Goldman's Blankfein & Trump

Among the many prominent companies and CEO's Goldman Sachs has joined the ranks denouncing Donald Trump's recent immigration ban.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s more than 34,000 employees arrived to work Monday to find a voice mail waiting. "This is Lloyd," it began.

Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein then delivered a denunciation of President Donald Trump's immigration ban, which restricts immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries and freezes the U.S. refugee program. "This is not a policy we support," he said. "Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be."

With that, Mr. Blankfein, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton for president, drew a sharp distinction between himself and Goldman alums who have embraced Mr. Trump.

Personal politics aside, looking at this from a business stand point this looks to be the main reason for their response... or perhaps it is Blankfein's own background that has pushed him into this response.

Their responses reflect that in finance and tech, big, global companies rely on the ability to recruit overseas and move their employees around freely. Goldman has identified about 100 employees world-wide that might fall under the umbrella of the ban, a person familiar with the matter said Monday.

Goldman's Blankfein Gives a Wall Street Voice to Immigration-Ban Opposition

I have to wonder if this will impact the companies relations with the White House, or if its going to be business as usual. Donald Trump came out strongly against Wall St. during the campaign, but has since carried on the tradition of recruiting form Goldman.

What do you think monkeys, will this get in the way of government Sachs relations?

Comments (87)

Jan 31, 2017

If Trump intends on de-regulating Wallstreet in the near term, I don't think it would matter. They'll always find a way to profit and come out on top.

Jan 31, 2017

I am sure main streets heart is just warming over the squid complaining that 100 out of 33,000 employees is inconvenienced by Trump doing a 90 day, temporary ban on people coming from failed, ISIS riddled states.

Goldman should probably shut the fuck up. And considering they basically put it all on the line trying to get Hillary elected, I wouldn't take anything they have to say seriously.

Best Response
Jan 31, 2017
TNA:

I am sure main streets heart is just warming over the squid complaining that 100 out of 33,000 employees is inconvenienced by Trump doing a 90 day, temporary ban on people coming from failed, ISIS riddled states.

Goldman should probably shut the fuck up. And considering they basically put it all on the line trying to get Hillary elected, I wouldn't take anything they have to say seriously.

Has anyone ever punched you in the face?

    • 28
    • 10
Feb 1, 2017

Defeat the argument. You can't.

Jan 31, 2017

The sites so devolution into freshman year banter.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 1, 2017

I bet Patrick has seen an uptick in people buying credits. I've never seen such a reactionary poo-flinging bunch in all my time visiting this site

Jan 31, 2017

Haha I literally select all and delete every time I check in. It's pretty funny haha

Feb 1, 2017

General advice, don't try so hard to be an internet tough guy. Some of us are either professionally trained on here (military/law enforcement backgrounds are more common in finance than you'd think) and others go get punched in the face for fun in our spare time.

And anyone watching any user's posts over time can probably figure out who they are or at least narrow it down to a small pool.

I guarantee you that there's a few people who have figured out who I am because I've seen them reading WSO as well, and trying to write my posts in a way that would hide my identity from people who don't know me is more trouble than it's worth given that I try to generally be professional on here.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 3, 2017
Attack_Chihuaha:

General advice, don't try so hard to be an internet tough guy. Some of us are either professionally trained on here (military/law enforcement backgrounds are more common in finance than you'd think) and others go get punched in the face for fun in our spare time.

And anyone watching any user's posts over time can probably figure out who they are or at least narrow it down to a small pool.

I guarantee you that there's a few people who have figured out who I am because I've seen them reading WSO as well, and trying to write my posts in a way that would hide my identity from people who don't know me is more trouble than it's worth given that I try to generally be professional on here.

I think he was joking

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Hahaha sucking Trump's cock in every single thread

    • 12
    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

TNA has become WSO's Kellyanne Conway

    • 18
Feb 5, 2017

ANT is the biggest douchebag on this site. He's also a complete moron, and it's even worse because he thinks he's an IQ 145 kid.

    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

If you want to persuade him, start not by accusing but by asking WHY. Then answer those objections.

On that note I would be curious to hear TNA's reasons. I get the "lesser of two evils" arguments in favor of either candidate and can understand why someone would feel that way but I don't get people who actively love either one.

Jan 31, 2017

Plenty of things I wish trump did differently, but I'm definitely more social Democrat than core Republican. Trumps a NYC liberal Democrat who has pro American policy.

Do I think the temp ban could have been messaged better? Yes. Do I understand why a bunch of failed states could be an immigration issue? Of course.

I don't hate anyone from these countries and am actually sad I'll probably never see Tripoli or Bagdad, but I'd rather inconvenience a small % of non citizens than risk a truck driving into a large crowd.

What I don't get is the absolute polarization. People get so damn angry. I really disliked hillary, but expected her to win and went out and bought Ruger stock expecting more gun regulation. I sure as fuck would cry over her winning or shut down an airport for a 90 day ban.

Oh well. I mean the sites changed over the years. I've had some heated debates with people who Ive met in person and consider good friends. Now it's vitriol and shit posting.

Feb 1, 2017

You think that ban will prevent terrorists from running trucks into large crowds in the US?

Jan 31, 2017

I'm glad you liven in an absolute world. I don't think eating a little healthy will prevent cancer, but they doesn't mean I eat ribs every night.

If a 90 day temp ban allows us to implement improved screening and one attack is prevented, it's worth it.

Feb 1, 2017

That's exactly my point. ISIS will just send terrorists from other countries and no attack is prevented.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2017

My point is it's harder from other countries. Six of the seven are failed states with no native government to help us check and verify. When I got a Visa to India I had to fill out some forms and mail my passport to NYC. Came back with a 6 month Visa and I'm sure they vetted me. How is that going to happen with Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, etc.

Feb 1, 2017

My guess is that people from those countries wouldn't have gotten visas in the first place.

Feb 1, 2017
TNA:

My point is it's harder from other countries. Six of the seven are failed states with no native government to help us check and verify. When I got a Visa to India I had to fill out some forms and mail my passport to NYC. Came back with a 6 month Visa and I'm sure they vetted me. How is that going to happen with Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, etc.

Since when was India, fastest growing economy in the world, etc etc, comparable to Iraq or Somalia? Why isn't Pakistan on the list, when Bin Laden was caught red-handed chilling in Abbottabad? What about Afghanistan, breeding ground for the Taliban, where the USA went in and made a mess out of it? Or what about Tunisia, where the recent Berlin truck-driving lunatic came from? Trust me, Iran has a much stronger vetting process than either India or Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia. Yes Saudi Arabia, oil-rich Arab nation that couldn't be more backward than a Pacific Islander's toilet.

The majority of the people leaving their home countries are the ones who want to escape from and discard their old culture, while embracing Americanism at its finest - not the terrorists Phat GoldieLocks thinks so. Of course, there might be some bad apples within, but then they could be easily vetted out under the current system. Or if stronger rules were required, an executive order outlining a stronger vetting criteria could have been easily put in place after maybe a month's duration of deliberations. Point is, there were alternatives to an outright ban - which ISIS has already begun propagating as a war against Islam and all Muslims.

Your God Emperor has his priorities wrong - I've never seen any head of state be that full of shit. And I've never seen somebody so full of shit as you. It seems the Dems underestimated the number of 'silent majority' looneys like you within the Wall Street community, who would rather sit back on armchairs and theorize on foreign policy without understanding the ground realities.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 2
Jan 31, 2017

I am saying that when I wanted a Visa to go to India, I had to send it to the consulate, fill out forms, get checked out and then they sent it back. I'm saying India has a government and can process that. These other countries have no functioning government. Visa's and vetting require the help of the host nation.

Oh, so you understand the ground realities? Didn't know I was talking with General Pace. Yes, people want to leave their countries because they are unsafe. Agree. But in looking at Europe and what unchecked migration can do, I do not think it is unreasonable to think that ISIS could use immigration as a way to import radicals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/world/europe/ge...
This "ISIS is going to use this for propaganda" meme is so tired. Last time I checked Israeli's aren't using their ban from over a dozen ME countries as a recruiting tool for terrorism. I am sorry, but we need to stop walking on egg shells because if you piss off a Muslim they might blow us up. People put the crucifix into a jar of urine and Christians just go about their day. If a TEMPORARY 90 day ban on 6 failed states (and Iran) causes someone to feel so motivated that they go and try and kill innocent people, they are pretty far along the path already.

And Jesus Christ, how about we stop with this "if you believe XYZ then you are a [insert nasty comment]". I know plenty of smart people who voted for Trump and plenty of dumb people who voted for Trump. Same with Hillary and Bernie. These are failed states with ISIS operating in them. We have no government help on the other side. Their passports are easy to fake. Records have been destroyed. Lets not pretend that vetting someone from Libya is the same, as easy or as thorough as vetting someone from Germany.

I've traveled quite a bit. I read often and extensively about history and foreign policy. I am no uninformed idiot. I might disagree with you and come to a different conclusion, but you painting me or anyone else you disagree with as some sort of lunatic fringe is frankly childish.

Feb 1, 2017

Iran doesn't have a government?
You compare people from failed countries such as Libya and Iraq. But what if they have been living in the US for almost their entire lives? What if they hold dual citizenship of their homeland just because they have relatives back home (whom they rarely bother about)? Do you mean to say that the US cannot vet people who've been in the US for almost their whole life? Possible yes, since I don't see the US being able to protect its own people and vet them well enough to prevent deranged schoolkids from shooting the place up.

As for ground realities, General Pace isn't the only one in the in the army at a top level position, you know. I've been fortunate enough to get in touch with both Republican and Democrat-leaning top level military staff, who all tell me in confidence this 'temporary travel ban' forced by executive order is a misplaced fantasy.

And as for the "you are dumb, nasty, etc, etc" rant, it's just a cumulative conclusion based on what I've observed in these past few weeks. I've never seen someone so shallow in their research and thought process. Have you concerned a career with Breitbart? One of my friends works under Milo - he can refer you.

Last time I checked, the person who did San Bernadino was a Pakistani-descent native citizen of USA. Yes, born and brought up in the USA. Father wasn't to the least bit involved with terror, but hey, we get free guns in the US. So, son went happy hunting. I don't see a travel ban as an effective tool to prevent this from happening. As long as the US keeps pouring water on a kerosene fire, we'll just have to look at our failed experiment and let out a deep sigh - you colonials will never learn, will you?

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 2
Jan 31, 2017

1) I disagree with Iran being included on the list

2) I am sure there are people in the military that are for and against this. Obama selected these 7 countries. They are failed states and ISIS is operating in just about all of them.

3) I was joking with the G. Pace comment.

4) People leave this country, visit these ISIS breading grounds and come back radicalized. We've had heightened scrutiny on these countries for a while. The DHS has come out repeatedly and said we cannot properly vet people. A short term ban while people figure their shit out is not unreasonable. If this becomes a longer term ban then I will revisit my comments.

5) More bullshit insults. I do not watch Fox. I do not read Breibart. I think CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Huffpo, are all trash. But sure, because I disagree with you and come to a different conclusion, it must be because I read that shit.

6) You are correct about San Bernadino. What matters in that case is his wife, who came over on a spousal Visa and was posting ISIS shit on her Facebook. Yet no one caught it.

See. Holes in the net.

7) I will promise you this, I research my shit. You might disagree, but I pull up actual transcripts, I pull up raw polling data, I make every effort to look at the information and make my own opinion up on it.

8) Funny you bring up colonials. Seems like the red coats are doing something similar with Brexit. And La Pen is pretty strong in the polls. Real funny how people seem to be rejecting all these established "truths" and whenever someone does reject this the insults flow.

Gotta go. Just got a new tweet from Bannon. Gotta check out 4chan and storm front for all my well researched news. Mad has a new issue coming out that I can cite.

Feb 1, 2017

"his wife, who came over on a spousal Visa and was posting ISIS shit on her Facebook. Yet no one caught it."
This is where the system went wrong. The government had data to predict certain malicious tendencies, yet stayed complacent. This travel ban does NOT solve that. 'Taking time to figure things out' is the dumbest excuse I've heard to issue an executive order.

I hear you guys chatter on about how it's only for 90 days so chill fellows! The problem is not that it's for ninety days. The issue is that such sweeping legislation being passed as an executive order, without Congressional approval, sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This seems so big an issue for liberals right now, but surely one thing will lead to another and soon you'll see crucial decisions being made at the whims of an elected despot.

Heck, if I were POTUS, I would manacle the liberals and the far-right conservatives if I can. I'll issue an executive order to exile my political enemies. I'll fire away those who oppose my decision, perhaps issue another order committing them to prison for treason. I wouldn't be surprised if Freedomland devolves into some isolationist fascist state under the reign of a tyrant in future. Congress would then be practically non-existent.

As for the Brexit issue (which I disagreed with, but still), we're taking back control of the borders and immigration process. In the process, we'll be choosing people with the best skills and talent and inviting them with open arms into Britain, regardless of whether they came from Saudi Arabia, Iran or Israel. We aren't doing a nonsensical blanket ban on a set of people, who may have even lived their entire lives in the UK.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Jan 31, 2017

1) My point is we weren't doing a proper vetting process which allowed that to happen. The DHS admitted this. The ban is to allow for additional vetting methods (biometrics, allowing for the scrutiny of social media, etc). This is especially pressing when letting in people from countries with limited functioning government.

2) I don't like EO's as a policy tool, but I sadly think we have become too divided. Obama used them as a crutch and Dem's aren't really looking like they want to bargain with Trump. I had high hopes that Trump would be a shitty Republican and just make deals. Unfortunately, it seems like the Dems are forcing Trump into being more hostile than Ted Cruz would have been.

Trump deep six'd TPP. This is a Dem move. He's met with union leaders and trumpted labor rights. This is a Dem platform. He's railed against big banks and sending jobs overseas. This is a Dem move. He's pretty center when it comes to social issues. Yet it seems as if the press and the election so polarized Trump that no Dem can work with him without getting firebombed by antifa people.

So no, I don't want Trump doing what Obama made fashionable. But Trump has a mandate to get shit done and if Dem's are going to refuse to show up then I guess EO's are what he has to do.

I agree with you that a travel ban, without anything else, will do nothing. But the whole premise of this ban is to give time to have a proper vetting system in place. The ban is nothing, the backend checking and verifying is what is important.

And look at it like this. Obama was pretty lax on these issues. This wasn't what he wanted to be involved in. He's a Dem and was socially conscious. Just look at the Justice Dept. Trump has to root out a lot of Obama appointees who were frankly sleeping at the wheel, at least when it comes to immigration and Islamic terrorism.

The USA is taking back its borders and control on immigration as well. Like it is the same thing.

The ban isn't deporting people. It is simply saying if you are not a citizen from these 7 countries you have to sit tight for 3 months. Can't leave the country. We have all kinds of immigration rules that apply to people. Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. But I personally think it makes sense right now.

Feb 1, 2017

Where your argument fails to move for me, is that you don't recognize that the US is not given it's world dominance and status for some arbitrary, random reason. The US is the shining city on a hill because it doesn't treat people so overtly nasty, for the sake of some fake sense of security. We've seen that the time it takes for these people to be vetted is 18-24 months, and most experts don't think there's a way to improve the standards. When they look at it, they stammer with so much visible doubt that this process can't be improved. The number of refugees admitted to this country is a fraction, and through our history, we have not admitted many muslims into the country, but statistics show more Christians. The terrorists attacks that occurred here were homegrown and etc. I don't understand why you are so comfortable sacrificing our market position by turning our backs on what it means to be America and a superpower in today's world.

EDIT: basically, I don't think that spending the political capital is worth it. The potential costs of this silly little path will not return greater security that will compensate for what we're putting our country through with respect to the rest of the world. The costs are too high, and it seems very petty to have to watch our president drag us into this.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2017

Bro, we are a world power because we dropped a nuke on Japan and the rest of the world was crippled after WWII.

I mean are you serious with this shit? The USA is hated around the world because we arbitrarily overthrow governments, drone bomb people to death, are hypocrites, etc.

If you think ISIS or the Muslim world hates us now because of this temp ban and not the 30 or so years of killing people from afar then you aren't paying attention.

And don't talk to me about refuges when Obama ends the dry land policy for Cubans who are escaping a totalitarian country. Syria is ending their civil war. Turkey is safe and taking them in. Plenty of other countries to go. We are under no obligation to take anyone and we have countless Americans that are in need. I want my tax money to go to broke inner city schools, homeless vets, people with mental disorders living on the street, single moms who lost husbands fighting pointless overseas wars.

EDIT

And in case you haven't been watching, China is being antagonistic to their neighbors, Europe is becoming populist, Israel is expanding more and more into Palestine, etc. It isn't like Utopia outside of the dark and evil USSA.

Feb 1, 2017

My point is that the potential for this process to actually pay off looks very unlikely. Yet, there are world protests in addition to thousands of terrorists that have been hoping for propaganda like this. There's been a story circulating in Iraq promoting Trump saying, "we should've took the oil," as policy. These little increases in vetting are going to be so micro, yet, we're turning the world more against us. Apparently, Mexicans now think we should build the wall because they find it is an opportune time for them to find other partners. Also, China is promoting Trump's aggressive words as policy. Basically, everyone is failing to respect the US since Trump's election. This ban adds to the flame because it looks like his words are policy. The Fed decided to offer no guidance on rate policy because it thinks the uncertainty is too high. He really should back down immediately and get much more focused and much more disciplined, focus on growth and raising incomes, and returning the favor to the world where parts are struggling. That should be American policy.

Jan 31, 2017

I'm not disagreeing, but you can't execute on trumps policy without pissing people off. Mexico will cut a deal because it's in their best interest. This saber rattling is to get them to the table and cut a deal.

IMO none of these countries are out friends. They'd turn on us on a dime. We have historic allies because our interests align. I'm doubtful that anyone would do us a solid if it meant hurting their country.

Where was Mexico hooking a bro up as they just allow people to use their country as a border crossing staging ground. Don't forget that Mexico has strong immigration laws of their own. They wouldn't be letting all the central Americans cross their country if they didn't know they were coming here.

Just saying no one is friends in this game. It's about self interest and what benefits their country the most. Obama played nice in the sandbox and you tell me what kind of relationships we have. Russia being aggressive, China building islands in international water. Philippines calling Obama a bastard. Mexico allowing people to use their land and their trains as a conduit to this country.

Feb 1, 2017

I agree Obama should've been a lot tougher in some places, or should have at least stood his ground, such as in Syria with that whole red line mess. If Trump wants to change the dialogue, there needs to be sacrifice. Splitting the world up will not lead to growth. When I view the economy, it's in a position to take off. There's a lot of work that needs to happen, including beefing up growth. If we don't, our debt burdens will become crushing, and then the world will not give a fuck about our partnership. It'll be Russia and China, extending their hand to the rest of the world, because there's no realistic option. UK imports $660B a year, vs our $2t so that's just a third, but they're never going to want to return to the world stage, anyway. Germany is savers, half of our import levels, and I seriously doubt I would want to put my faith in them anyway. The only other country with realistic world power capabilities is China, but why would we turn the world over to gangbangers? So, it's not about friendship, it's about keeping other countries in line in a way where they don't unite against us and force us into another world bloodbath for being the example of a superpower that abuses the responsibility.

Feb 3, 2017

Epic post! @TNA

Feb 1, 2017
storyofmylife:

You think that ban will prevent terrorists from running trucks into large crowds in the US?

An actual Muslim ban might prevent that, not Trump's liberal, temporary travel ban.

Feb 1, 2017

Exactly. Those terrorist fuckers are smart.

Feb 1, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

storyofmylife:You think that ban will prevent terrorists from running trucks into large crowds in the US?

An actual Muslim ban might prevent that, not Trump's liberal, temporary travel ban.

Yeah. Then you all will end up shooting each other anyways. I've honestly heard less ISIS-sponsored terror attacks than public shootings carried out by deranged kids with guns, in Freedomland.
I'm going to buy some prime real estate in the South, and develop some school-cum-shooting ranges there. Much profit to be made from the stupidity and stubbornness of men.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017
Frank Quattrone:

Virginia Tech 4ever: storyofmylife:You think that ban will prevent terrorists from running trucks into large crowds in the US?An actual Muslim ban might prevent that, not Trump's liberal, temporary travel ban.

Yeah. Then you all will end up shooting each other anyways. I've honestly heard less ISIS-sponsored terror attacks than public shootings carried out by deranged kids with guns, in Freedomland.I'm going to buy some prime real estate in the South, and develop some school-cum-shooting ranges there. Much profit to be made from the stupidity and stubbornness of men.

Well, that's because there are 318 million non-Muslim Americans and only about 3 million American Muslims, plus the U.S. has 2 oceans protecting it from mass Islamic immigration. Let's just be intellectually honest here--there is no per capita comparison between non-Muslim terrorism and Muslim terrorism.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 1, 2017
Feb 1, 2017

The outrage over the "Muslim ban" is one of the most disingenuous outrages I've ever witnessed in American politics. First of all, there are 50 majority Muslim countries; this temporary travel ban constitutes 7 of those 50. If this were a "Muslim ban" then Trump missed about 85% of the world's Muslim population. Second of all, each of the 7 countries was on Obama's list of highest-risk countries--these countries are all either failed states or terrorist exporters. Third, at least two of the countries (Iran and Syria) are on the list of countries banned from doing business with U.S. citizens and one (Libya) was on that list for a portion of time under Obama. Finally, the Obama administration was literally dropping bombs on one of the countries (Syria) on the list--so I guess it's ok to kill Syrians but not ok to restrict their travel? Seems to be a bizarre leap of logic.

How a temporary ban on travel for citizens of failed states and/or for citizens of declared U.S. enemies has turned into the civil rights issue of our era is beyond belief.

Feb 1, 2017

Agreed. I'm personally somewhat surprised that the Left has decided to pick this issue as the one to run with. Its a temporary ban from countries that Obama had listed as the most at risk. It has nothing to do with barring immigrants from coming into this country, and everything to do with trying to keep the country safe. In fact, go look at how many Syrians Obama let into the country...

Somehow this has been construed into the Left saying Republicans hate Muslims... Bizarre if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IaAZxG0g4

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2017

Cause the left is obsessed with feelings or "morals" aka what they think is right is moral.

Gotta love how a small % of people being inconvenienced causes and uproar, but when we talk about illegals killing people they dismiss it and say it's a statistical anomaly.

Feb 1, 2017

Yeah, the outrage over the countries he picked and the immigration is a bit screwy, considering that these countries were singled out in the Obama years. That being said, unsubstantiated outrage isn't unique to liberals (remember "death panels"? Or how gun sales skyrocketed under Obama because "they're gonna take our guns"?).

Personally, what I disliked about the EO was that it set the level of refugees we are going to take in from anywhere at the lowest level it's been in at least 35 years, and its effect on legitimate travel by legal residents of the US. The administration has since walked back a decent portion of that second issue, but as it is written, the EO pretty explicitly bars entry and re-entry by Visa and green card holders (unless the DHS gives them a waiver).

    • 2
Jan 31, 2017

Hyperbole isn't group specific, but holding guns is a little different than shutting down airports and endless protests.

Feb 1, 2017

Agreed, but you get my point. I do think that most of the outrage was due to the effect it had on legal residents (hence why the protests were mainly at airports, and why it started with JFK; JFK was one of the airports where legal immigrants were detained by security).

    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

Most of the protest had to do with alleged "racism" and "Islamophobia". The average outraged protester isn't concerned about the nuances of the immigration bureaucracy.

With that said, we have explicit bans on conducting business in Iran and Syria. Why the outrage over restricting travel? Seems like cherry-picked outrage.

Feb 1, 2017

Personally, I disagree with that idea. Like I said, there's a reason that people were protesting mainly at airports, and not elsewhere, or that people were making such a big deal about lawyers writing legal arguments for the detainees at airport cafes. I agree though that a part of it was the immigration ban, which is a bit hypocritical.

And I don't even think that the travel ban itself was a central part of the outrage, the fact that it was effectively retroactive was (ie if you left the country prior to the ban being put in place, you weren't allowed back into the country). After all, we had a similar policy against Cuba for decades, and nobody protested that in the numbers we saw last weekend, even though there are many more Cubans in the US than there are Syrians.

Bottom line, I think that if all of these legal residents hadn't been detained or turned away at the airports, there would have maybe been a few, small protests last weekend, but nothing like what we actually saw.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017
N0DuckingWay:

Personally, I disagree with that idea. Like I said, there's a reason that people were protesting mainly at airports, and not elsewhere, or that people were making such a big deal about lawyers writing legal arguments for the detainees at airport cafes. I agree though that a part of it was the immigration ban, which is a bit hypocritical.

And I don't even think that the travel ban itself was a central part of the outrage, the fact that it was effectively retroactive was (ie if you left the country prior to the ban being put in place, you weren't allowed back into the country). After all, we had a similar policy against Cuba for decades, and nobody protested that in the numbers we saw last weekend, even though there are many more Cubans in the US than there are Syrians.

Bottom line, I think that if all of these legal residents hadn't been detained or turned away at the airports, there would have maybe been a few, small protests last weekend, but nothing like what we actually saw.

You're talking about the organized airport protests. I highly, highly doubt that's why the masses of Americans have expressed outrage. In nearly any article you read, the article will discuss Trump's travel ban from "7 majority Muslim countries" (the context: 43 Muslim majority countries are not part of the ban). Do you think Goldman Sach's CEO is concerned about the nuanced immigration bureaucracy when he expresses outrage due to a fundamental deconstruction of an "American value"? In fact, he explicitly states his outrage is over the attack on "diversity". How delusional are these people?

Jan 31, 2017

Oh no, I agree. Frankly, I blame the press. They cause this.

Hands up don't shoot - lie that the press created.

Muslim ban - lie the press created

Yellow journalism whips people into a frenzy. It's borderline criminal in my opinion. The press has a responsibility to report facts, not twisted opinions. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, all have become propaganda arms of their various parties.

Feb 1, 2017

John T. Reed sums it up fairly well. Trump's travel ban is NOT unique. To put things in perspective, the US is one of the only countries that does not have such a list of countries that are banned.

In conjunction with my research on putting money in other countries and perhaps taking refuge in them during a US hyperinflation, I was amused to note all the countries who discriminate against other countries.
.
Citizens of many countries may visit many other countries without getting a visa. The list of countries whose visitors must get a visa in advance to visit other countries is quite lengthy and amusing--and resembles the list where Trump has suspended granting visas.
.
Here, for example is the map showing the countries whose citizens may not enter Mexico with getting a via in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Mexico... (the gray countries)
.
Here is the map for visiting Germany:
http://www.germany-visa.org/do-i-need-a-visa/ .
Here is the not-unless-you-get-a-visa list for Iceland:
.
http://www.utl.is/index.php/en/who-needs-a-visa .
Is suspending all visitors from a country the same as requiring an advance visa to visit? If they refuse all the applications, yes. But what is interesting is that almost all countries force citizens of lousy countries to get a visa before they come. In other words, they discriminate against categories. Muslim passports are especially bad if you want to be a world traveler.
.
The point is all countries have a shit list of countries who cannot just go there as Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and a few others can. The difference between Trump's shit list, which he got from the Obama administration, and the shit lists of the vast majority of countries is minimal--another molehill being exaggerated by liberals.

    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

These are Visa requirements, not nationwide ban lists. You apply in advance, you wait, you get Visa, you go.
Even Indians and Pakistanis can apply for visas and visit each other. Iranians and Saudis can do so too. Even Arabs and Israelis can do so.
Trump's ban removes the possibility of even applying for a Visa. That's different lad.
And I don't see how a "Muslim passport" has prevented my ex from travelling to almost 90% of the countries around the world.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Feb 1, 2017

Yes. For 90 days, then the ban expires with the exception of Syria(which is an active war zone).

Feb 1, 2017

I would be curious to know of the people who have expressed an opinion on this EO, what % have actually read it.

Feb 2, 2017

are you implying that I must read something and understand it in order to comment and opine on it? its 2017!!!!! I don't need to read the rulebook to know the rules are unfair

    • 5
Feb 1, 2017

lol 'nana

Feb 1, 2017

If the cozy relationship between the government and Goldman Sachs gets ruined, THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I know half of you all want to go work for Goldman and worship GS TMT, but it's bad for any industry when one or two players are favored by the government at the expense of the rest of the industry.

And yes, they do....it's fairly well known on the buy side that if you ever end up in a lawsuit with a large NY bank you do everything in your power to make sure that the court case is decided outside of the New York court system. The reason for that is that there are so many ex-Goldman judges that any court case against them will lose. Judges like Alan Cohen and officials like Mary Jo White are notorious for their blatant bias in favor of large NYC investment banks (mostly Goldman Sachs/MS/JPM).

It doesn't even help the firms themselves. The regulatory changes that the Clintons passed towards the end of their administration admittedly made those firms a LOT of money.......right up until their own incompetence at risk management blew up the market, killing some and crippling others.

In short a more fair regulatory environment (i.e. regulators aren't owned by Goldman Sachs) will be a GOOD thing. It might mean you get clipped for 15-20% on year end bonus check but it also means that the banks will have more even hiring, more demand for deals and more headcount(due to greater confidence in the financial industry), and much lower odds that you will be laid off during a crash.

Since I'm in it for total lifetime value rather than my next year bonus I'd take that every single time.

    • 6
Feb 1, 2017

Lol, Government Sachs is always winning bro. Doesn't really matter if the president is a "populist" or not. Doesn't matter if they voice dissent or not. It's Goldman dude, half the administration are alumni

    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

I don't even like Trump, but the reactions to a 90 day travel ban have been absolutely ridiculous. When Obama banned Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011 there wasn't a word said about it, but Trump does it for half the time and becomes Satan.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Obama's ban did not affect Visa or green-card holders... also he did not ban refugees, this is another alternative fact. He slowed down the process with extra vetting because they uncovered a terrorist plot by two refugees. Here is a quote from the Washington Post on the subject by John Fincher: "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," he wrote in Foreign Policy. "In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban."

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

So the bureaucratic nuances of the immigration bans are why there is mass protest and boycotts? Right. And I've got a bridge in New York to sell you.

NINETY DAYS. 90.

Jan 31, 2017

People call me a Trump shill, yet refuse to admit that trump could cure cancer and they'd hate him.

Nothing he can do would make the opposition happy. I'm glad he realizes this and just keeps on doing what he wants.

I really wanted him to cut moderate bargains with dems, but I can't see them having Intrest in working with him at all

Feb 1, 2017
ThrowADart:

I don't even like Trump, but the reactions to a 90 day travel ban have been absolutely ridiculous. When Obama banned Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011 there wasn't a word said about it, but Trump does it for half the time and becomes Satan.

It's a combination of 3 things:
1. Pre-existing hostility from the left and moderates towards Trump. No need for further explanation.
2. Trump's previous statements. I mean it's still online: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald... Is that ambiguous at all? Is it just the stupid liberal biased media making us all believe that Trump's website says that? Please explain how CNN is causing this mass hallucination. It's pretty obvious what the intent/future plans are from this statement.
3. The manner of implementation. Again no need for further explanation. The suddenness of the implementation was a shock as intended.

Now in principle I don't even disagree with all of this. I know for a fact if you arrive in Israel and you have certain countries stamped on your passport you're going to get interrogated REGARDLESS of your religion. It's just common sense. But we already have a process for vetting refugees. We already have CBP checking passports and asking questions. Nobody from the Trump administration has communicated properly what changes are going to be made to the vetting and security process or how they will made or analyzed. Clearly this lack of communication and the shock factor was all by design (a design by Steve Bannon probably) for some nefarious end. It's all testing the water for far right radical change.

    • 5
Feb 1, 2017

thanks for perfectly summing up the reasons for the protests. Intellectually dishonest sycophants want to claim that talks of a "muslim ban" are made up out of thin air when all evidence says otherwise. The attempt at using Obama to mask this ineffective and divisive policy is hilarious. The reality is people are worried about the expansion of this policy (and rightfully see this ban as an opening salvo preceding a long-term battle) as well as making it permanent. The protesters and those decrying this ban are getting prepared for what's coming, not necessarily just this specific temporary ban.

    • 3
    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

I gotta give GS credit: I'm pretty sure my company doesn't even know how to leave a VM on everyone's phone.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Who leaves voicemails these days? It's not the late 1990s.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

Robert Duval, cool it with the GS threads.

Feb 1, 2017

I don't get it.

Feb 2, 2017

Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.
The issue isn't about banning muslims or select nations but about stranding legal aliens in the artificial shores of this nation's airports.
What's scary is that he banned green card and visa holders who just went outside for vacation or business in the middle east or cuba from coming back in. that is batshit insane. The POTUS went against the rule of law, the one thing America truly has for it.
Do you understand the gravity of this act ? these people pay rent and taxes, have all of their assets and liabilities in the US and you just decide that all of them will be barre from re-entry without telling anybody ? so the egyptian grocery teller and the iranian scientist who went abroad for x reasons are now cuffed and left at the door ?
Even more terrifying there are reports out there of people who were coerced into giving up their LEGAL RESIDENT PAPER WORK https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/tr... This is fucked up straight nazi level shit. white supremacists and their ilk dream about this: letting all the muzzis go abroad some week-end and then blocking all of them from coming back in.
You know what's funny about banon&co ? they hate brown people, blacks, muzzies, spics, yellows, jews and not white enough Caucasians equally.

    • 2
    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

Your rant is straight-up bullshit and you know it (or you don't, which is kind of scary). It's obvious to anyone intellectually honest enough to see what's going on, that you left-wing Marxists are pissed off about a fake, non-existent "Muslim ban." Blankfein explicitly states--in the ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD--that his core problem with the Trump order is its attack on "diversity." Virtually every article from the mainstream media on this topic--INCLUDING THE ARTICILE IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD--has some sort of "Muslim ban" language in it. This is not a Muslim ban! I'm not sure it's effective policy, but there is no civil rights violation here! This is NOT an attack on diversity. This has nothing to do with racism. In case you weren't aware, Iranians and Syrians are white, and if you're a white supremacist, anti-Semite (as is alleged, without basis, against Steve Bannon) then you have a long history in the United States of identifying Middle East Jew haters as racial cousins.

One of the problems with you race-baiting communists is that you're too fucking ignorant to even know anything about white supremacy, and your ignorance shows when you accuse American white supremacists, at large, of being both anti-Muslim/anti-Middle Eastern and anti-Semitic. Are you aware that David Duke, who Trump has laughably been considered too close to (despite countless denunciations going back 2 decades), is an Israel-hater and Palestinian supporter?! White supremacists, for decades, have considered Arabs to be their racial cousins and allies in their struggle against the Jews. You would know this if you weren't such an ignorant fuck.

Feb 2, 2017
  1. The first thing I do in my post is exclude the "muslim" theme.
  2. i've spent enough time on stormfront to know what david duke thinks of all these people i've mentioned.
  3. Trump is the commie here, striping legal residents from their assets by blocking them from getting back into the country when they were out temporarily. that's confiscatory, that's real commie shit.
Feb 1, 2017
dick_fluid:
  1. The first thing I do in my post is exclude the "muslim" theme.
  2. i've spent enough time on stormfront to know what david duke thinks of all these people i've mentioned.
  3. Trump is the commie here, striping legal residents from their assets by blocking them from getting back into the country when they were out temporarily. that's confiscatory, that's real commie shit.

In other words, you can't break the arguments so you reply with 3 points that state absolutely nothing.

Feb 2, 2017

I never talked about blankfein or diversity, you're the one switching the subject. my points were that banning visas for muslims and stripping legal aliens from their paperwork are two very different things. The first we can eventually talk about, the later is crazy shit which weakens the rule of law of this country.

Feb 1, 2017
dick_fluid:

I never talked about blankfein or diversity, you're the one switching the subject. my points were that banning visas for muslims and stripping legal aliens from their paperwork are two very different things. The first we can eventually talk about, the later is crazy shit which weakens the rule of law of this country.

What the fuck are you talking about? Half of your post is about white supremacy/racism. You don't even know anything about white supremacists! You think white supremacists hate Arabs! White supremacists consider Arabs and Persians their allies against the Jews! Take this old piece of advice--it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Feb 2, 2017
dick_fluid:

Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever" and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

    • 2
Feb 2, 2017

They are scum because they disregard facts and logics and instead bullshit their way to whatever agenda they have. this is how trump does his business, this is how Kellyan Con-way does her business. We need to stop arguing with these folks and call them out for what they are: bullshitters with an agenda and 0 intellectual honesty.

Feb 1, 2017
dick_fluid:

They are scum because they disregard facts and logics and instead bullshit their way to whatever agenda they have. this is how trump does his business, this is how Kellyan Con-way does her business. We need to stop arguing with these folks and call them out for what they are: bullshitters with an agenda and 0 intellectual honesty.

You don't have the facts on your side! The original post in this thread contradicts what you're saying. The original post in this thread explicitly recites why there is a mass, nationwide protest against this immigration order, and it has to do with a fake, non-existent, perceived Muslim ban. You can argue over whether or not this is an effective policy, but people aren't "deleting Uber" because a small handful of legal U.S. residents from Yemen, et al are inconvenienced. You know that's a complete lie.

Feb 1, 2017
CRE:

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

I strongly agree with CRE on this. I also think that personal attacks and vitriol directed at people are only going to increase partisanship and divisiveness. It makes it a lot harder for anyone to walk back on their support for a position (on any side of a debate).

If you want to convince people to change their minds, a good tactic is to make it relatively easy and humiliation-free for them to change their mind.

    • 2
Feb 3, 2017
CRE:

dick_fluid:Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

Just offering some perspective on the matter, but VT has made comments that can be interpreted as very xenophobic. It's easier to understand where the "scum" comment comes from if you look at it from the perspective of being a legal, law-abiding Muslim in the United States, and reading such comments as:

Virginia Tech 4ever:

3) A large portion of America--myself included--support a permanent Muslim immigration ban. I don't see why a temporary ban on a group of people is fundamentally un-American. Please explain. Because we definitely banned communists during the Cold War.

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-busine...
Dude probably doesn't even see the irony in his post. Straight up saying he supports banning everyone, law-abiding and peaceful or not, for believing a certain religion he doesn't agree with. Probably their first instinct to start off with the "scum" comment.

Don't want it to devolve into name calling, and understand where you're coming from - I agree, but just showing some additional insight into what this dude is perpetuating here, it's gonna be hard to refrain for some people who are personally affected by the comments he's making.

And then of course he continues by throwing all the insults he can at any left-leaning at all, including this thread. "Left-wing communists like you"?? He can't refrain at all, just has to insult everyone himself.

Name-calling and personal insults should not be tolerated, from both sides of the political spectrum.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2017
Steam:

Yet, he can't be retaliated against by simply being called a "scum"?

He discredits and degrades himself by his own words. There's no need for you to rise to the bait and engage in the same behaviour.

Feb 3, 2017

I agree, I don't want to perpetuate the name-calling and realize my post may come off differently than I had hoped; I'll edit it a bit to clear things up.

Just trying to say from other's point of view, they might feel personally attacked by certain comments at the start, which is the reason why they retaliate. We're all animals.

Feb 1, 2017

The guy calls me "scum" and you object to me calling him a "communist", and I'm the hack? Give me a break.

Yes, I do support a Muslim ban (unfortunately, Trump doesn't support this) because I actually know what Islam teaches. Being against Islam is NOT "xenophobic"--I'm fundamentally opposed to the political ideology of Islam, which is demonstrably, provably totalitarian in its nature (name for me a single liberal democracy that respects human rights and religious minorities that is an Islamic theocracy--I challenge you). Turkey was the most liberal Muslim majority country in the world until the last 10 years, and even Turkey could not prevent itself from backsliding into the totalitarian version of Islam.

The reality is, you liberals claim to be pro-gay, pro-women, pro-Jew, pro-religious minorities, and yet you lend your political capital to people whose version of the world is as equally fascist as Stalin's and is orders of magnitude more "regressive" than the most hardened fundamentalist Christian.

EDIT: In 2015 I dated a Turkish Muslim girl. She wanted me to move back to Turkey with her, and reminded me that, oh by the way, I would need to change my Turkish passport to "Muslim" lest I open myself up to Turkish government persecution. THAT is global Islam for you.

Feb 1, 2017

Unbelievable. Just heard a guy in my office complaining about Trump's "Muslim ban." Don't fucking tell me that people aren't being brainwashed by the media in this country. Don't tell me that people are just upset that Libyan businessmen can't travel to the U.S. until April.

Feb 2, 2017

still spewing crap. we are angry because legal residents were barred entry without notification or justified reason and because some had their paperwork confiscated.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2017
dick_fluid:

still spewing crap. we are angry because legal residents were barred entry without notification or justified reason and because some had their paperwork confiscated.

Except that's not what he said. He said "Muslim ban" and I disputed it with him. He's convinced that Trump targeted Muslims. So last night I read the Executive Order in detail, line by line, and there is zero Muslim ban. It doesn't exist. It's a complete lie. Left-wing communists like you were not organizing mass protests because a tiny handful of non-citizens were temporarily barred entry into the U.S.

Feb 1, 2017

Trump campaigns on promises of a Muslim ban.

Shortly after taking office, Trump makes an EO which targets predominantly Muslim population countries (admittedly, countries previously identified as trouble spots by the Obama administration).

Trump supporters now quibble that the ban is not technically a Muslim ban, so is not even a de facto Muslim ban/partial fulfillment of Trump's campaign promise?

Doesn't that feel just a little silly and disingenuous?

    • 1
    • 1
Feb 1, 2017
Feb 1, 2017
Jan 31, 2017
Feb 1, 2017