Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report (politico.com)
According to Politico, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was "bounced" from Wednesday's meeting between tech executives and President-elect Donald Trump in retribution for refusing during the campaign to allow an emoji version of the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Trump's adviser Sean Spicer denied the report, saying "the conference table was only so big." Politico reports: Twitter was one of the few major U.S. tech companies not represented at Wednesday afternoon's Trump Tower meeting attended by, among others, Apple's Tim Cook, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and Tesla's Elon Musk -- an omission all the more striking because of Trump's heavy dependence on the Twitter platform. Trump's campaign also made a $5 million deal with Twitter before the election, in which the campaign committed "to spending a certain amount on advertising and in exchange receive discounts, perks, and custom solutions," the campaign's director of digital advertising and fund raising, Gary Coby, wrote in a Medium post last month. So the campaign objected when the company refused to allow the anti-Clinton emoji. Coby wrote that Dorsey personally intervened to block the Trump operation from deploying the emoji, which would have shown, in various renderings, small bags of money being given away or stolen. That emoji would have been offered to users as a replacement for the hashtag #CrookedHillary, a preferred Trump insult for his Democratic opponent. Spicer also objected to the company's refusal, telling the Washington Examiner in October that "while Twitter claims to be a venue that promotes the free exchange of ideas, it's clear that it's leadership's left wing ideology literally trumps that." POLITICO's source said Spicer, who's also the Republican National Committee spokesman, was the one who made the call to refuse an invitation to Dorsey or other Twitter executives to Wednesday's meeting.
Jeff Bezos' presence is probably a much bigger news..
But it would have been a funny emoji...
I mean, with all these goddamn meetings happening in goddamn Trump Tower, am I the only one thinking that it's like a goddamn prolog to a bad cyberpunk-dystopia novel?
"I remember the rise of the megacorps... when all the govs and corps started funneling through the Trumps. If you were anyone, if you wanted anything, you went through those doors, up that golden elevator, and would plead your case to the Trump himself..."
I don't have anything of substance to this particular conversation, but Jesus Harold CHRIST, am I the only one who gets creeped the hell out by constanly reading about the future of our country marching through the goddamn Trump Tower?
Twitter is a chat program. And they keep censoring things. Stupid things. In crazy hypocritical ways.
They're not DESERVING of being included in jack shit when it comes to america.
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
Whew, sure glad to see that's not the case!
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
Especially if it was written at Politico. #FakeNews
compared to this. This is why Trump one. He (or his handlers) are a master to misdirecting folks from real scandals to fake ones. He did it all campaign long. His media and information control skills are terrifying. It's like Karl Rove 2.0.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Twitter isn't a tech company. It's a 140 character message board. Were Slashdot and Reddit invited?
Yes, those childish, petty liberals, trying to pin blame on Trump for a company not being invited to Trump Tower to meet with Trump.
I'm thinking more a cheat with a face on it.
Makes sense, considering all the ISIS posts they like to keep around and do nothing about.
That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite. Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof? Or prosecute someone? Maybe more of those banking restrictions they place on particular individuals? Oh, right.
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true, but the anonymous people with rumors are going to say our allies gossiped about this? And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that. We already discussed just yesterday how Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam, but presumably here they're talking about the DNC leaks, which Wikileaks says came from a DNC insider. You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish. They're simply laundering anonymous rumors with no factual basis and referencing each other's stories that have no factual basis. The emperor has no clothes.
You know it's bad when my own Slashdot comments scooped the NYT on that Podesta email story by weeks and given that I provided more actual, verifiable sources than their article. Seriously, if you can't even beat Slashdot comments by some random guy on the internet, maybe it's time to give it up, guys? You don't even bother to link to the actual sources lest someone do a real investigation, what a pathetic joke.
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees), specifically it was the: "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security "
I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do. Also, we've seen random probes from Russia. Which everyone who has a network has seen all the time (same for China, incidentally), making it utterly meaningless. Everyone with an SSH server has seen this kind of crap and Slashdot has reported many such stories in the past, like this one. A nice quote from the comments in that story sums it up: "If you truly expect no traffic from those places, dropping China, Brasil and Russia from ever reaching your ssh port is a great idea."
Let's also not forget that the DHS was
Lowest Comon Denominator, that's what "emojis" are for
If trump didn't meet with SV you guys would be bashing him for being a spoiled winner.
Also my company is about twice the size of twitter in terms of employees and worth.
Yet we were not invited to the table either.
And unlike Twitter we're actually in Silicon Valley, not the peninsula.
Those liberals keep complaining about the electoral college.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266035509162303492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
And claiming the election was rigged in polling places and the media.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/787699930718695425?lang=en
And questioning the legitimacy of the president.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/137559273394802690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/203568571148800001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207495823750205440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207875027008368640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207897542971752448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207907352412831744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225258011894104065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225620165138726912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225622462770061312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/226019096460918784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/226317290239582208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/227504536317734912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240116141446537216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240117754970132480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240442968379629569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240811658786783232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/246272201710518272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/252850650784882688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/262557984817823744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/262955491309805568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/313730158869741568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/315236584020643840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331898523119415296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/351505671851737089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/366514186664153089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/370646948081975296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/370646987227414529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/536653754029047808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Twitter is a "major tech company." Since when??
It's a website that can receive SMS. There's nothing tech about it. And they can't really even be a "major company," as they have no product. All they have are eyeballs into which ads can be jammed, and those are fickle beasts.
This signature is false.
suspend his twitter account. Just to enjoy the schadenfreude.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Twitter has a market cap that is a fraction of what the smallest company present has.
They were not invited because they were not big enough.
As the only politician with his own emoji, he should be stoked. Although, to be fair, :poop: lacks a certain panache.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Expect a lot more of this shit at the whim of your new King.
How the fuck did the USA of Jefferson, Washington and all the rest end up like this?
I love everything about this story of the "tech summit" at Trump Tower.
1). Trump actually wanted Twitter to give him a "Crooked Hillary" emoji. Think about that. He wanted a special emoji.
2) He called Clinton "Crooked Hillary" while paying $25 million to settle a court case for bilking money from his customers.
3) Because Twitter wouldn't make his "Crooked Hillary" emoji, he punished them by not inviting him to his "tech summit"
4) He tells the assembled billionaires at the "tech summit" that he "wants to help them do well". THEY'RE ALREADY FUCKING BILLIONAIRES.
5) In the photos of the "tech summit" Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Tim Cook and Elon Musk look like they're ready to jump out of a window because of whatever Trump is saying.
6) Just yesterday, Donald Trump had a summit with Kanye West, who is only days out of a psychiatric hold.
And because I love you all, here's an actual (really not fake) photo of Donald Trump with GG Allin, with a pull quote from Trump:
https://i.redditmedia.com/9D2K...
(note: If you don't know who GG Allin was, you really need to look it up, because it puts the photo in context.)
This is going to be fun.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported."
The best part of all of this is you guys on the right still, after 75 years, think this is something that's possible with millions of people.
In short, blame all your problems on immigration, and blindly hope that removing immigration will fix all your problems.
When this inevitably fails to produce the desired result, more extreme, cruel and equally inefficient measures will be taken. This pattern has been repeated many times and it always ends up as a big steaming pile of shit for everyone.
Deleting those accounts as they pop up would make it kinda hard for intelligence services to keep tabs on them. It's more valuable to leave them active for awhile, see who's visiting and following, and then purge them in batches.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
And some of us thought the liberals were going to be petty and seek revenge.
Fair is fair. After all, Obama was accused of all the same things (literally, figuratively, and analogously).
I think it's in the job description.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Not so. the election pretty much pointed out that even democrats who voted him in last time went for Trump this election.
That's a bit over broad. Clearly, not all Democrats who voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump. And Trump got less votes than Hillary, so I dare say that there were still quite a few Obama Democrats voting for Hillary.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
It's his preferred way to communicate with the public, so it would probably hurt.
First they were going to allow a custom emoji for "#CrookedHillary", then when it got too offensive/slanderous they decided "no, we won't do political emojis".
Wouldn't a better policy simply be to say "we don't do emojis that denigrate other people"?
I stole this Sig
Not sure how much credence to give to such a report, but if it turns out to be true it would totally be in line with NJ governor Chris Christie's aides shutting down lanes of the GW Bridge in retribution for the town they pass through having voted against him.
That playbook sure seems to be a popular one, so especially knowing Trump's legendary vindictiveness we should not be surprised in the least that such a thing might be true for Twitter being penalized.
Then again if I was one of Trump's aides and needed an empty 'spin excuse' to explain why? I'd state that "Given how much Twitter's social platform is used by the president-elect every day, it would represent a conflict of interest for someone from that company to get invited to such a meeting." or something equally vacuous.
If a dispute over emojis (of all things) is enough to tank Twitter, then Twitter is not relevant in the first place.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Well, it depends on where you are talking about. In Pennsylvania Trump did win counties that Obama had won. Clinton did receive more votes but she had them in the wrong areas; NY, CA and not where she needed them that elected Obama; OH, MI, PA. There were definitely enough voters that changed this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.
I think there were crosses for both parties; #neverTrump and #neverClinton.
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Wait. Are you trying to be funny or ironic? Because there's been a LOT of hate and anger expressed this election cycle and it's been coming from Trump and his followers. Liberals are simply frightened about real damage the Trump administration, Republicans and Conservative with seriously backward, narrow-minded, phobic, agendas, could have. (You *know* I'm right about those things -- just look at Ohio's attempt to ban abortions at 6 weeks after conception.)
You know, just like the unrealistic fears and hysteria Conservatives had when Obama was elected - because he was black and "not an American".
Of course, perhaps everyone should just relax. So far Trump has backed out or reduced most of his campaign promises, so he'll probably flake on everything else too.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Perhaps they can re-purpose it for the new #CookedCabinet.
Table-ized A.I.
Yes, they have literally blamed him for things that happened before his time. Trump is part of that peanut gallery as well.
Typo: supposed to be "crooked cabinet". Works either way, I suppose.
Table-ized A.I.
Yeah, and Trump was complaining about it being rigged as well, even before he won, especially when it looked like he'd lose. So what's your point?
Okay, I normally like to stay out of these discussions so I can moderate instead, but this is ridiculous.
1. First, unless you want to start a mercantilism-esque trade war, "make Mexico pay for it" isn't really feasible. Second, more people are going to Mexico from the US than are coming to the US from Mexico. Building a wall would be a rather pointless waste of resources. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
2. Catch-and-release was used because it costs a great deal of money to imprison, house, try, and deport illegal immigrants. You need to do due process to avoid violating the constitution. In America, you're innocent until proven guilty - and that applies to people suspected of being in the country illegally. You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless. If you want to end catch-and-release entirely, be prepared to spend a lot more money on law enforcement and the INS.
3. There are constitutional reasons why you can't compel the state law enforcement to do things. Also, DACA/DAPA (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "Obama's deadly policies") didn't allow criminals to stay; if you had any serious convictions (any felony, any serious misdemeanor, or 3 misdemeanors of any kind) you weren't eligible.
4. Again: Constitutional issue. We preserve the right of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws as they see fit; "sanctuary city" is simply an extension of that. Sanctuary cities aren't "safe havens" for illegal immigrants. They're simply cities where the *local* law enforcement will not assist with matters that consist only of immigration status violations. The federal government is welcome to conduct their own operations, as is its right.
5. Sure, you can revoke DACA/DAPA - but be specific, it wasn't amnesty, it was an executive order to provide a temporary stay of enforcement. Amnesty is a different word that has a very different meaning.
6. We... already do? Visas aren't issued blindly, and their requirements are based on nation of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
7. This is a concern only with a few nations (mostly in the middle east) and I actually agree.
8. This would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and operate. We're not Israel; we don't have a single major point of air entry and a few heavily controlled land entry points. It would also not be terribly useful, because unless you're willing to track people once inside the country (and that opens up a whoooole different can of worms) it's not going to do a whole lot. You know person with X biometric data entered the country, great. Now what? They've moved and dropped off the radar. Good luck catching them.
9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.
10. Which historic norms? Immigration's been pretty steady for the last twenty five years, give or take, so immigration as a function of population size has actually *dropped.*
America's problems (well, most of them) aren't because of immigrants. The real issues facing American workers stem from the ruination of unions in the 90s, the increased automation of the last 50+ years, and the willingness of other countries to not offer high standards of living for workers. The problem isn't going away, and blaming immigrants for it isn't going to fix the issue - especially when we have a ticking time bomb in the form of driverless trucking no more than a decade away.
Trucking employs about 1.8 million people, and contributes about
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
Bleh, linked the wrong article for the visa bit. This is the tab I meant to link: https://travel.state.gov/conte...
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
His a a childish buffoon who shouldn't have access to the nuclear codes. He's the kind of president you'd expect a third-world country to have. It doesn't matter if a two-bit third-world president screw things up, not many people are affected, but here we're talking about the leader of the free world. The impact could be extremely detrimental to the well being of the west. This is not a game, this is serious.
Have you looked at /r/politics lately?
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man" -- General George S. Patton.
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
Good plan that; retaining illegals until they can be sent to any other country. Like Canada. The one with the impenetrable wall.
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
In 8 years Dubya deported 2 million. In 7 years (so far) the "Deporter In Chief" has sent 2.5 million illegals packing.
4. End sanctuary cities.
Any details on this? Publically humiliating the mayors via tweets? Air strikes? Threatening to build (or not build) a Trump property?
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
Obama got carried away. DACA and DAPA were/are a bad call. A lawyer should have know better.
I can't wait until Americans get a shot at the 18 million jobs that those 5 million jobs illegals will leave behind. I just can't wait to see Joe Plumber in the fields at 4 am picking cabbage for $3/hour, then off to hang drywall or put on roofs in 110 degree heat for $4.50/hr. Let's make American heart attacks great again! All kidding aside, do you have any idea of the kinds of jobs that illegals hold, what they get paid and their working conditions? They are basically hostages working for sub-minimal wages under daily threat of deportation from employers.
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
I'ld like to see it at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Trump's squeeze this week (Melanija Knavs) is a foreign national. Citizenship is not transferable by relation (see item # 5 above).
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
"Hello, Mexico? We got some cooks and roofers up here. Come get these guys. Wadda mean there's an impenetrable wall? Who's goddam idea was that? Hello? Hello??"
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.
"Biometric data processed. Re-entry into the United States is refused. Your records indicate a defect in the APOE4 gene associated with Mild Cognitive Impariment. We apologize for the inconvenience Mr. Trump, Donald"
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.
"Mr Trump, here's the latest revision of the Ten Point Plan. As requested, all items are just re-wordings of the same idea. As you said, our supporters won't be able to figure that out."
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.
Interesting. All those millions of illegals slipping into the country up until now become "the historic norm".
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
"He is literally not."
Actually he is, no, not in the scream fascist because it's a cool insult kind of way, but in the actual, that is the label for his brand of politics kind of way.
Fascism opposes liberalism, is dependent on nationalism and populism, and protectionism. It opposes birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and it believes gender roles should be well defined - i.e. women act as child bearers and men are there to work.
You're rarely going to have an individual that fits perfectly into a single political spectrum, but without a doubt, objectively, Trump's political views and styles most closely align with fascism over and above any other political system. The only thing he is short on is authoritarianism, and even there it's not clear whether that's because he actually believes in democracy (claims about not accepting the election if he lost would imply not), or because he has no choice but to accept that taking democracy away in America right now is not something he could achieve.
Perhaps the reason you find the perfectly accurate label of Trump as a fascist so offensive is because you too believe in that particular political ideology, but are too insecure in your belief to accept it. Contrary to far-right folks like you saying you hate political correctness, what you're actually doing is refusing to call a spade a spade, which is rather hypocritical. The fact you're far-right dross, the left behinds that have failed in life and want to blame everyone else even though it's through their own personal failings is a bit of a giveaway when you have a ten point plan that could really just be summed up in one point "Trump is awesome because he hates foreign people just like I do and now we get to treat them as sub-human".
Fascism has long been misused as an insult that doesn't truly represent the person it's being aimed at. Unfortunately that is no longer true, because with people like Orban, Farage, Le Pen, and Trump around we're now well and truly in the realm of the rise of real, actual, fascists, not just the insult kind. You seem to be on board with that but find it offensive so want to define yourself some political correct name, like alt-right I assume rather than just using the accurate and existing terms of far-right and fascist it would appear.
As an innocent bystander (not republic/democrat/conservative/liberal), it's weird to hear people accuse others of being liberals merely because they're pointing out that they don't like Trump and his unrealistic stance. Every single person I know who voted for Trump does NOT like Trump, they just treated him as the slightly more tolerable candidate. So when I see someone pointing to Trump as the greatest candidate ever and that person is smart enough to use a computer, I can only imagine that they just keep repeating that as a mantra in order to keep from going into a deep depression.
The Republican leadership does NOT like Trump either, are they all liberal stooges? Yes some might claim that but if they believe it then they're in serious need of some vacation time with round the clock care. Everyone on the left or right is pandering to Trump as the next President, that does not mean they like him or agree with him, it's just basic common sense.
I agree that Trump is being much more toned down after the election. However the people he's listening to are not necessarily doing this. For a man claiming to be of the people he's nominating a cabinet full of the elitist of elites, and that's certainly due to the people whispering in his ear. So I don't think he'll flake on this as he seems to be nominating everyone his handlers tell him to. His fanbase don't seem to think this, they start off bashing the elites but then seem happy that these same elites are being nominated. My guess is that the people pulling the strings are going to be surprised when they let their guard down and he starts moving on his own. I honestly think Trump never planned on winning at all and he's winging it with the help of a lot of whispers in his ear. While Trump does seem to be backing down from campaign rhetoric I don't think he's showing that with his cabinet picks. He seems more like acting like a prominent CEO and letting others do the work of running things while he gets the publicity.
In other words, there's a whole lot of unpredictability going on. Will he just do what he's told or will he occasionally exert some free will? Too hard to predict. That's why there's a stream of people visiting his throne in Trump Tower, they need to pander to the unpredictable. People who are convinced with certainty about what Trump will do in office are deluding themselves.
Twitter is worth $13 billion. Amazon $372 billion, Apple $624 billion. President-elect Trump can spend that time talking to a company that employs 3,500 people and shrinking (Twitter), 116,000 (Apple), or 230,000 and growing (Amazon).
If I were becoming president and I could spend a day talking with someone who hired 80,000 new people last year (plus 100,000 temps), I think I's focus on them for the day rather than Twitter, whose recent "major layoff" was 330 people or so. Amazon hired more people *last month* than Twitter has in it's entire history.
You *know* I'm right about those things
Don't make assumptions. Propaganda works.
Last year Amazon created 180,000 new jobs for "schmucks that do the actual work, like you and I." I'm glad President-elect Trump wants to learn more about how they do that.
Whoosh.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
From my perspective growing up in a farming area in Calilfornia, the biggest employers of undocumented workers are also very conservative and Republican. These farmers wanting cheap workers are not elitist liberals by any means. They just want cheap labor. Unions who are typically branded as liberal these days are the ones who want to get rid of undocumented workers who drive down wages. For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances. There are jobs that American citizens and green card holders really don't want to take if they have a choice. If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
Dumptrucks? It sounds so inefficient. I would suggest a series of tubes.
>We won.
Are you a billionaire ? No? than you have lost.
You are making a very dangerous assumption:
In the past four years, NO ONE has 1) moved, 2) died, 3) reached an age allowing them to vote, 4) decided not to vote again, or 5) decided to vote this time when they didn't last time.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Trump is having a tech meeting with Space-X Elon Musk, Apple's Tim Cook, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg,..
According to Politico...
You can stop reading right there.
They printed (and continue to print) every bit of anti-Trump fake news they could find, and they make stuff up when they can't find other stuff to print, and Trump still won the election.
Thanks, Vlad!!
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
it's weird to hear people accuse others of being liberals
That's how it works in all extreme ideologies. You are either with us or against us. Part of the system or an enemy of it. Everything is black and white.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I always thought it was pretty screwed up how the US only grants rights, even human rights, to its own citizens. To the US, everyone who isn't a citizen is a second class human being. When people treat Americans that way they don't seem to like it either.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Amazon is making more money off those workers than they pay them.
OMG really? Is water wet too? Do you have a point?
That's quite true of course. Twitter was losing money from the things their workers were doing, so they had to lay off 9% of their workers; Amazon is making money, so they hired 50% more workers. Businesses hire when they're making more money, lay people off when there is less business.
> No business employes people just to get them paid.
Not quite true, I myself created a corporation and a business specifically for the purpose of keeping people employed. Come to think of, MOST businesses in the US exist solely to get workers paid, but you're thinking of a different type of business. Can you figure put which type of business this is?:
Most businesses in the US are this type.
Exists only so that the workers get paid.
Anyway, Amazon is the type of business you're thinking of, which isn't there just to employ people. Yet they DO employ a ton of people. Amazing. Same with Apple. Whatever mechanism turned the self-interest of Steve Jobs into thousands of jobs is pretty amazing. I'm glad Trump is finding out more about how to turn self-interest into enjoyment.
You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless.
Gitmo. Which Obama decided not to close by deciding not to use his pardon power. All he had to do was say (at some point) "in one year I am pardoning everyone in gitmo not charged with a crime, and suck it up buttercups" and leave it up to others to decide how to handle the remaining prisoners. Charge them, let them go, whatever.
Rights are meaningless. You have only what rights you can take and hold by force. Don't get confused about this. We see this proven out over and over again. I'd say the relative situations vis-a-vis Standing Rock and Malheur prove that neatly, though, if you need one thing (well, two things) to point at.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers, you simply raise the minimum wage to one on which you can live without being in poverty, as it was originally intended. This is literally the only thing you can do. Americans stopped taking those jobs because they only paid a poverty wage, which was only possible because congress has not raised the minimum wage to meet inflation in over twenty years.
The illegal worker problem was literally created by congress, which is also responsible for destroying the middle class — and mostly with the same [in]action.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The final word of my post should be employment, not enjoyment. Something magical turned the self- interest of Jobs into 100,000 jobs. A neat trick, turning self-interest into EMPLOYMENT.
Do the deaths of little people not matter as long as the great leap forward is achieved? Do you think the statist socialist places weren't doing socialism hard enough, or will you make a 'no true Scottsman' argument and claim they weren't doing it right? It's just that every single time... every. time... every. single. time... it ends in rivers of blood. The useful idealists are liquidated the moment they object.
I'm not going to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, because it's irrelevant whether what they were trying to achieve was "true" socialism.
Socialism, communism, capitalism—none of those have anything particular to do with mass state-sponsored murder. If you think socialism—things like Medicare, Social Security, and the Earned Income Tax Credit—can in any meaningful causative way lead to millions dead, then you're the one who's deluded.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
If the EC delivers its anticipated screwing of the American public next week, then, yes, exactly.
Wins the thread.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yeah, well Jack Dorsey doesn't need Trump anyways... He's currently listening to a band you probably never heard of while sipping a craft beer.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Highly doubtful. Even the people who voted for Trump aren't broadly clueless enough to destroy their ability to live in relative comfort and safety.
What would probably happen would be a couple more occupations of wildlife refuges or similar by those too dim to remember to pack socks for a midwinter camping trip.
But if imagining a civil war is what lets you sleep smiling... by all means, carry on. We all have our dreams.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Wait. Are you trying to be funny or ironic? Because there's been a LOT of hate and anger expressed this election cycle and it's been coming from Trump and his followers.
You haven't seen any of the violence against Trump supporters on the news? You haven't seen any of the protests in the streets after the election? Trump supporters, of which I was not one, were not the violent ones. Angry, yes, but they channeled that to the ballot box. Trump haters channeled it to the streets.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You misspelled it.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Great post. I just have to disagree with one point:
9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence. Second step: offer a green card to any illegal immigrant who rats out his or her employer. Done. No one can hide the fact of the illegal employment from the employee, and the illegal employee's motives for being in the country will be best served by blowing the whistle and getting legal status.
Oddly enough, whenever I propose this strategy to those who are up in arms about illegal immigration, they don't like it. They don't have any coherent response to it, but they don't like it. The reason they don't like it, of course, is that there's a strong undercurrent of racism in their position, and my proposal would punish Americans and reward illegals, at least at first. Even if it's clear that it would work in the long run, it's emotionally unsatisfying to them because they want to punish the illegals for daring to come here. In practice, I don't think very many green cards would be issued because American employers would start being very careful about who they employ, but that still doesn't make the illegal immigration alarmists happy because it merely makes illegals unemployable, rather than punishing them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
If you want to get rid of undocumented workers, you simply raise the minimum wage to one on which you can live without being in poverty, as it was originally intended. This is literally the only thing you can do.
That would do exactly the opposite. It would give employers an even greater motivation to use illegal labor so they wouldn't have to comply with the minimum wage regulations. If you want to get rid of undocumented workers you need to make employing them unattractive to American employers.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I simply described the facts as they stand at this point in time. I'm not denying anything at all.
Trump will probably be elected next week. That's how the EC votes look to be allocated right now. That is the actual election. Not the popular vote. The popular vote is, as we have just been reminded, not the determining factor in who gets to be president.
Pretending that's a good thing, no, that I'm not inclined to do. I am fairly confident that should we, as seems quite likely, endure a Trump presidency, it will eventually be described as "Like Bush II, but considerably more damaging to the nation."
It will be very interesting to watch. As for me being "butthurt", I am quite certain that the middle-income and poor people who voted for this man are going to suffer worse than I will as a result of those of his policies that he manages to put in place through whatever means -- congress, executive orders, direct control via the executive branch hierarchy. presidential authority for foreign policy decisions, etc.
I do feel bad for those people. It's one thing to observe that they have been hoodwinked. It would be quite another to glory in their suffering. I won't be doing that.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances.
The important thing to remember about parties in the US system is that they don't actually represent consistent ideological positions; that's largely a convenient fiction. Ideology tends to divide people along fine distinctions, which works in a parliamentary system because a small party can join a governing coalition. In fact small parties often play kingmaker and wield a great deal of power. In the American system being a small party like the Greens means you get nothing. Ever.
In the US we have to build our cross-ideological coalition within the parties, which requires a lot of creative rationalization and, to put it bluntly, emotional manipulation. That's why the Democrats have trade unionists and minorities on one hand, and the Republicans have evangelicals and the Log Cabin Republicans on the other. These groups have little intrinsic motivation to support each other, except that's the only way to get a share of power.
This means that to understand a party you cant just go by the pictures they paint of themselves (never a good idea with any group); you need to look at their history. And that explains those Republican ranchers and their undocumented workers. From Reconstruction until the 1960s the Republican party was regional party that represented Northern and later Western business interests. The in 1964 Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That very year arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond switched parties from Democrat to Republican, and the Republicans for the first time ever gained a foothold in the South and a nation-wide scope that has allowed them to dominate the House of Representatives since the early 90s.
A Democratic hyperpartisan will tell you the post-Nixon Republicans embraced racism, but really what they did was smarter: they embraced nativism. Nativism had considerable appeal to racists while being more acceptable to traditional Republicans. However this also conflicted with business interests (especially agricultural ones), so the Republican party adopted a regime of hard rhetoric and and harsh but deliberately ineffective measures. If you don't believe me, check out this graph of undocumented Mexicans in the US and note the transition from the Bush era to the Obama era. Obama actually stepped up deportations pretty much from the get go, particularly of criminals.
At the same time the adoption of nativism by the Republicans makes the Democrats' job easier. While from a strict trade-unionist position undocumented workers are a bad thing, in practical terms the impacts aren't in jobs where there is a strong union, because the union prevents employers from paying low wages to non-union workers.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
JFC you are a moron.
1 - the wall is an absurdity. the cost is well north of 25 billion dollars in materials alone, not even counting labor and its associated associated costs. much of the terrain to be covered is extremely remote, so you're not going to be able to send the workers home every day. you're going to have to house and feed them as well. and all that cost, can be defeated by a 30$ ladder from home depot. it's pure idiocy.
2 - and that will require increasing the budget of ICE by ~100x. when you release them, you don't have to provide for them. if you don't, you do. clothing, shelter housing. and because you're talking about families often, you cant be splitting them up, detaining, trying, and deporting them separately, especially the children (8th amendment). so your housing isn't going to be simple prison-esque condition, but something that can keep families together, separated from other families. are you beginning to see why we don't do that?
3 - Obama has deported more people than the previous 4 presidents combined, and with a focus on those who are criminals . Your point is complete BS not at all attached to reality.
4 - You can't. Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, not cities. You cannot force cities to participate, and if they don't want to spend their resources assisting, they don't have to. They have their own concerns.
5 - What amnesties? This is another BS talking point not grounded in reality. There were no amnesties.
6 - We already do. Yet another BS talking point not grounded in reality
7 - You actually cannot force that. And it can be a bad thing too to do so. We have actually created the current violence and chaos in Honduras by deporting undocumented criminals in such large numbers that the local government was unable to handle the influx. They almost literally just show up in the local airport...and aren't met by anyone, so they're effectively off scot free, to form new criminal enterprises.
8 - $$$$$ Again: how you gonna pay for it? And how are you not going to violate the constitution implementing it? Remember: the Constitution protects all persons subject to the authority of the US Government, not just citizens; the few rights we don't also apply to non-citizens are the exception, not the rule.
9 - So to deter immigration...you're going to hurt American citizens by killing the social safety net? by harming jobs somehow? A social safety net supported in part by immigrant workers, including undocumented workers who contribute more than 11B$ annually into a system they do not get to benefit from? Oh yeah...that's right. you think they just sit on welfare. news flash: that's another BS talking point not grounded in reality. also, immigrants only ever boost the economy , even when underpaid (yes, they should be able to work openly, or at least report bad working conditions that they current cannot because of threat of deportation; but taking away their jobs entirely only hurts things, not helps.) the fact they come here for jobs is a sign of the strength of our economy. you cant actually "turn off the magnet" without harming our own country.
10 - total BS talking point rooted in racism and xenophobia. "historic norms" would be immigration levels far above today's levels . Immigration helps the country, period , and restricting it as we have actually is a drag on the economy. Legal immigration is practically impossible for the majority of those seeking opportunity, ie, poor or poverty stricken. but if you're rich, or semi rich, or connected, it's easy. Hell, the really rich literally get to just buy their citizenship . what was that about "borders" and "not having a country?" oh yeah...just more xenophobic bigotry that ignores the fact that the rich already live in
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
to make hiring them unattractive, you need to make the labor not illegal in the first place. ie, remove the fear of deportation. then the MW can apply to them too.
and when they cost just as much to employ as legal workers, and the threat of deportation cannot be held over them, they cease to be attractive hires for the unscrupulous employers. the same concept applies to H1B visa holders who are similarly forced to keep quiet and not complain in order to keep their jobs.
the concept is simple: if you're willing to work, live, and pay taxes into the local system, you should get to, and we should gladly welcome such people.
everyone benefits from that arrangement, even if the worker is a non-citizen who may or may not plan to return home someday.
no more legal/illegal distinction.
and along with it, attach citizenship as a goal/reward at the end of a reasonable period of years.
this leverages the strength of our economy to attract the kind of people we want here: hard workers, smart workers, etc. the kind of people we all are descended from, the kind who built the nation. and easing the ability to gain citizenship (without being rich enough to simply buy it) helps us retain them. its only ever strengthened the country and its past time we got back to that mindset.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Also, is it really "worth" 13 Billion? Last I heard they have never posted a profit ever, were shopping around to get bought out by one of the bigger players like MS, and no one was interested (at least the the valuation they were offering)...
Dangerous? Wow, I will be sure to put on a helmet next time or is a seat belt good enough?
Yes, I am sure that all of those contributed but the exit polls show that there was cross over from the last elections from the areas Clinton needed votes the most. Like anything, it isn't just one thing that decides the outcome. To the OP, some Obama Democrats voted for Clinton but it obviously wasn't all or enough in the areas she took advantage of them.
That would do exactly the opposite. It would give employers an even greater motivation to use illegal labor so they wouldn't have to comply with the minimum wage regulations.
No, it doesn't work that way. The illegal workers are undocumented, but it doesn't mean they don't have documents. They just have someone else's documents. In at least one case, they used my documents. The employers are complying with the minimum wage regulations; these illegally employed migrant workers are making minimum wage. The employer has to appear to be following the regulations, at least on paper. Now, yes there are multiple cases in which workers have been expected to pay part of their wages back to their employer and many other such scams, but no, they are not paying less than the minimum wage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the concept is simple: if you're willing to work, live, and pay taxes into the local system, you should get to, and we should gladly welcome such people.
Okay, in theory, yes. However:
everyone benefits from that arrangement, even if the worker is a non-citizen who may or may not plan to return home someday.
No. Absolutely not. In a world in which you have to have a job, and there are a finite and inadequate number of jobs because wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few who claim to be "job creators" but who actually wind up shuffling the money between one another without it actually touching the hands of peasants, which is why "trickle down" economics doesn't work. Your system redistributes wealth away from citizens, which is why it won't work: it's harmful to the citizenry.
easing the ability to gain citizenship (without being rich enough to simply buy it)
Letting people buy citizenship is a good plan, so long as we expect them to follow the rules of the nation and then act accordingly. You just set the price high enough to where they more than pay for themselves.
its only ever strengthened the country and its past time we got back to that mindset.
The number of jobless people in the country has never been so high except during the great depression. I fail to see how exacerbating this problem will help. Permitting endless numbers of immigrants has only ever been a benefit to the nation when we were in a state of war, and needed conscripts.
Now, if you're going to pay citizens a minimum guaranteed income, and permit non-citizens to cross the border freely to actually do what work there is and they really get a shit deal, that will benefit the citizenry because it creates an underclass of permanent slaves. But that doesn't seem like a desirable road to go down, either.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's true, using other valuation methods Twitter may be worth $1 billion. Meanwhile, Trump's *personal* net worth is around $4 billion.
Regarding coercing the states and localities into doing what the Feds want - you may not be able to directly order them to do stuff, but you can de facto order them to do it by cutting off funding sources if they don't.
Watch how fast the law enforcement agencies start doing what's asked of them when Federal equipment and training grants disappear, and operations budget that comes from federal agencies for various policing activities (read: locking up drug dealers) dry up.
Is it a nice thing to do? Not even remotely. But it's a lever that the administration can pull any time they want - Congress only says how much money will be distributed, and for what purpose. They usually don't allocate percentages to specific jurisdictions, especially with earmarks being frowned upon.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Politico lost their integrity for me this year and as such I won't recognize any story as legitimate, especially one so obviously trying to start something where there is nothing. The story here isn't Twitter's denial, but another example of how Politico has an agenda. News shouldn't have an agenda.
Trump's adviser Sean Spicer denied the report, saying "the conference table was only so big."
Yeah, it's a known fact that finding a larger table is simply impossible.
Face it, this was tit-for-tat retaliation. Just once I'd like Mein Fuhrer to be honest and say, "Yeah, this is payback!"
They wanted an emoji for their stupid "Lock her up" meme and Twitter said no, so they got all pissy, wah wah wah! But I'm surrrrrrrrrrrrrrre the Trumpanzees would have had no problem with an orange monkey-face emoji to stand in for Donald, right? Right?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Fucking lefty precious snowflake trigger warning echo chamber.
This fucking lefty isn't afraid to post non-AC.
Same here. I'm a "lefty" (probably way more so than most people here) and I'm not afraid to stand behind what I say. I'll own my words, unlike many right-wingers. No, I'm not some ding-dong SJW or special snowflake, but sure as hell I'm on the left.
It's mostly Trumpanzees and alt-right fucktards who hide in the shadows taking potshots at people.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Any details on this? Publically humiliating the mayors via tweets? Air strikes? Threatening to build (or not build) a Trump property?
The same way the federal government got the same age restrictions in every state for alcohol: With hold federal funds to those states and municipalities do not help.
Fun fact; Louisiana was the last state to adopt 21 as the age restriction for alcohol because the perceived loss in sales in alcohol (of people 18-21) would be more than what hey were going to get from the federal government for highways. Not sure if that is still the reason why Louisiana roads are shit.
Simple solution for Twitter; ban the fat orange cunt.
It would be fun and satisfying to do that (think of the epic ragefest he'd have), but I say let the tiny-handed goober spew his mindless bullshit in the open for everyone to see. Let him display his breathtaking ignorance and bigotry publicly so the whole world knows what a petty whackadoodle he is.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous" No need to kill them.
Please site "They" My current site references was Dump himself.
To the OP, some Obama Democrats voted for Clinton but it obviously wasn't all or enough in the areas she took advantage of them.
I must once again quibble with your use of over-broad statements. To be clear, most Obama Democrats voted for Clinton. Some did not.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The problem we have with current AI systems filtering out content is that the mathematics for filtering out sets of grinning showoffs. Something else H1B Zombies can't do.
You're a god damned lair.
whenever I propose this strategy to those who are up in arms about illegal immigration, they don't like it. They don't have any coherent response to it, but they don't like it. The reason they don't like it, of course, is that there's a strong undercurrent of racism in their position, and my proposal would punish Americans and reward illegals, at least at first.
No, your proposal would punish everyone. Fruit is already going unpicked for a lack of migrant labor. As I've pointed out above, this is a consequence of a too-low minimum wage. Citizens won't pick fruit for minimum wage because it isn't worth the effort. It's hard, often dangerous work which not everyone is even good enough at to be asked back. They cannot maintain the standard of living to which they have become accustomed by taking such a job. Therefore, the only people willing to do the work are people in dire financial straits by our standards. That overwhelmingly means illegal immigrants, who are escaping an even lower standard of living (possibly including a rapid and untimely death) and for whom living ten to a room is an upgrade.
By all means, punish those who hire illegal immigrants, but only after removing the necessity. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and crack down on those who continue to hire illegals since there's only one reason to do that: intending to game the system.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To me, the trivial nature of the objection sets a really bad example for the kids. It sounds like something an eight year old boy would do, then is scolded by his mother. It's just sad to witness this.
-Bob-
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. If fruit growers need to pay more to hire people, they'll pay more to hire people, no government coercion required.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There are some undocumented workers using faked or stolen identities, sure. But there are a lot more who work completely under the table and, no, they do *not* make minimum wage.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm good with just opening the doors to unlimited immigration, but my proposal is intended to strike a balance that would make it attractive to those who are deeply opposed to that approach.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He's not the president-elect unless the electoral college vote next week overrides the popular vote.
There's no such thing as "overriding" the popular vote. The electoral college is how it works in the presidential election.
anyone who thinks that he "won the election" might want to keep in mind that the majority of Americans selected Mrs. Clinton
No, they didn't. Hillary Clinton won 48.3% of the popular vote. So she didn't win the majority of the popular vote. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, voter turnout was 58.6%. So only a little over half of those eligible to vote actually did so. Which means 28.3% of eligible voters actually voted for her. Hardly the majority of Americans.
I didn't like any of our choices this time around. But the electoral college is how the presidential election works. I don't follow any professional sports, but a friend of mine who follows baseball made an interesting comment about it. Apparently the totals runs for all of the games in the world series this year were 27 for each team. Obviously it wasn't' declared a tie, so depending on which games they scored makes a difference. Just like where the votes are counted makes a difference. Be it right or wrong, that's the system we have in place.
"it obviously wasn't all or enough in areas she took advantage of".
Is over-broad? Again, talking about the specific areas that she needed, PA, MI, and OH. How is what I said over-broad or contrary to your "Some did not".
Are you really arguing semantics of the same damn thing? The only difference between our statements is that I am clarifying that WHERE is a much more important factor when you say: " And Trump got less votes than Hillary, so I dare say that there were still quite a few Obama Democrats voting for Hillary."
Yes, Trump got less votes and Clinton had quite a few Obama Democrat votes. BUT not in the areas that were important in this election that gave Obama and Trump the presidency. In those areas, Obama Democrats voting for Clinton wasn't all of them or enough to win, obviously. It is also fairly safe to say that "enough voters that changed [either party vote or stay home] this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.". because the "blue wall" is gone and the exit polls show as much. Seriously... what are you quibbling over?
No, they are applying motive to the lack of invitation. Specifically, petty revenge.
God forbid that Twitter wasn't invited because they don't actually bring anything to the table. I wasn't invited either, who should I complain to and have it turn into a national story because Trump is a big meanie face who didn't want to include ME?
FYI there were literally tens of thousands of other tech companies that weren't invited either, and nobody cares. Where was Michael Dell? HP? Micron? AMD? Qualcomm? Texas Instruments? Etc.
What makes Twitter so fucking special, considering that their product is complete shit anyway?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Two things:
For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances.
Not correct at all. We are more than smart enough to understand nuance. The issue is that if you make the argument left vs right, then nuance is drowned. Intentionally. In short, changing the nature of the argument is a rhetorical tool designed to fluster all attempts at a rational discussion... and it apparently works. Very well. Why people agree to be boxed in like that, I have no idea, but meh. It may be just that the mainstream media is merely a mouthpiece and has no journalistic integrity of its own anymore.
There are jobs that American citizens and green card holders really don't want to take if they have a choice. If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
If the jobs paid at least minimum wage, I am sure there are plenty of desperate people who would take them. Can't provide food for the kids at $1.16/hr which is what those farmers/ranchers grudgingly pay.
On to the bolded part: able bodied workers do not get welfare. They get unemployment with its own requirements and limitations. Welfare typically goes to females. If they have children, they get even more. Regardless, I do not want you trying to set social policy please. You are only seeing things from your own perspective. No, I am not insulting you for that. Most people do it. It just makes you NOT the right person to be setting policies. Have a nice day. :)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
That part of my reply was directly in response to the false claim that Mrs. Clinton won "the majority" of votes, which she did not. I then added the other parties to further show that 'her side' didn't even win the majority of the popular vote. She simply won a larger percent of the liberal vote than Mr. Trump won of the conservative vote.
Also, I don't like the fact that so many people keep making this a two horse race. I voted for Jill Stein, and want my vote to count. So, yes, I will add in more parties if I please.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I think it's probably not a good idea to fjnork around with someone who has a big say in which emoji get created. Ok, so #CR00KEDHillary didn't fly. But does the PE really want to piss off the guy who could create emoji like : #PEDO_Trump
#TrumpAlzheimers
#MicroPenisPresident
#CluelessInChief
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
It's really hard to pin any sort of ideology on Trump. Most people are still trying to figure him out and what he stands for. Those who voted for him as his fans (as opposed to those who only voted for a lesser of two evils) probably assume he's got a mirror image of their own political views and will be in for disappointment.
However this does not stop the employers who want undocumented workers because they can pay less than minimum wage. Americans don't want those jobs for several reasons, one being that they pay less than minimum wage. If an employer is going to skirt the law to get an undocumented worker then that employer isn't going to suddenly toe the line and follow regulations regarding minimum wage.
And besides, most of the farm work that uses undocumented labor is not paid hourly but instead paid by the amount of work done (number of baskets of fruit picked, etc). So minimum wage doesn't figure into it.
His ideology is really simple:
Me me me me me everyone else is an idiot me me me me me me
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Absolutely. The employers of undocumented works know exactly what they are doing.
"it obviously wasn't all or enough in areas she took advantage of".
Is over-broad?
I know this is slashdot, and I know that quoting habits are notoriously poor. Still, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed which part of your statement I was quibbling with, because that's the part that I quoted. And I even said why I was disagreeing with the quoted portion.
If I was quibbling with the parts that you keep returning to, then I would have quoted them. But I didn't. So I'm not. Which means you're just going in circles trying to prove the veracity of a point you made which wasn't in dispute. Which is, honestly, pretty stupid, and not at all the way to make an effective point.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Instead of small parties forming a coalition after the elections, in the US you get small factions forming the coalitions during the primary elections. Ie, the "Tea Party" was acting as a kingmaker, sometimes the evangelicals, even though these are not political parties. What you don't see often though are these factions crossing the party line, they are mostly convinced that they are a core constituent of just one party. Even those party members who aren't as rigidly ideological will work with or allly with the other party but without leaving their current party.
You explained why my proposal is unnecessary and possibly a bad idea, not why it won't work. If you really want to end the vast majority of illegal immigration, it absolutely will work, and it'll be one hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than a big wall. I, personally, don't care about ending illegal immigration. Or, rather, my ideal world proposal would be to end it by removing restrictions on immigration. But for those who want to end it, there's a cheap and easy solution which they don't like because it's insufficiently punitive.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. If fruit growers need to pay more to hire people, they'll pay more to hire people, no government coercion required.
The irony in the situation that you are missing is that the minimum wage isn't enough to attract migrant workers any more, either. They're either grouping together and spending their money to buy land and becoming the farmers themselves, producing high-profit-margin products and keeping the money. But that doesn't pick the mass-market stuff that keeps cheap food on shelves. Or, they're actually going back to Mexico because things are better there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, they are applying motive to the lack of invitation. Specifically, petty revenge.
And we all know that Trump would never stoop to such a thing, right?
I mean, it's not like he got Romney to suck his dick on camera by dangling the SecState job in front of him, making a total fool of him, and then picking someone else. That public ass-raping and humiliation certainly couldn't have been driven by a need for revenge, no sir!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Clinton did receive more votes but she had them in the wrong areas; NY, CA and not where she needed them
Only in America can you win by 2.5 million votes and still lose because the votes were "in the wrong areas".
Can anyone tell me why it should it matter where those votes were cast?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It appears my reading comprehension is suspect today. This isn't the first post today I have read wrong. I read your post wrong or more specifically missed the italics that emphasized your quibble. My apologies.
I salute your semantic quibbles and resign myself to stupid leisure instead of stupid shit posting.
I'm surprised, genuinely. It's rare that anyone on slashdot owns up to a mistake.
You have risen significantly in my estimation. Cheers.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Oh I'm not saying I want to do what you bolded, I just said it might be a smart idea. At least smart when looking at the problem only in isolation, but it's not very smart if you look at a broader perspective of society. A dictator could solve all sorts of problems with a heavy hand but that doesn't mean it's a good idea because so very many new problems would arise. Generally society accepts certain problems like undocumented workers because the cure is worse than the disease.
Due Process? Is that like not enforcing immigration policy because you don't agree with the laws and then filing suit against the states that are doing the administrations job? Is that like when the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY rules against you more than any other US president in history? When ALL the liberal, moderate, and conservative judges UNITE against you?
What due process are you talking about exactly?
The irony.
Sure. But the game is to keep your coalition together and split the other guy's. The difference in the Westminster system is that this could happen any time party discipline breaks down.
It's still the case that third parties organized around strict ideological discipline don't accomplish anything in the US system. This isn't deliberately baked into the system, it's an emergent property.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Good responses.
It occurs to me that maybe to take care of the continuing and future loss of blue-collar jobs, a solution to the problem would be to put them on govt payroll. The 10-point plan mentions tripling ICE personnel. Many of the other goals will require a larger enforcement presence, too. Since DHS was created it's been a terrific make-work program. Of course, that presents an even greater opportunity for employment. See "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Looking at the pictures, no one looked delighted to be there.
Would you be? As a leader of a tech company, your business is to be smart, hire smart, and look smart. Trump has made himself look like the dumbest person in the country over the last year, and you have to deal with a fucktard that makes Forrest Gump look downright brilliant. You cannot ignore him, as he might try to help you with what he thinks Tech needs and make your life worse. (Example H1-b visas: tech companies want easy visas for as many tech workers as possible vs. Trump riding a wave of populist racism and trying to lock down immigration.)
He is literally to stupid to be left alone. These guys have to engage with him or risk the consequences, of course they are unhappy. The meeting had no point other than to let Trump try to look like he was 'doing' something to help the economy. None of the guys in the room needed government help to make more money or create jobs.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Here's the thing about my certainty as compared to the folks you are talking about.
Obama never said anything about sharia law, taking everyone's guns, or declaring himself president for life. That was all right-wing agitprop. Obama was perfectly reasonable about those things. And many others. I think he was a very good president, as they go. One of our best. I don't agree with everything he supports by any means, but the odds of that are pretty much zero no matter who is in there. I don't think he did much additional harm, and he did a great deal of good. There's plenty left to fix, of course -- he did let a number of things continue that I would really rather he had put a stop to. Perhaps someone in the future will get to some of those. Or not.
Trump, however, has stuffed his cabinet with the ultra-rich who have specific public agendas that counter a great deal of the remaining good things about this country, not to mention stating intent to roll back a lot of social progress -- yes, progress -- and both he and they have stated multiple goals that range from simply unconstitutional to outrageous.
All it would take for him to really put a hurt on the middle- and low-income folks is to follow through on one or two things, such as actually flushing the immigrants out (watch the prices of fruit and vegetables skyrocket) or applying high tariffs to Chinese imports (watch the prices in big-box, electronics, and clothing store skyrocket) or simply pissing them off really bad about Taiwan (same result is very likely, only perhaps worse)... I mean seriously, the difference is that Obama said nothing crazy, that was all the right-wingers pushing a false narrative. Finding something crazy Trump claims he is going to do... that's the work of a few seconds. The problem there is picking one out of the many to focus upon.
On the other hand, Trump has recently been very forward in explaining how he straight-up lied to those he got to vote for him.
Just listen to him. Never mind that it's the Daily Show: ignore everything Trevor Noah has to say and listen to what Trump has to say. His voters were hoodwinked, plain and simple.
So when I say I'm certain... these are are consequences that will arise from actions Trump and his cabinet have indicated direct intent for. It's not "like Obama." It's "like Trump."
Bottom line: It looks like a person specifically stating intent to implement seriously problematic policies is going to become president. I anticipate problems if that is the case. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?
Anyway, if you still think this is "like Obama", I am pretty confident you're really not seeing the big picture: I encourage you to apply a very serious think to the axioms here. Perhaps you'll change positions. Some people can.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, we will see if it actually does that or not in a few days. I think it's highly unlikely (not impossible, certainly) but would welcome being wrong about this.
If they simply go by the "winner takes all" metric, as pretty much everyone is assuming, they would be doing the opposite of "protects the minority" (from anything) or "tempering passion" ("passionate" is the kindest word I can think of to describe the reality-divorced voters who selected Trump), and instead, basically going "oh, you want to shoot yourself in the foot? Okay, we'll hold and aim the gun for you. Turns out, you've selected a 12-gauge! This will be awesome! Ready?"
Yes, I agree, it's better if the transition is peaceful. The country will survive better. The low- and middle-income people are going to bear the brunt if Trump does even a fraction of what he has stated he will do. But the country will come out of it electing someone who is the anti-Trump. Sometimes it takes a real facedown with evil before you really understand what good is. Middle America is about to get that lesson, I think.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
Obama got carried away. DACA and DAPA were/are a bad call. A lawyer should have know better. I can't wait until Americans get a shot at the 18 million jobs that those 5 million jobs illegals will leave behind. I just can't wait to see Joe Plumber in the fields at 4 am picking cabbage for $3/hour, then off to hang drywall or put on roofs in 110 degree heat for $4.50/hr. Let's make American heart attacks great again! All kidding aside, do you have any idea of the kinds of jobs that illegals hold, what they get paid and their working conditions? They are basically hostages working for sub-minimal wages under daily threat of deportation from employers.
I can't understand your position on this. Are you saying it's better to keep illegal aliens working for sub-standard wages because Americans won't? Because I think it's pretty horrifying that you're OK with that. We have laws regarding immigration not just to protect Americans, the rules are also there to protect immigrants from exactly the sort of abuses you're talking about. We can't simply ignore immigration law because it's inconvenient and/or we like cheap food. People entering the country need to be doing so through proper legal channels.
The irony.
Oh, did I hurt your feelings? Go take a hot bath and have a good cry and you'll feel better.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'm not ok with it. IMHO, Obama's executive action was wrong. Entering the country illegally is wrong. It's wrong for coyotes to collect a fee to smuggle foreign nationals into the US then leave them stranded to die in the desert. It's wrong to exile an American child to Mexico because his or her parents entered illegally. It's wrong for American companies to employ illegal alien workers. It's wrong for greedy employers to underpay or abuse illegal aliens. Politicians and other sleezeballs who claim that illegal aliens are stealing fabulous high-paying jobs from Americans are wrong. People who don't challenge those assertions and insist on proof are wrong.
There's very little that feels "right" about this. How can an American be compassionate, engaged and dedicated to improving the human condition without being accused of being a traitor or fucksnake? It's really frustrating.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Clearly Trebuchets are the only way.
Also hilarious you think I wanted Clinton to win.
There's a reason you voted for Trump, you can't think deeper than the surface. Hence why you actually think these things can be done, they can't, and they likely won't even be tried.
You got conned by a pro, how does it feel to get pwned that hard?
most of the farm work that uses undocumented labor is not paid hourly but instead paid by the amount of work done (number of baskets of fruit picked, etc). So minimum wage doesn't figure into it.
The vast majority of farm work happens on large operations now, because the vast majority of small farmers have been bought out. These large operations aren't using undocumented labor. They may be calling INS to pick people up before they can get their last paycheck, but they're not using undocumented labor.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence.
People risk serious jail time and fines all the time.
Not when getting caught is virtually guaranteed.
Moreover, it will be trivial to fake "due dilligence" with bogus paperwork, not to mention all the ways that business can be done under the table.
Won't matter if getting caught is almost guaranteed and the fines are heavy.
Then you will have the uphill battle of getting juries to put rich people in jail. If you think that "regular people" are not going to bend over backwards to look the other way when rich people break the law and/or screw them over just look at who those rubes just put in the Oval Office.
People aren't going to decide that they can risk getting caught and prosecuted just because the jury might be friendly.
Your idea will not work.
Perhaps not, but none of your arguments hold water, so you still haven't made a case as to why not.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.