4 ms·

Your first example is a contradiction between state law and federal law. Large public companies seemed to stay out of this business for that reason. Your seco

Your first example is a contradiction between state law and federal law. Large public companies seemed to stay out of this business for that reason. Your second example was also not something large public companies were doing consistently and I don't think that has changed with a different administration. "Uber" is not any sort of statement or reasoning in support of what you are saying.

scarface74 7y ago
Uber is a national company whose business model was predicated on breaking local laws. The Koch Brothers run multiple national companies and had one of their companies recently raided for employing illegal immigrants. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-ice-raids-koch-foods-20190816-xrjziewj4zeq3klhnurg2f5jry-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-ice-raids-koc...
- BubRoss 7y ago
  > Uber is a national company whose business model was predicated on breaking local laws. Nope > The Koch Brothers run multiple national companies and had one of their companies recently raided for employing illegal immigrants. Are you implying they did this because the previous administration 'did not care' ? That's a large assumption.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So Uber wasn’t breaking local taxi laws for years? Everyone knows that farmers and companies employing low skill labor have been employing illegal immigrants for decades. Other presidents both Republican and Democrats have looked the other way because both sets of employers would not be able to find enough cheap labor otherwise. No one wants to harm the farm belt because of their outsized electoral college influence.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      I don't think anything Uber did related to selectively ignoring laws when a new administration took office. How is any of this about large companies not caring about laws because of a new president?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Well seeing that your question doesn’t have anything to do with the thread... My post: “ It’s not about the regulations, it’s about whether the executive branch chooses to enforce them and how much.” And the response to: “ That's really not true, you can't run a giant public company and start breaking laws because you think 'the current executive branch won't care'.” What does it have to do with “changing” the executive branch? The “executive branch” is not just at the federal level. It’s also at the state and the local level where the president/governor/mayor has a lot of influence on what gets enforced.
        BubRoss 7y ago
        Ah, so now it's about state governments somehow and for some reason. It seems like every time you bring something hyperbolic and generally untrue that you can't back up, you shift to something else.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Your thesis was that no large company would operate illegally because the law wasn’t enforced by the executive branch. Then you went off on a tangent about a change in the executive branch. Is Koch Industries not large enough?

scarface74 7y ago

Uber is a national company whose business model was predicated on breaking local laws. The Koch Brothers run multiple national companies and had one of their companies recently raided for employing illegal immigrants. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-ice-raids-koch-foods-20190816-xrjziewj4zeq3klhnurg2f5jry-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-ice-raids-koc...

BubRoss 7y ago
> Uber is a national company whose business model was predicated on breaking local laws. Nope > The Koch Brothers run multiple national companies and had one of their companies recently raided for employing illegal immigrants. Are you implying they did this because the previous administration 'did not care' ? That's a large assumption.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So Uber wasn’t breaking local taxi laws for years? Everyone knows that farmers and companies employing low skill labor have been employing illegal immigrants for decades. Other presidents both Republican and Democrats have looked the other way because both sets of employers would not be able to find enough cheap labor otherwise. No one wants to harm the farm belt because of their outsized electoral college influence.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    I don't think anything Uber did related to selectively ignoring laws when a new administration took office. How is any of this about large companies not caring about laws because of a new president?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Well seeing that your question doesn’t have anything to do with the thread... My post: “ It’s not about the regulations, it’s about whether the executive branch chooses to enforce them and how much.” And the response to: “ That's really not true, you can't run a giant public company and start breaking laws because you think 'the current executive branch won't care'.” What does it have to do with “changing” the executive branch? The “executive branch” is not just at the federal level. It’s also at the state and the local level where the president/governor/mayor has a lot of influence on what gets enforced.
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        Ah, so now it's about state governments somehow and for some reason. It seems like every time you bring something hyperbolic and generally untrue that you can't back up, you shift to something else.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Your thesis was that no large company would operate illegally because the law wasn’t enforced by the executive branch. Then you went off on a tangent about a change in the executive branch. Is Koch Industries not large enough?