5 ms·

I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false

I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false.

anjc 10y ago
Yeah again, Lyft's board is appointed with obligations to the company and the shareholders. Companies can have an ethos of social responsibility, but the board isn't there with an obligation to social responsibility, or to oppose politicians. When a non-profitable company is spending company funds based on the board's personal moral code...I'd have significant issues.
- facetube 10y ago
  The only moral code here is fact: contrary to the administration's claims, the September 11th attacks did not originate in – or have a material connection to – these countries. Citing the September 11th attacks as a reason to restrict immigration from these countries does not follow logically, and therefore must be opposed on a factual basis. The claim is not true.
  - anjc 10y ago
    What's that have to do with Lyft? It doesn't matter how principled your opposition here is...boards have obligations, and this isn't one of them.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It depends on the purpose of the company. Companies have purposes beyond simply increasing shareholder value: they have goals as to how they're going to run their business, which the board understands. I don't know what the details are in this case. But the argument that everything boils down to pure, unrestrained pursuit of profit is ultimately hollow and soulless and results in all manner of abuses.
      - anjc 10y ago
        Yeah absolutely. I'm guessing that "Oppose Trump" isn't in the memorandum of association though. I'm putting myself into the shoes of a large investor who isn't getting returns.
        grzm 10y ago
        I don't think it's fair to describe Lyft's donation and letter as broadly as "Oppose Trump". The letter clearly addresses "Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin.… We stand firmly against these actions". I agree I don't know what's in the memorandum of association. It likely doesn't specifically mention immigration issues, either. It may include language concerning ethics and human rights, which Lyft could choose to interpret as including this action. I think reasonable people can disagree on this. I recognize that now includes two hypotheticals, so I'll stop there as ignorant speculation degenerates quickly.
        anjc 10y ago
        Yeah I'm only speculating too, so I'll stop also. My main issue was just with a poster saying that they had an obligation to give this donation. It's really only an obligation to fund social issues if that's what their company was, effectively, somewhat set up to do. There's every chance that this haphazard donation could blow back in their face, in which case someone will be in a spot of bother.

I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false.

anjc 10y ago

Yeah again, Lyft's board is appointed with obligations to the company and the shareholders. Companies can have an ethos of social responsibility, but the board isn't there with an obligation to social responsibility, or to oppose politicians. When a non-profitable company is spending company funds based on the board's personal moral code...I'd have significant issues.

facetube 10y ago
The only moral code here is fact: contrary to the administration's claims, the September 11th attacks did not originate in – or have a material connection to – these countries. Citing the September 11th attacks as a reason to restrict immigration from these countries does not follow logically, and therefore must be opposed on a factual basis. The claim is not true.
- anjc 10y ago
  What's that have to do with Lyft? It doesn't matter how principled your opposition here is...boards have obligations, and this isn't one of them.
  - grzm 10y ago
    It depends on the purpose of the company. Companies have purposes beyond simply increasing shareholder value: they have goals as to how they're going to run their business, which the board understands. I don't know what the details are in this case. But the argument that everything boils down to pure, unrestrained pursuit of profit is ultimately hollow and soulless and results in all manner of abuses.
    - anjc 10y ago
      Yeah absolutely. I'm guessing that "Oppose Trump" isn't in the memorandum of association though. I'm putting myself into the shoes of a large investor who isn't getting returns.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I don't think it's fair to describe Lyft's donation and letter as broadly as "Oppose Trump". The letter clearly addresses "Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin.… We stand firmly against these actions". I agree I don't know what's in the memorandum of association. It likely doesn't specifically mention immigration issues, either. It may include language concerning ethics and human rights, which Lyft could choose to interpret as including this action. I think reasonable people can disagree on this. I recognize that now includes two hypotheticals, so I'll stop there as ignorant speculation degenerates quickly.
        anjc 10y ago
        Yeah I'm only speculating too, so I'll stop also. My main issue was just with a poster saying that they had an obligation to give this donation. It's really only an obligation to fund social issues if that's what their company was, effectively, somewhat set up to do. There's every chance that this haphazard donation could blow back in their face, in which case someone will be in a spot of bother.