Thread: Univision drops Miss USA pageant over Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants

I think NBC has done a great disservice to the contestants and the city of Baton Rouge. But hey, this is show business, right? Oh no, WAIT, this is not show business, in show business, the show must go on!!

When networks decide to can a project and dump a lot of young talented women because a political candidate exercised his freedom of speech under the First Amendment about a huge problem creating a disaster for the American People, then hey, what's a citizen to do but:

BOYCOTT NBC!

No, I'm no longer a supporter of Donald Trump because of his views on women's rights and abortion. But I support his free speech to express his accurate opinion on illegal immigration which does in fact bring in drugs, criminals and rapists.

For a network to cancel a show that happens once a year and disappoint these young women and the city of Baton Rouge over political free speech on immigration, the free speech the network survives on, the free speech they and other members of our free press depend upon for their very livelihood, is pretty amazing. Trump isn't their employee, he's not speaking for the network or reflecting in anyway on the "views" of NBC, and he's not a racist and nothing he said was wrong or even inappropriate. Would I have said it differently, well, yes, but that's how Trump talks to get his point across.

So, how do you legally breach a contract like that?

http://www.alipac.us/f12/mexico-pull...ageant-320785/

Originally Posted by Judy

No, I'm no longer a supporter of Donald Trump because of his views on women's rights and abortion. But I support his free speech to express his accurate opinion on illegal immigration which does in fact bring in drugs, criminals and rapists.

While I understand that and not happy on it either no other candidate is a real supporter of any of that either except maybe Elizabeth Warren. But the truth is we will never have a candidate that will match every issue we have so we have to choose what issue is more likely to save or doom our country. A new President can't screw up abortion really or take away women's rights, they don't have that kind of power with the Constitution and the courts already having long standing precedent that won't be changed. So what issue is likely to doom our country to utter failure and who is the best choice for handling that?

To me immigration and trade agreements are the biggest threat to our country surviving with the next group of issues being welfare and bad government money management. Immigration deals with population, economy, jobs, and wage growth. Trade agreements deal with the same exact things. That makes those the #1 issue for me (and don't misunderstand, I'm not saying to just end legal immigration). Next is the defecit and how much wasteful spending their is which includes welfare and those gaming the system. That also will doom our country to going bankrupt.

Abortion is a non starter issue for a President as a President could only veto or sign a bill and that fight is now really a state fight. The law is already well set on it and can't be changed other then an Amendment which we know isn't going to happen on either side of the debate. Women's rights won't be changed either as laws are already in place along with a Constitutional understanding on the issue. Hence that is also a non starter issue. This means really abortion and women's rights is really just speaking points to drag away from the real serious country dooming issues.

So would you support someone because of issues that really won't be changed either way and are just talking points? Or support someone on what is currently desperately needed to save the country as a whole? One has to remember that there will never be the perfect candidate or perfect President.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

While I understand that and not happy on it either no other candidate is a real supporter of any of that either except maybe Elizabeth Warren. But the truth is we will never have a candidate that will match every issue we have so we have to choose what issue is more likely to save or doom our country. A new President can't screw up abortion really or take away women's rights, they don't have that kind of power with the Constitution and the courts already having long standing precedent that won't be changed. So what issue is likely to doom our country to utter failure and who is the best choice for handling that?

To me immigration and trade agreements are the biggest threat to our country surviving with the next group of issues being welfare and bad government money management. Immigration deals with population, economy, jobs, and wage growth. Trade agreements deal with the same exact things. That makes those the #1 issue for me (and don't misunderstand, I'm not saying to just end legal immigration). Next is the defecit and how much wasteful spending their is which includes welfare and those gaming the system. That also will doom our country to going bankrupt.

Abortion is a non starter issue for a President as a President could only veto or sign a bill and that fight is now really a state fight. The law is already well set on it and can't be changed other then an Amendment which we know isn't going to happen on either side of the debate. Women's rights won't be changed either as laws are already in place along with a Constitutional understanding on the issue. Hence that is also a non starter issue. This means really abortion and women's rights is really just speaking points to drag away from the real serious country dooming issues.

So would you support someone because of issues that really won't be changed either way and are just talking points? Or support someone on what is currently desperately needed to save the country as a whole? One has to remember that there will never be the perfect candidate or perfect President.

The effort to change abortion laws is enormous through the Republican Party because of a guy named James Bopp, who represents through his law firm, all these pro-life organizations. I found his resume on the internet and he has over 40 of these organizations that he listed in his resume and probably has more he didn't name who wanted to remain anonymous. It was shocking. So who is James Bopp?

He's a two-bit lawyer from Indiana who decided in the 70's to build a law practice representing pro-life groups. He then decided that the way to do this was to infiltrate the Republican Party and instigate an anti-abortion tactic and use the Republican Party to obtain results for his law firm clients. He first got himself elected as a Delegate. Then he got himself nominated to the Platform Committee. Then he got hired as General Counsel for the Republican National Committee, then elected as Vice Chairman of the RNC. He also got himself hired as General Counsel for the Republican Governor's Association.

So I called and wrote a letter to the RNC exposing this conflict of interest a few years ago. Boom, he was out.

Now, he's just been brought back in as a "volunteer" non-compensated Assistant General Counsel of the RNC with that moron from Wisconsin, Reince Priebus, singing his praises.

So, I'll have to contact them again and explain that "volunteer" doesn't solve the conflict of interest because he's still being paid by his clients to manipulate RNC policy, contributions to candidates, platform issues, and all the rest and is still under a conflict of interest in that position.

The US House of Representatives can't pass Trey Gowdy's bill that authorizes states to enforce US immigration law, but they just passed the 20 week fetus bill and sent it to the Senate.

States with Republican Governors and legislatures have all passed laws that severely impede and restrict abortion rights, so the abortion right is in great peril with the next President who like what Trump said he would do is appoint Supreme Court Justices with his view against abortion and if you're against abortion procedures and want to ban or severely restrict them, then you are against women, because what that means is you want to force a pregnant girl or woman into childbirth against her will, risk her life, change her life and burden her in ways that are purely barbaric which means you don't care at all about that girl or that woman, have no respect for what she wants or needs, and view her as merely a reproductive vessel.

So to Trump I say, if you no longer believe in abortion, then don't have one. But how dare you think that you are representing the people of the United States, when you have no respect at all for the majority of our population who are females?

I'm so sorry, but I can not support a Pro-Life Anti-Abortion candidate for President of the United States that wants to force pregnant girls and women into childbirth against their will. Is Trump so out of touch with the reality of the situation that he doesn't understand this is what he's doing? I don't think so. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. Trump today is not the Trump we all love from 1999. He's different. Can he re-find himself and get straight? We'll see, but I'm no longer on his bumper, I'm not even in his corner. I'll support his positions and applaud him when I think he deserves it, and I will cheer and give him everything he deserves on his trade and immigration stances, except my vote because of his position on abortion. It was his choice to lose my vote and the votes of millions of other women and men who support them, who can either make or break a candidacy.

If no one believes me on that, just ask Mitt Romney. He didn't lose because of the "latino vote", he lost because he lost the "women vote".

Macy's cuts ties with Trump over Mexican immigration comments

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves as he arrives at a house party June 30 in Bedford, N.H.
(Jim Cole / Associated Press)


By STEPHEN BATTAGLIO contact the reporter


Macy's is joining the line of companies cutting ties with Donald Trump over the real estate mogul's comments about Mexican immigrants.

lRelated
COMPANY TOWN NBC dumps Donald Trump for making derogatory comments about immigrants SEE ALL RELATED


In this case, it's neckties. The retailer has marketed a line of menswear with the Trump label since 2004. But in a statement issued Wednesday, Macy's said it was "disappointed and distressed" over Trump's June 16 remarks regarding U.S. immigration policy in which he made derogatory remarks about Mexicans. He said Mexican immigrants were bringing drug and crime into the U.S.

Univision cuts ties with Donald Trump, Miss USA pageant over Mexican remarks

"We have no tolerance for discrimination in any form," Macy's said in a statement.

Trump made the comments at the kickoff of his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination and has been taking heat ever since.

Trump has already lost business from Univision, which will not air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants. NBC, Trump's partners in the pageants, has also announced it will sever ties with Trump, and will keep him off his hit reality show "Celebrity Apprentice." Mexican TV companies Televisa and TV Ora have also parted ways with Trump.

The move by Macy's is a sign that the Trump brand name, a major source of income for the billionaire, is becoming tarnished as a result of the controversy.

The ties and shirts in the Trump line were still on the Macy's website Wednesday at discounted prices.

Trump has showed no sign of backing away from his immigration view. In a Tuesday interview on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," he said, "It's totally accurate. ... The border is a disaster."

Donald Trump sues Univision for dropping Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants

In response to the Macy's announcement, Trump issued a tweet that said, "We must have strong borders & stop illegal immigration now!"

Trump has filed a $500-million lawsuit against Univision, saying its decision to dump his pageants is a politically motivated attempt to squelch free speech. Univision's principal owner, Haim Saban, is a supporter and fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...701-story.html

Judy, while I understand where your coming from in truth most pro abortion people actually support a 20-24 week abortion ban. Its only a small number that is completely anti abortion and a small number that is for abortion up to delivery date. But to many if they can't decide in the first 5-6 months to get an abortion then that's their problem. At 5-6 months there is lots of kicking and movement going on which to many they see as life and find it acceptable to have some restrictions of that sort. I've been pro choice for years as have many of my friends and we have had this discussion many times and people seem to think having a cut off date is acceptable and even good.

With that said going any farther then that won't be allowed especially by women. That ship has long sailed and the only bit that is left is limiting 3rd trimester abortions unless mother's life is in danger.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Judy, while I understand where your coming from in truth most pro abortion people actually support a 20-24 week abortion ban. Its only a small number that is completely anti abortion and a small number that is for abortion up to delivery date. But to many if they can't decide in the first 5-6 months to get an abortion then that's their problem. At 5-6 months there is lots of kicking and movement going on which to many they see as life and find it acceptable to have some restrictions of that sort. I've been pro choice for years as have many of my friends and we have had this discussion many times and people seem to think having a cut off date is acceptable and even good.

With that said going any farther then that won't be allowed especially by women. That ship has long sailed and the only bit that is left is limiting 3rd trimester abortions unless mother's life is in danger.

The 20 week fetus laws and bills put it in the second trimester. The US Supreme Court put it in the states rights at 24 weeks which is the third trimester.

Pregnancy and childbirth always puts the woman's life in danger.

Its only a small number that is completely anti abortion and a small number that is for abortion up to delivery date. But to many if they can't decide in the first 5-6 months to get an abortion then that's their problem.

Is that really what you and your friends want to tell a 13 year old girl with an unwanted pregnancy she wants to terminate but who doesn't want to tell her parents or whose parents won't give her the money to pay for an abortion?

Is that really what you and your friends want to tell a 19 year old girl with an unwanted pregnancy who already works 2 jobs to support her 3 kids she already has?

Is that really what you and your friends want to tell US taxpayers who pay for most of these childbirths but are denied the common sense to pay for abortions when a financial need exists?

And they want the States and federal government to have the power to create these anomalies over an issue that only impacts less than .01% of unwanted pregnancies that for a variety of reasons are terminated in the third trimester, less than 100 a year?

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06...tatistics.html

Do they really want to allow the government the power to dictate such a personal, private decision that in more cases than not would become a taxpayers burden, that would risk the woman's life even though a bunch of bureaucrats right out of Rosemary's Baby said it wouldn't, that forces a girl or woman to go through that process that will change her life in ways she doesn't want or need or can stomach or tolerate for the rest of her life?

In your next discussion on the topic, you might mention that it's always "their problem" until it becomes yours.

But you're right on the fact that women won't tolerate it. It's why Mitt Romney lost in 2012. It's why Trump could have otherwise won in 2016. They're big boys. It was their choice to throw an election over the issue of a girl or woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus the power of any government to force her into childbirth against her will. What next? Dungeons where they stage and detain them for 6 months? Tracking devices during the pregnancy to ensure they don't escape to a state or another country where they can have the procedure? Murder charges?

Regardless of public opinion on the subject of the whens and under what circumstances, the people behind this movement are not the type of people who should have the power over our governments, let alone the people of the United States, least of all pregnant girls or women who for whatever reason do not want to be forced into childbirth against their will, who are the only ones qualified to decide the whens and circumstances of having a baby or not having one, precisely because at that point in time, it is "their problem", and only theirs to solve.

Judy wrote:

Is that really what you and your friends want to tell a 13 year old girl with an unwanted pregnancy she wants to terminate but who doesn't want to tell her parents or whose parents won't give her the money to pay for an abortion?

At 13 years of age the parents better darn well be involved!!! Someone giving my 13 year old daughter an abortion without my approval better expect a lawsuit! A child should never have the right to make such a decision without parental involvement and anyone that thinks otherwise is not thinking clearly (IMO).

But you're right on the fact that women won't tolerate it. It's why Mitt Romney lost in 2012.

Pure speculation!

Let me ask you a question, Judy. In your opinion, when does an unborn baby have rights? From what I can tell your all about the support of abortion up until delivery. Am I misreading you or are you against abortion when a baby has a chance, however small, of surviving outside the womb?