Nike or New Balance? And why?

Oh, hello out there in internet, social media world!  It's me, TPC!   There's been lots going on lately, but I haven't forgotten about you!  From Kaepernick and Nike to now New Balance and President Trump, there's always something brewing.

Colin Kaepernick.  His name has become synonymous with protest of the National Anthem sung before National Football League (NFL) football games.  He took a knee during the playing and singing of the National Anthem beginning last football season.  Has it really been two years since he started that?  I have by and large stayed out of it, and I really wasn't even going to 'go there', but here I go.

There has been a whirlwind of controversy ever since he decided to protest the National Anthem.  Many regular football fans have decided to boycott the NFL because of Kaepernick's decision to sit out during the National Anthem.  It has incited rage in some.  He's been called a myriad of names because of the protest.  Thing is, guys, IT'S ACTUALLY HIS RIGHT TO SIT IT OUT.

The NFL even supported his decision by saying that, "Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem."  Alrighty.  It's also YOUR RIGHT to not watch football because of the stance of the NFL. Since then, Nike has come out as making Kaepernick their spokesperson.  Conservatives lost their collective minds; burning their Nike shoes in the streets, y'all.  People went post apocalyptic.  SRSLY.

Now comes New Balance, not to be outdone by Nike, I guess, throwing their support behind President Trump.  The VP of Public Affairs, Sara Germano, tweeted last night that, "The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us, and frankly w/President-Elect Trump we feel things are going to move in the right direction."  This is from a Forbe's magazine article published this morning.  And I know what my conservative peeps are all thinking: support New Balance because they support our president!  Not so fast, friends.

The article goes on to say that, "For what it’s worth, New Balance would likely have backed rival candidate Hillary Clinton, too, who reversed her stance on TPP after endorsing it three years ago as President Obama’s Secretary of State. On the campaign trail she, like Trump, opposed the deal, but her so-called flip-flop made some voters nervous that she’d change her position yet again if she made it to the White House." 


As they used to say on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."  Okay, so what's the difference?  One could say that Nike put their support behind Kaepernick for a publicity stunt.  Love or hate, it worked.  I mean, have you SEEN all of the anti-Nike memes out there?  Free advertising, hello!  So will we now see liberals burning their New Balance shoes in the streets?

One could also say that New Balance's decision was based on a business decision as to what was good for the company.  Which one of these reasons will cause my conservative friends to support which company more and why?  Will we continue down the road of emotions and knee jerks, or will we have a more steady hand going forward?  Remember, "Feelings are much like waves, we can't stop them from coming but we can choose which one to surf."

U.S. Senator Cornyn Speaks Reason Regarding Supreme Court Nomination

Y'all done gone and done it.  No, seriously.  Y'all, and by y'all, I mean Empower Texans done gone and made me defend John Cornyn.  It's absolutely the last thing I thought I'd ever do since he has been the subject of criticism a few times here on the blog.

John Cornyn, the senior US Senator from Texas had an article, dare I say a hit piece, written about him on Empower Texans about the upcoming Supreme Court pick by President Donald Trump.  In the article he was quoted as saying,..."Cornyn cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.”   He goes on to further explain his opinion, “I think that would be a terrible mistake, for the president to nominate somebody who had that sort of agenda,” he said adding that “we don’t need judges who have either personal or political or ideological agendas, in my view. And I think that ought to comfort all of us.”

Alright, now let's think about this objectively before we get emotional.  I know, it's hard to do in politics, but it's necessary.  Would you want someone with a preconceived agenda, even if you agreed with it?  My answer, NO.  Judges are supposed to be impartial.  They aren't supposed to announce ahead of time on how they would rule on any case.  We as conservatives always cry out about 'legislating from the bench' or that we're concerned that whomever is nominated has an agenda.  That's where our hypocrisy rears its ugly head.  Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to point out the hypocrisy on the 'right' side of things. 

The thing about Empower Texans and, well, ALL of us is that we're writing articles that simply confirm our own bias.  Like in the video Keynes vs. Hayek Rap Battle Round Two, when Hayek says, "Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?"  I think that's something that we could apply to this situation here.  Read the article that Empower Texans wrote here and decide for yourself.

A Facebook friend says it even better than I could, so I've included his comment here, " Cornyn’s conservative credentials or the lack thereof aside, the headline is misleading. Cornyn did not tell Trump not to nominate a pro-life justice, he “cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.”
Justice Willet has made this same statement time and time again, judges should not declare how they will rule on any case until they hear the case in front of them, just as Scalia did before him. Cornyn was saying that there is a difference between a pro-life judge and one who declares ahead of time that they are actively seeking to overturn any specific precedent, regardless of which one it is."  

What happened to objectivity?  I guess that's gone by the wayside along with manners and civil discourse.  Honestly, I'm writing this as someone who cares deeply for the health of the Republican party and for our unification efforts going forward into November.  Empower Texans seems that they are only capable of attacking Republicans, not ever attempting to bolster the Republican ticket in order to help defeat Democrats.  I guess that's what happens when your group has only a single financial backer and they have an agenda.  Ironic, isn't it?