Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.
And you don't bother with the drastic difference between medically necessary proceedures, "quality of life" proceedures like where they tried to convince my wife to abort our Down Syndrome son (Who has recovered from heart surgery and is developing much faster than average for a child with his condition), or a woman who can't be inconvenienced by a pregnancy? Don't act like every single abortion is some epic lifesaving event, well over half are post-conception contraception. Wrap your head around that.
Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
Herzlos wrote: So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?
I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.
There are three reasons why this fundamentally is another stupid Trump slogan rather than a good idea.
1. The Law isn't a supermarket where you get BOGOF offers.
2. What is a "Law" anyway? Is it an entire bill, or a specific item (e.g. that in Michigan a motor vehicle doesn't need more than one functioning brake light.)
3. The law against murder is worth more than two laws against dancing on a Sunday or hanging men and women's underwear on the same clothesline.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whilst Trump has quickly made himself the most derided and despised president in history, he is still the occupant of the office of head of state of the USA and therefore his state visit to the UK should go ahead as planned. People must simply put up with it.
If he tries any funny stuff with the Queen, though, you can be sure that Bertha will give him a look to shrivel his balls off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 18:57:05
I honestly don't know why people like Starbucks. The lines are long, the waits are long, the employees are so often a bad joke, the prices are high, and to top it all off the coffee isn't that good.
I tried the shop near campus once years ago when the company was just starting to go from being big to mega big and I've never been back.
Their black filter coffee is pretty cheap and okay, partly because in the UK almost none of the cafes offers filter coffee. You can only get an Americano.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
sebster wrote: There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...
As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.
So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?
Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.
And you don't bother with the drastic difference between medically necessary proceedures, "quality of life" proceedures like where they tried to convince my wife to abort our Down Syndrome son (Who has recovered from heart surgery and is developing much faster than average for a child with his condition), or a woman who can't be inconvenienced by a pregnancy? Don't act like every single abortion is some epic lifesaving event, well over half are post-conception contraception. Wrap your head around that.
Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
Citation very much needed.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.
The trickle down theory has been proven false long time ago.
What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.
The 7 country ban alone will help ISIS recruit people. This is just what ISIS has been hoping. This allows them to recruit more people that gets radicalized which WILL mean more terrorist attacks.
I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?
Change isn't automatically good and in this case it would be bad.
Funny thing is things were already changing for BETTER. In pretty much every measurement it's been steady climb up in America. Unemployment reduced, poor&middle class have got wealthier, crimes are down etc etc etc etc. Pretty much only thing that's been going worse is goverment debt and that started going downhill already with Bush&co. You don't change that easily.
Only Trump's alternative facts are saying it has been going worse.
And btw you don't even need to be good president to get voted. Technically speaking in US 25 or so people could vote somebody into president over 100M+ votes...
Firstly your opinion about ISIS getting many recruits because of Trump is Negligible because they will never be able to recover from their recent losses. By the end of the year we will definitely see the fall of Mosul in Iraq and subsequently IS retreat back to the Syrian border. Hopefully by the end of the year we will hear that Raqqa is under siege. ISIS is loosing badly on all fronts and it is the beginning of the end for them. It is also ludicrous to think a genuine Refugee who wants to escape war and extremism would join said factions.
I do agree with you that change isn't always better but change is always the catalyst for progress.
Never trust government statistics, it never counts the millions or so people 'off the grid' on unemployment, or those on 0 hour contracts, or those in part time, or those not seeking work but on state funding. America has many traditional industries in terminal decline in different states. Trump stands to invest and keep them, and I couldn't agree more, coming from a country whose previous governments closed down, sold off and ruined key industries only to make the UK dependent on foreign imports is disastrous for local economies outside of city finance etc.
One thing I noticed, he successfully convinced Ford Motor Co to produce their new range of cars in US factories, when originally they were going to build cars in Mexican factories and then import them back to the USA.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
It's only a problem if Starbucks fires Americans to "create" those jobs. Which dovetails into another pending Trump EO. This one is near and dear as the situation has affected me, personally. I'm not going to post the entire article, just the bits that I wish the comment on. Link is provided for those who want to dive a bit deeper.
Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.
We've seen news about how Disney, some utility company in California, and others have abused the H-1B visa system by firing their entire American workforce and replacing them with people filling H-1B visa requests. The program was specifically set up so that people working on these visas would NOT be taking jobs away from Americans. I've sat in many interviews where I was directly competing for a job with dozens of people on H-1B visas. I kept wondering how these people were interviewing since they were not supposed to be competing against me for a job and also wondering why they didn't have work lined up before even setting foot in the USA? What is happening is that Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. are not hiring people. They are outsourcing those positions. Temp agencies are filling those spots and it's those temp agencies that are bringing in the H-1B visa applicants and flooding the job market with them.
“Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. “Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can’t imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest.”
This really grinds my gears. Burtless cannot possibly be that naïve so he's deliberately using a strawman argument to attack this EO. This isn't about discouraging people from applying, it's about stopping abuses here in the USA. Burtless can get bent.
In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.
Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.
I've known this for more than twenty years. I've had my contracts ended early several times because of the dirty stunts tech companies pull with these outsourcing agencies. The article mentions that Congress is working on legislation but they've been "working on legislation" for decades now and not done a damned thing to fix this situation.
All other circus act EO's aside, I must admit that I fully and whole heartedly support President Trump on this. H-1B reform has been LONG overdue and Congress has failed their constituents.
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
Obama ordered a 16 year old boy with US citizenship to be killed by drone attack. When the WH press secretary was asked about it the reason given for the assassination was that his dad was a terrorist. The father, himself a US citizen had already been killed via drone 2 weeks prior to the attack against his son.
The article doesn't say that Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the 16-year-old son.
The 16 year old was on the top secret kill list to be killed by drone. The Obama administration went on record saying that Obama personally gives final approval in regards to who gets put on the kill list.
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
It's only a problem if Starbucks fires Americans to "create" those jobs. Which dovetails into another pending Trump EO. This one is near and dear as the situation has affected me, personally. I'm not going to post the entire article, just the bits that I wish the comment on. Link is provided for those who want to dive a bit deeper.
Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.
We've seen news about how Disney, some utility company in California, and others have abused the H-1B visa system by firing their entire American workforce and replacing them with people filling H-1B visa requests. The program was specifically set up so that people working on these visas would NOT be taking jobs away from Americans. I've sat in many interviews where I was directly competing for a job with dozens of people on H-1B visas. I kept wondering how these people were interviewing since they were not supposed to be competing against me for a job and also wondering why they didn't have work lined up before even setting foot in the USA? What is happening is that Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. are not hiring people. They are outsourcing those positions. Temp agencies are filling those spots and it's those temp agencies that are bringing in the H-1B visa applicants and flooding the job market with them.
“Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. “Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can’t imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest.”
This really grinds my gears. Burtless cannot possibly be that naïve so he's deliberately using a strawman argument to attack this EO. This isn't about discouraging people from applying, it's about stopping abuses here in the USA. Burtless can get bent.
In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.
Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.
I've known this for more than twenty years. I've had my contracts ended early several times because of the dirty stunts tech companies pull with these outsourcing agencies. The article mentions that Congress is working on legislation but they've been "working on legislation" for decades now and not done a damned thing to fix this situation.
All other circus act EO's aside, I must admit that I fully and whole heartedly support President Trump on this. H-1B reform has been LONG overdue and Congress has failed their constituents.
Im sorry to hear your personal struggles, the sad fact is that big companies are more and more likely to outsource workers from abroad because they accept less pay and via agencies can be got in large groups. I think the culture needs to change, not just in the USA but in all developed nations to focus on educating and then employing their people first instead of outsourcing. Trump has sort of said this in his inauguration speech, so hopefully I guess he will act upon it. I think one thing everyone can agree on about Trump is he is decisive and quick to act. Unlike politicians he gets his word on paper and in action in days, were as anyone else would take months if not years.
I wonder when he will fully announce his wall building project officially? The funny thing is a recent poll (can't find source atm) suggested most Americans surveyed didn't mind stopping illegal immigrants but were opposed to him barring refugee migrants. Go figure that one
Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.
So wait, the Democrats are Neo-marxists?
How did you get to that conclusion?
I asked already, but I fear we'll never know.
Sentinel1 wrote: All the countries involved with his E.O are yes Muslim, but each country is a complete and utter mess of political extremist opposites and government coups. The problem is you let one family in, they need a home, social security, language lessons, education lessons, school places etc and then said family want their 50 other relatives to join them in the same area. That makes a huge logistical nightmare through paper work and public funding.
That's very ignorant. Not ignorant as in “You are a filthy racist and you should feel bad about yourself”, no, I really mean that this is very ill-informed and far from the facts. Iran (it's the country I know best, I can't answer for others) has a pretty stable (unfriendly and unlikable as it is) regime, opposition that is mostly very moderate and friendly to the US, as a fairly good education system, and Iranian in the US (mostly concentrated around Los Angeles) are described as follow by Wikipedia:
Iranian Americans are among the highest educated people in the United States. They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities.
Quite recently, an Iranian-born woman working at Standford University, Maryam Mirzakhani, won the Fields medal (i.e. basically the Nobel Price in Mathematics). Now I guess she may have to move away from the US, but I'm sure she won't have too much trouble to get a position in the EU. It's all good for Europe really if the US decide to make such stupid, knee-jerk decision to satisfy the bigotry of it's uneducated masses. I'm still sad about this because being basically forced out of a country must be a quite traumatic experience, but I'll really reveal in schadenfreude when Trump's elector will see the new Apple, Google and co come out of Europe rather than the US.
As much as I hate the IRI, banning Iranians from entering the US was the dumbest move ever. If anything, it actually strengthen the regime, as Iranian Americans won't be able to visit their families in Iran anymore and bring outer news and ideas. And really, look up for the number of Iranian terrorists in the US to see how many terror attack this will prevent, but it's basically none at all.
This message will likely get me a new temporary ban but it was 100% worth it . This kind of information needs to be spread as far and wide as possible imo. Though some people will NEVER accept it, on purely ideological grounds.
Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
*Use the"nuclear option" not you know drop fusion bombs on them.
That's very ignorant. Not ignorant as in “You are a filthy racist and you should feel bad about yourself”, no, I really mean that this is very ill-informed and far from the facts. Iran (it's the country I know best, I can't answer for others) has a pretty stable (unfriendly and unlikable as it is) regime, opposition that is mostly very moderate and friendly to the US, as a fairly good education system, and Iranian in the US (mostly concentrated around Los Angeles) are described as follow by Wikipedia:
This. If anything we should be unveiling a Cold War esque "you get here you stay here in Freedomland" policy for Iranians.
Frazzled rant on: The EO is the EO someone who lives by soundbites and Townhall would do. Its bereft of detailed thinking.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/30 19:54:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US Constitution.
I guess I'm just enamored with the idea if the Senate having the 60 vote requirements is it forces more deliberation. The problem, is when both sides refuses to shift... so, we end up in gridlock (which I'd argue isn't the worst thing in the world )
"Just wanted to point out that the White House press secretary now prints and holds up tweets the president has issues with"
these are the people you have running your country.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
They can't hold or refuse to hold hearings and you know it. It doesn't make the rhetoric any less idiotic.
Frazzled wrote: Nuke 'em*. Make them do a bonafide "I will not eat green eggs and ham" filibuster. There is no 60 vote requirement in the US
I actually think this is a bad thing. The Republicans and Democrats in past Congresses have made effective use of the filibuster to protect minority interests and bring people to the negotiation table. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether would make it pointless for the minority party to even show up and I think that's bad government.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 19:57:13
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
wuestenfux wrote: Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?
Starbucks wants to hire 10,000 immigrants? And yet, just today I've read news that Starbucks is laying off 6000 people.
Guess they figured they can pay migrants lower wages.
just one piece of Bannon’s ideological game of chess, rewiring the media landscape to clear the path for a radical reimagining of conservative politics in line with his own nationalist agenda. The president himself, Bannon has admitted in the past, is just one piece of the puzzle. Trump is a “blunt instrument for us,” Bannon told Ken Stern for Vanity Fair last summer. “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.”
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Just Tony wrote: Liberals. Now that they're safe, they're pro choice.
That's a total fallacy. Before “they were safe”, they had no opinions, just like the reactionaries had no opinions either, because they were goddamn fetuses.
Also, not all liberals are pro-choice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/30 20:08:00
So whoever gets nominated is getting more congressional action than the last guy?
I find this sentence to strangely offputting...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
. This kind of information needs to be spread as far and wide as possible 
