on the U.S Supreme Court) that would not take your side on the issue of free speech (even if the speaker is a jerk) outside of the workplace. Or on a political stump.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? A cap on net profit margin doesn't impact a company's ability to generate revenue or compete on price etc... What it does prevent is a company chasing profit over all else!
Again, I don't mind gridlock - Trump golfing for 4 years is better than what we have now. I just want the H-1B visa program shut down. To many tech workers are being shafted by the injection of low cost labor in the US labor market. (Please see my earlier posts). When the Apple/Facebook/Google oligarch society is playing fairly in the US tech labor market, then I'll think about where this country needs to go next.. until then I don't care about my failed country - not in the least bit.