Slashdot Mirror


After Healthcare Defeat, Can The Trump Administration Fix America's H-1B Visa Program? (bloomberg.com)

Friday the Trump administration suffered a political setback when divisions in the president's party halted a move to repeal healthcare policies passed in 2010. But if Trump hopes to turn his attention to how America's H-1B visa program is affecting technology workers, "time is running out," writes Slashdot reader pteddy. Bloomberg reports: [T]he application deadline for the most controversial visa program is the first week of April, which means new rules have to be in place for that batch of applicants or another year's worth of visas will be handed out under the existing guidelines... There probably isn't enough time to pass legislation on such a contentious issue. But Trump could sign an executive order with some changes. The article points out that under the current system, one outsourcing firm was granted 6.5 times as many U.S. visas as Amazon. There's also an interesting map showing which countries' workers received the most H-1B visas in 2015 -- 69.4% went to workers in India, with another 10.5% going to China -- and a chart showing which positions are most in demand, indicating that two-thirds of the visa applications are for tech workers.

566 comments

  1. Uhm... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is there any reason to suppose Trump gives a shit about this issue?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhm...he said he did?

    2. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America first" I seem to recall him saying things like that once or twice.

    3. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm... Clearly, that don't mean a damn thing.

    4. Re:Uhm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      He might try to fix it just because he needs to achieve something. He is obsessed with winning, but keeps losing so is trying to scale back all his promises and blame other people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every other statement he says is a lie. You just need to know when he is lying and when he isn't.

    6. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every other statement he says is a lie. You just need to know when he is lying and when he isn't.

      standard response: Q: how do you tell when he's lying? A: When his lips are moving!

    7. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No reason whatsoever. And even if Trump had mentioned H1-B in the campaign, notice how his budget allocated zero dollars for jobs, training, & infrastructure?

    8. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Melania came over on an H2B visa, and Trump recruits 100's of seasonal workers at Mar-a-Lago through H2B, in preference over US citizens.

      There was also the debate in the GOP primaries where he told Megyn Kelly that he had changed his mind on H1B because "we need the best talent in this country". Then his campaign flip-flopped back to his original message (opposing H1B) the next day.

      So Trump was all over the map on H1B and H2B. If you're a Trump supporter, you can find something he said during the campaign to support your view on immigration, whatever it is.

    9. Re:Uhm... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Uhm...he said he did?

      Is that a reason to believe he gives a shit?

    10. Re:Uhm... by craXORjack · · Score: 2

      And unlike the career politicians he's actually followed through on his promises so far. Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    11. Re: Uhm... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent?

    12. Re:Uhm... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's obsessed with winning, but losing doesn't affect him. It's always someone else who caused that, so he never really loses. Trying to get Trump to admit defeat (or anything else) is like trying to get water to stick to a duck.

    13. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were Trump's words, not mine.

      As I said earlier, his campaign later contradicted what he said in the debate. So it's hard to know what his position on H1B was or is.

    14. Re: Uhm... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent?

      When you send that question through a capitalist's mind, it becomes "Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent per dollar spent?" Guess what the answer will be.
      Don't forget who pulls the marionette's strings.

    15. Re:Uhm... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      He said a lot of things many contradictory. Because we elected a pathological lier. And we were too stupid to realize that.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say he would make an effort. He said he would do it.

    17. Re:Uhm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Just pointing it out or showing clips of himself describing his future self as a loser won't make it stick. We have to create a narrative, just like he does.

      A narrative about Trump the loser. The biggest loser. Losing bigly. The kind of loser who can't even make a deal with his own party. A whiney loser who blames everyone else, like a child.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Uhm... by stephanruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is there any reason to suppose Trump gives a shit about this issue?

      His heart may be in the wrong place, but yes, I'd say that he cares.

      Nothing scares him more than brown people coming over to the United States.

    19. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made the effort.

      Really? How? By supporting a plan that fulfilled NONE of the promises he made about it?

    20. Re:Uhm... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most politicians try to get past what they say. However the complexity of real life sets in. Most American career politicians try to do what they say but they are confronted by other politicians who say they will do the opposite. So they will either get what they want, fail to get what they want, or what is currently political death sentence a compromise where both sides get a little of what they want but not all of it, thus causing the stupid public to think they were lying vs actually trying to get what they felt was good for who they are representing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:Uhm... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "He is obsessed with whining" - fixed.. :)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    22. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself with this "we" crap. The elections in this country are a joke. You still think you can affect change? How cute.

    23. Re:Uhm... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And unlike the career politicians he's actually followed through on his promises so far. Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.

      WTF?

      Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that?
      Because a lot of people count that as a "broken promise".

      It would be a pretty hypocritical that Trump gets credit for "following through on his promises" by introducing a completely stillborn turd of a bill that his own party wouldn't pass.

      Or would you have called Obama a success if instead of he'd introduced a bill to just shut it down while boasting... "I'm the best negotiator, its the best bill you'll ever see, everyone is going to love it."
      then two weeks later when its obviously garbage and not going to pass even his own party... he withdraws it and says, "I made the effort. now we're just going to keep it open. So there. Oh... and Mitch McConnell now owns it. It's 100% his problem now."

    24. Re: Uhm... by Dracos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that capitalist has been conditioned to only consider short term benefits, so in his head the question really is "Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent per dollar spent this quarter?"

      With the news about AT&T, Disney, and others forcing their existing domestic tech workers to train the H1B replacements, the true purpose of the program has been revealed: replace expensive domestic workers with cheaper foreign labor. That's why the H1B program won't get fixed: it does what it's meant to do.

    25. Re:Uhm... by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, he said he cared about cleaning up Wall Street.

      But then he picked Steven Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary and Jay Clayton for leading the SEC.

    26. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK NO! With a HARD FUCK!

    27. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he said he wants companies to hire american but still is looking for unskilled worker visas to work on his vineyards.

      Actions speak louder than words.

    28. Re:Uhm... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      We have to create a narrative, just like he does.

      Whoever fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

    29. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According the trickle down capitalism, if we let the millionaires save millions of dollars by hiring immigrants, those savings will trickle down to the unemployed americans! You know, the white middle class unemployed americans, not those other ones, the ones on welfare.

    30. Re: Uhm... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except that the modern capitalist is concerned only with costs, so all he actually hears is "Do you believe that H1-B workers are cheap?".

    31. Re:Uhm... by sjames · · Score: 1

      By trying (and failing) to pass what can only be described as Obamacare-lite?

    32. Re:Uhm... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done. President Trump has been in officer for a hair over 60 days. First try failed, and probably for the better. The replacement Bill put forth by Ryan was horrible.

      Do you think President Obama tried only once to get Gitmo closed? It was a broken promise because he never got it done after numerous tries. People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish. If he does not get it done during his Presidency we can re-evaluate.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re: Uhm... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It was his choice to attempt it now because if they don't then they can't design a budget to match.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    34. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that a reason to believe he gives a shit?

      It's reason enough for me. He seems to be actually trying to pull off his campaign promises. We will see as time goes on.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    35. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been more truthful than any other head of state I've seen in my lifetime. Sad, yes, but that is the state of politics.

    36. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I don't believe that any one really expected the repeal to get through on the first try. The ACA is 3500 pages that no one person really understands. It honestly wouldn't surprised if it took years to unravel that mess.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    37. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The H1B program is just a small part of it. This extends to the entire immigration policy of Western countries. Bring in cheap labor, neutralize any power the middle class has. Serfdom is the goal.

      Anyone who stands up to it will be attacked viciously by the establishment. They will be painted as the next coming of Hitler in order to convince the plebs to fight for their own destruction.

    38. Re:Uhm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I used to agree, but we live in a post-truth world. People assume that all politicians lie all the time, so only narratives matter. Like a good movie, while they can be based in fact they need to be embellished to be as compelling as possible.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that?

      Obama made no "serous" effort to close Gitmo. If he did, it would be closed. Gitmo is a military base, it is completely under the control of the President. Congress can make bills and approve them requiring it to stay open but Obama could have vetoed them.

      Obama used Gitmo as a political tool all through his presidency.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    40. Re:Uhm... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Trying to get Trump to admit defeat (or anything else) is like trying to get water to stick to a duck.

      There's an easy way to get water to stick to a duck. You cook the duck.

      I see no real issue with doing the same with Trump. As long as I don't have to eat that soup. Maybe bottle it and sell it to his souporters?
      I don't think that Ferengi Futures Exchange would mind, as after all, he's only part Ferengi and he clearly lacks lobes for anything but boasting.
      His remains would have a pitiful resale value. Sad.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    41. Re:Uhm... by currently_awake · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Given his business track record (75% complete failure) we have to assume he's used to failing to meet his objectives.

    42. Re:Uhm... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are right, of course. So he does not care about it one bit. Always easy to read a pathological liar...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the one where he said everyone will be covered under his health plan and the govt. will pay for the poor.

    44. Re:Uhm... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Obama should have given a presidential order to let the kidnap victims in Guantanamo bay go free. If you can't manage to get a closed door military court that allows secret evidence at trial manage to convict them in 8 years it means you have no case.

    45. Re:Uhm... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      You forgot sad. You must end messages with "Sad".
      It's part of the protocol now.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    46. Re:Uhm... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Half of the American voters disagrees with you. Strongly. (half disagree with the first 2/3, the other with the last 1/3).

    47. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Uhm...he said he did?

      Lol, oh my dear child....I have some bad news about Santa Claus for you...

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    48. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given his business track record (75% complete failure

      Please site your sources on this. I would be interested in where you got these numbers.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    49. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's reason enough for me. He seems to be actually trying to pull off his campaign promises. We will see as time goes on.

      I think we've seen enough already.

      None of the crazy pie-in-the-sky shit he promised is ever going to happen. He couldn't even close the deal on his wet dream of wrecking the healthcare system, and that's with a Republican president AND a Republican-controlled House and Senate. He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    50. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.

      He did not say he would "try", he said he'd do it on Day One. Even discounting the "Day One" hyperbole, it's obvious that this fucking clown couldn't find his own dick with a mirror and a magnifying glass.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    51. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem.

      Ryan's plan for replacing the ACA was not what Trump envisioned and Trump and the party promised. Trump's mistake was hitching his wagon to Ryan's plan so he could chalk up another "victory" and fulfilled campaign promise. If he didn't throw his weight behind it, he'd be in much better standing with an "I told you so".

    52. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According the trickle down capitalism, if we let the millionaires save millions of dollars by hiring immigrants, those savings will trickle down to the unemployed americans!

      The stuff that trickles down is yellow, not green.

    53. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that?

      Nope, not in my book, and I voted for him twice. That was a promise he broke.

      Now, getting back to President Bath Salts, how many of his promises will he break? How many has he already broken?

      I suspect that he'll be running near 100% failure rate at the end of his term.

      We all know the wall will never be built. We all know coal jobs aren't coming back.
      We all know he's not going to defeat ISIS.
      We all know he's not going to be able to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
      We all know he's not going to be able to bring jobs back from overseas.
      We all know Mexico's not going to pay for the wall.
      We all know he's not going to be able to "get rid" of the EPA.
      He's already broken his promise to "never take a vacation while serving as president."
      We all know he's not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
      He's not going to "Drop that "dirty, rotten traitor" Bowe Bergdahl out of an airplane into desolate Afghanistan without a parachute."
      He's not going to bring back jobs from China. Hell, his own shit is made in China.
      He's not going to "force Nabisco to once again make Oreos in the United States".

      These are just a few of the hundreds of promises he made, all on record.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    54. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisoner of war != criminal

    55. Re:Uhm... by darthsilun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's been more truthful than any other head of state I've seen in my lifetime. Sad, yes, but that is the state of politics.

      I don't know about truthful, but that sounds eerily like this quote:

      “I have more faith in Hitler than in anyone else. He alone has kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.”

      ––Elie Wiesel, Night

    56. Re: Uhm... by orlanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you serious?!? Republicans have been bitching and moaning and wasting tax payer money on the topic for SIX years!!!

      In the end, they have control over both houses in congress, full control of the executive branch, and a weakened judicial....

      And the BEST they could come up with was a plan that they weren't even confident enough to bring up to their OWN party after multiple delays and negotiations.

      Their next plan is a "wait and see"?! Just how absolutely incompetent does the US governing bodies have to be before the US public atleast stops coming up with excuses for them?

    57. Re: Uhm... by darthsilun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According the trickle down capitalism, if we let the millionaires save millions of dollars by hiring immigrants, those savings will trickle down to the unemployed americans! You know, the white middle class unemployed americans, not those other ones, the ones on welfare.

      It isn't their savings that trickles down. According to Reagan's trickle down economic (not capitalism) theory, the wealthy were supposed to take the extra money garnered from the tax cuts they received and invest it, creating jobs by doing so.

      The reality is that the rich just saved it – they put it in the bank. They never invested it. No jobs were ever created by tax cuts for the rich. Why? The rich like seeing their wealth grow, not shrink. They hardly ever want to spend it on risky ventures like starting a company and hiring employees.

      Money saved by allowing companies to hire H1-B workers is merely to improve the bottom line and pay bigger dividends to share holders and give bigger salaries and bonuses to the CxOs. Nothing about H1-B was ever about trickle down.

    58. Re:Uhm... by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is not more truthful than any other head of state. As every head of state before him, he tries to get through his agenda. But differently than many an head of state before, he vastly overestimates his own abilities. So far, all of the prominent election promises he tried to implement were wrecked because the way he tried to implement them didn't work. Maybe he will learn. Maybe he recognizes that there is more to being a president than making bold promises. Maybe he finds out that there is a reality which does not care about ideology but just is as it is. And reality does not change just because the President of the United States watches TV and misunderstands what he sees.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    59. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the rich just saved it – they put it in the bank. They never invested it.

      Er... you are mostly right in general, but unless rich people are saving all their money in mattresses, they do invest in the economy by keeping money in the bank. Where do you think the money for business loans comes from? Paper in a vault actually decreases in value due to inflation, so what banks do to earn interest and get their cut is make that money flow as much as possible - i.e., invest.

    60. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I see that guy's name I have to read it twice, because the first time I always parse it as Munchkin.

    61. Re:Uhm... by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod up a hundred times. We have too many politicians who are unwilling to compromise to make progress. The only form of government where somebody gets everything they want is a dictatorship.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    62. Re:Uhm... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Melania came over on an H2B visa, and Trump recruits 100's of seasonal workers at Mar-a-Lago through H2B

      Personal behavior and political beliefs are two separate things. When I do my taxes, I take advantage of every available loophole and write-off, but that doesn't mean I support those loopholes as a matter of policy.

    63. Re:Uhm... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      So basically you are saying trump has just been a big fat liar for the past 2 years? I can actually believe that, except trump is also a narcissistic cunt who hates to lose, if he didn't want this to some degree he would not have chased it post election

    64. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really doesn't matter. Wall Streets quarterly profit motivation outranks, intelligent 'work VISA' policy at the national level. We can muster all day the pro's and cons, but until 'H1B and other VISA employment' policy is clearly segregated from all Wall Street meddling and lobbying, it's a negative net productivity initiative to the unemployed, and/or employment seeking pool in America.

    65. Re:Uhm... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I dont agree with that at all as he most likely has businesses that use foreign labor in the US, both legally and illegally. I think he "cares", as with many of the things he says, because he thought it would get him elected (and it did).

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    66. Re:Uhm... by clovis · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that any one really expected the repeal to get through on the first try. The ACA is 3500 pages that no one person really understands. It honestly wouldn't surprised if it took years to unravel that mess.

      There are two bills in what is called Obamacare, what some people call the ACA, but is actually the
      PPACA = ‘‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’ and that's a 906 pages long pdf.
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...
      Try reading it.
      HCERA is ‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’. It's a 55 pages pdf.
      www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/pdf/PLAW-111publ152.pdf

      It's not at all hard to understand, it's just more than anyone would memorize in entirety.
      It covers a lot of ground and many topics unrelated to each other such as, "nursing student loan program, "protections for frontier states", and fingerprinting long-term care workers. The people who have an interest in those would find it easy to understand their part of it, but have no reason to investigate the other.

      I suppose where the numerous page numbers come from is the regulations associated with the PPACA and HCERA. These regulations are written to address specific situations and are often requested by healthcare vendors and insurance companies to address clarification or details of implementation. Those may be another 10,000 or so pages. That sound like a lot, but it isn't unusual for complex areas of regulation. Many were pre-existing situations for Medicare, Medicaid and other entities associated with healthcare. Most will remain for whatever the next bill is passed unless they also end Medicare and Medicaid.

    67. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

      THIS is the exact reason Trump is sitting in the White house. It will of the reasons he will be sworn in, in 2020 for a second term. You constantly underestimated Trump from the time he threw his hat in the ring all the way up to election night. You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.

      More over you are letting your hatred and bitterness, this oppose Trump at all cost, blind you to what is coming down the road. Everyday people are getting tired of it. Even people like me who didn't vote for Trump, and who didn't think he would have made a good President, are starting to change our minds.

      Americans don't like losers, but we detest sour losers. And that is exactly what you are coming off to be. The oppose Trump at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse. When the next elections come around Americans are going to remember this, and are going to start removing the obstacles. Meaning Democrats.

      Funny thing is, those of us who don't subscribe to any real political party see this. But democrats don't, Other libertarians in my group, we predicted that Trump would win. We are also predicting he will win in 2020.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    68. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so obvious. You hate Trump. Just say that and stfu. Because you add nothing to the conversation and might as well just be direct.

    69. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Lets go ahead and cut to the chase. I'm fond of saying site your sources so let me put up before I have to shut up. Here is the exact text of the ACA, complete with subtext, and related bills. Start reading and tell me you understand all this mess.

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    70. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. We live in an era of non history. All the rules have changed and the inpermissible is now okay. Be the fucking Nazi you claim to oppose. You sad deluded fuck.

    71. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The garbage racism arguement. You know you discredit yourself badly with that one.

    72. Re:Uhm... by sabri · · Score: 1

      Mod up a hundred times. We have too many politicians who are unwilling to compromise to make progress. The only form of government where somebody gets everything they want is a dictatorship.

      Agreed, my kingdom for modpoints. I'd mod parent and grandparent up.

      Most European democracies have a multi-party system, not a bi-party system. My former home country, The Netherlands, just had an election where the outcome means that at least 4 parties have to work together (read: compromise) in order to form a government. This means that each party leader will give some, but will also get some. In the end, everyone will be able to claim victory as they will be able to negotiate at least something that's really important to them.

      Many things in the EUSSR are broken, but this is one item that the U.S. voter should consider to adopt. The biggest problem in November was that there was no decent candidate with any chance of winning the presidency. The "independents" (non-GOP/DEM) had no chance, and both mainstream candidates were.... let's be honest... rubbish.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    73. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The oppose Trump at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse.

      You mean like the way the Republicans opposed every single thing Obama did, even when the idea originated with them? Maybe that's why Obama didn't get a second term.

      Tell me again who's gonna pay for that wall?

      We all know the wall will never be built.
      We all know coal jobs aren't coming back.
      We all know he's not going to "defeat ISIS".
      We all know he's not "smarter than all the generals".
      We all know he's not going to be able to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
      We all know he's not going to be able to "get rid" of the EPA.
      He's already broken his promise to "never take a vacation while serving as president."
      We all know he's not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
      He's not going to "Drop that "dirty, rotten traitor" Bowe Bergdahl out of an airplane into desolate Afghanistan without a parachute."
      He's not going to bring back jobs from China. Hell, his own shit is made in China.
      He's not going to "force Nabisco to once again make Oreos in the United States".

      These are just a few of the hundreds of promises he made, all on record.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    74. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nonsense. Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon all lied plenty but none - not even Nixon - have come out with as much nonsense as Donald Trump.

      Or do you really think there was spy tech in his microwave, he won the most electoral votes since Reagan, his inauguration had the biggest crowd of supporters in the history of inauguration, the murder rate is at a 45 year high (stated in early February, when in fact the US murder rate is half of its 1980 peak), he only lost the national popular vote by over three million votes due to massive organized voter fraud, Kuwait has the same kind of Muslim immigration travel ban as the one he supported, the federal court block of his travel ban means any traveler can enter the US whenever they want with no screening, etc... etc... etc... etc....?

    75. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *cite

    76. Re:Uhm... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.

      He didn't promise to try. He promised to do it.

    77. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Al Gore private jet"

    78. Re:Uhm... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Keystone XL isn't using American steel and the Carrier plant doesn't and never made air conditioners. He's a habitual liar.

      It makes Bush look like a rocket scientist.

    79. Re:Uhm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Trump's relationship with the truth isn't so much interesting in that it's fairly casual; but in how self-destructive it seems to be.

      People lying in order to advance their interests is an issue; but hardly unexpected or particularly abnormal. People who can't stop lying even when they'd be trivially better off keeping their mouths shut are a different matter. Something like the inagural crowd size thing: that's an idiotic lie. Trivially verifiable, hilariously petty; and completely unnecessary. He didn't lose much by it, since nobody actually seems to expect better; but he had virtually nothing to gain even if it had worked; and no reasonable expectation that it would work.

    80. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet there are people today who will still say that all his lies were true. Useful idiots.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    81. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Melania Trump came over on a visitor's visa (B1/B2), and worked illegally before getting the right visa.

      The wife of the GOP presidential nominee, who sometimes worked as a model under just her first name, has said through an attorney that she first came to the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and then obtained an H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996.

      The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.

      So she was an illegal worker.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    82. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Melania Trump did not come over on an H2B visa. She came over on a B1/B2 visitor visa and worked illegally. The H2B visa story is yet another alternate fact.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    83. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      He would be more than twice as rich if he had just put daddy's money in an index fund.. And of course his brand, which he claimed was worth $3 billion, now has a negative worth. Investors are suing to have his name removed prom projects because it brings the value down.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    84. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Trump's policies are toxic. They're destroying the republican party (which was predictable, btw, and why I was quite happy to see him elected). Think of what they would do to the country if people "compromised" to help get them through.

      Now both major parties need to clean up their acts, or die (which is probably how Trump will be "removed from office" - they'll "find he choked to death on a big mac at 3 in the morning while tweeting" just in time to run someone else as a sympathy candidate.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    85. Re:Uhm... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The ability to close Gitmo has nothing to do with why Obama wasn't able to close it. What is NOT in the president's control is what happens to the people in Gitmo when it closes down. For that he attempted to bring prisoners to the main land, deport prisoners to their home country, send prisoners to other countries, and even fast track court cases to weed out the ones that shouldn't have been in there in the first place. Out of all of these, only the last one wasn't completely stonewalled by congress and incidentally it was also the least effective at re-homing the 80 odd people the entire world thought should remain forever at Gitmo.

      So grab the pen and wave it, an executive order here, a veto there, and then what. What do you do with 80 odd prisoners that no one wants?

    86. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      People aren't going to start reading until you learn the difference between site and cite (hint - cite is short for citation, site is a place). You probably also write abominations such as "one of the only" instead of "the only" or "one of the few." Typical American English.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    87. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody underestimated Trump. We overestimated the American people.

    88. Re: Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, the brown people already in the US scare him even more. Or did you miss the judgments against him for racism to black tenants, and his comments about how he hates it that black people are in HIS casinos counting HIS money when it should be counted by jews? Look it up - the truth is out there.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    89. Re: Uhm... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      It depends. For the companies that abuse the system for cheap labour, Fuck NO! for the large tech companies that use them for their intended purpose, definitely!

    90. Re:Uhm... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be running with the assumption that "compromise" means "give Trump everything he wants". If the Republicans invited the Dems into the bill's planning and both sides were willing to compromise we might have had a bill that corrected some of the problems the ACA has (and it does have problems) while putting it in the context of a bipartisan effort making it far less likely to be repealed in the future and thus easier to ad on to in politically friendlier times for the Democrats. At the same time he could have marginalized the pain in the ass freedom caucus who even other Republicans cant stand.

      Instead the bill failed epicaly.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    91. Re:Uhm... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Was not trump that was underestimated, it was the Critical thinking of the American public that was over estimated. However trump is in a situation now where he has to deliver on many of his more ridiculous promises even with his own party against him if he wants to get a second term. Those people that came out to support him won't do so again unless they have the jobs and security he promised.

    92. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't like losers, but we detest sour losers. And that is exactly what you are coming off to be. The oppose Trump at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse. When the next elections come around Americans are going to remember this, and are going to start removing the obstacles. Meaning Democrats.

      Will they, though? I mean, it certainly sounds like you at least have already completely forgotten that the Republicans did Exactly That for eight long years, with the end result being that they got voted into majority in every branch of government. Seems to me, obstructing at every point and complaining about every little thing the opposition does goes down like gangbusters with the voting public, because they collectively have the recall abilities of a goldfish. For bonus points, come election time the minority party members can highlight their opponents' lack of accomplishments to date as a personal failing, even though the minority party's obstruction was directly responsible for it in the first place.

    93. Re:Uhm... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when he isn't.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    94. Re:Uhm... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's not so much the fact that he lies. It's the fact that he thinks America is so stupid that he doesn't have to bother trying to hide it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    95. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are living a lie, sir.

    96. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So "he made an effort?" that is our new benchmark for a president or politician, doesn't matter if they completely fail at their job, as long as they try! He came in stating he had the negotiating skills to deliver this and only he could do it and even then what he was proposing was just another variant of Obamacare anyway (hence why large sections of his own party rejected it)

    97. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are explicitly NOT prisoners of war. IF they are then the US is in breach of the Geneva convention. They have made a very careful point for years in avoiding calling them prisoners of war.

    98. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why Obama didn't get a second term.

      Okay, I think you are done here.

      *plonk*

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    99. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't like losers, but we detest sour losers

      You just described Trump. It was clear from the beginning of his plan to repeal Obamacare that the Democrats were not going to agree to it but the GOP control enough of the government where this should not have mattered.. It failed because if didn't gain enough support among Republicans. So who does Trump blame? The Democrats. Talk about a lapse in taking responsibility.

      And that is exactly what you are coming off to be. The oppose Trump at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse.

      They oppose him because what he's doing is they are opposed to ideologically. That's as idiotic as saying the Patriots should have worked with the Falcons and let them win the Superbowl. Let's take a few examples of why they opposed. For example, removing the EPA? Do you remember what California was like before the EPA imposed emission standards. Do you remember how the Cuyahoga River caught on fire because it was so polluted?

      When the next elections come around Americans are going to remember this, and are going to start removing the obstacles. Meaning Democrats.

      What planet do you reside? The only reason the GOP controls many parts of the country where the Democrats should be winning is Gerrymandering. If you haven't been paying attention, two court cases have struck what the GOP has done as illegal.

    100. Re:Uhm... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to pin a percentage on anything Trump says about business - because we don't actually know the extent of his financial empire (or ruin) as he never released the necessary documentation :(.

      http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/...

      Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.

    101. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Every other OECD country has public health care. The US doesn't because of a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder, and where lobbyists buy votes and elections. As long as insurers are the gatekeepers to proper healthcare, your system will remain broken.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    102. Re:Uhm... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      Use google much? Yeah its a broken promise, but gitmo had 242 prisoners in it when he took office - congress did everything they could to block the closure of that base. Trump then made promises to keep it open - so we don't have icky terrorists living on US soil.

      Its shocking too it costs 11 million dollars per inmate - but they don't care.

    103. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      You are aware that it is the height of bad manners on the net to correct people for minor English mistakes. Please read the following link.

      http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html/

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    104. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      My birth certificate says otherwise. I know that's a problem for some assholes, but if you have a problem with me using the woman's washroom, you can go in the handicapped single person stall. :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    105. Re:Uhm... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the unemployment rate is 42%. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%. If it was actually 40% now, they would be rioting in the streets.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    106. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      I think /. url mangled my link.

      http://www.albion.com/netiquet...

      Try that link.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    107. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You constantly underestimated Trump from the time he threw his hat in the ring all the way up to election night.

      Trump never was underestimated. He constantly was estimated to his true value: none (or worst a negative one, he is here to destroy, not to build).

      What is constantly overrated? Simple: the people intelligence. People those bastards!

    108. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VISA. It's everywhere you want to be.

    109. Re: Uhm... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I don't think they will be cheaper in the long run, once our economy collapses from within (it's not just for Communist countries!), that's going to hurt every company. Of course, the guy who hired the H1Bs will have finished pumping&dumping by then, and will be secluded in his castle somewhere.

    110. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing

      Lets see, in 2005 he paid over 30 million in taxes on a income of over 100 million. He has several properties in down town New York, that is worth several million dollars. You're own link clearly states that bankruptcies are nether a indicator of success or failure. With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    111. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article says nothing about the money his father gave him. It starts out with him having 200-500 million (far more than he got from dady). Anyway he would have been the most wealthy man in the world had he invested in Apple, Microsoft, and Bitcoin. Hell I'd be a billionaire had I invested in those. The point I'm making is hindsight is 20/20 with investment. You can't look back and say "you are bad with money because you didn't get the best possible return". He made a 20% yearly increase on his money which I would take any day (especially with the lower risk provided by real estate). If you are still having trouble understanding that he knows how to make money I'll put it this way: He lives in a tower that he owns on one of the most expensive streets in the world andhe fly's around in a jet that is worth 10 x what he received from his father. All of this he can afford, so if that's what you get by being bad with money, I think I want to be bad with money.

    112. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been doing EVERYTHING he said. Trying against liberal scum.

    113. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already do because I am handicapped, sir.

    114. Re:Uhm... by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      Bankruptcies are a method used to reorganize a business in financial duress. Businesses that succeed only do so by taking risks. These risks don't always work out and often times lead to restructuring and trying something else. Without bankruptcy this would be much more difficult and less businesses would take risks.
      Someone that has a controlling interest in 500+ businesses with only 6 bankruptcies tells me that they are extremely successful and knows much more than most what they are doing.

    115. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've been giving plenty of thought to what the alt-right have been saying. For the most part, it's self contradictory to my mind. Perhaps that's why the alt-right calls me such derogatory names. After a time, I started to return the favor. There's only so long being a gentleman is sustainable.
      When trying in years past to get past the memes they perpetrate that source from Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, and the rest, I'm left with the impression that for the most part, the thought process is one of a spoiled, greedy, unintelligent, emotionally twisted, bratty bully.
      The alt-right very correctly points out that no one will compromise with them so that the alt-right can achieve at least some of their agenda. They therefore sneer and reject any type of cooperation that isn't total and complete surrender of their perceived enemies.
      One cannot reason with the alt-right. They know what they know and that's the end of it. This is very much akin to the old bible belt "God said it. I believe it. That's the end of it." They want what they want, and to hell with everybody else. Their desires spring not from an honest self inventory and intellectual consideration, they spring from their emotional absolutism and slovenly processing of "their just due". Indeed, the very word "intellectual" is an insult they hurl into the face of those they disagree with, much as they hurl "Libtard".
      I don't know where this is going to end up. I do know that after four violent confrontation with them in public, I no longer leave the house without being armed. In the past, I simply disarmed and disabled these ... persons. But that last one was a bit dicey, so I'm not going to use anything less than lethal force if I'm assaulted again.

      I am not going to go start trouble, but I will most certainly end it next time. You see, I'm one of "those" libtards. I may not shoot first, but I will shoot back.

    116. Re: Uhm... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps electing a con man with zero political experience into the single most important political position in the country wasn't such a smart idea...

    117. Re: Uhm... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Except the healthcare bill was blocked by Republicans too...

    118. Re: Uhm... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      They spend all their time bitching instead of studying and thinking.

    119. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 2

      Wait. You're calling out the parent for poorly supporting a claim, then you say: "He has a bunch of money, therefore he knows what he's doing."? You can't see the hypocrisy there?

    120. Re:Uhm... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, the US doesnt have public healthcare because a major portion of our country is far more conservative than any other western country when it comes to things like this. Europe has plenty of major corperations and political corruption too, how they differ from us is in political demographics. Our Left are Europe's moderates and it goes right from there. Since insurance company's have gradually become far larger and more influential then when Europe was adopting public healthcare we would certainly see some push back from them but the real road block to socialized medicine in this country is the US voter.

      Personally, I'm 100 percent in favor of socialized medicine. I think it's a great idea both morally and fiscally. I just think we should have a proper view of our obstacles in trying to achieve it.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    121. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here. Let me run the way-back-machine to 2009.....

      THIS is the exact reason Trump is sitting in the White house. It will of the reasons he will be sworn in, in 2020 for a second term. You constantly underestimated Trump from the time he threw his hat in the ring all the way up to election night. You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.

      More over you are letting your hatred and bitterness, this oppose Trump at all cost, blind you to what is coming down the road. Everyday people are getting tired of it. Even people like me who didn't vote for Trump, and who didn't think he would have made a good President, are starting to change our minds.

      Americans don't like losers, but we detest sour losers. And that is exactly what you are coming off to be. The oppose Trump at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse. When the next elections come around Americans are going to remember this, and are going to start removing the obstacles. Meaning Democrats.

      Funny thing is, those of us who don't subscribe to any real political party see this. But democrats don't, Other libertarians in my group, we predicted that Trump would win. We are also predicting he will win in 2020.

      THIS is the exact reason Obama is sitting in the White house. It will of the reasons he will be sworn in, in 2012 for a second term. You constantly underestimated Obama from the time he threw his hat in the ring all the way up to election night. You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.

      More over you are letting your hatred and bitterness, this oppose Obama at all cost, blind you to what is coming down the road. Everyday people are getting tired of it. Even people like me who didn't vote for Obama, and who didn't think he would have made a good President, are starting to change our minds.

      Americans don't like losers, but we detest sour losers. And that is exactly what you are coming off to be. The oppose Obama at all costs, instead of working with him is going to cost you more than the Whitehouse. When the next elections come around Americans are going to remember this, and are going to start removing the obstacles. Meaning Repulblicans..

    122. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reality is that the rich just saved it – they put it in the bank.

      What do you think that banks do with deposits?

      Hint: they don't buy gold coins and swim in them like Scrooge McDuck. (And even if they did, the folks who sold the gold coins now have money that they can spend, save, or consume.)

      Banks lend out the deposits. Some goes to consumption but most goes to building something, aka "investment".

      Note that money spent on stuff (aka consumption) also goes somewhere.

    123. Re:Uhm... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Poor people (1/3 of the American voters) depend on government healthcare to live, they would vote for socialized healthcare if they could. The reason they can't is because the rich 1% are strongly against paying for it, and use their influence to prevent it.

    124. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis get punched.

    125. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With ZERO Democrat support either. So yes, Republians tripped on themselves to stop it, at the end of the day, Democrats own the fail of Obamacare 100% to the bitter end; and we will all pay for it in higher premiums!

    126. Re:Uhm... by clovis · · Score: 1

      Lets go ahead and cut to the chase. I'm fond of saying site your sources so let me put up before I have to shut up. Here is the exact text of the ACA, complete with subtext, and related bills. Start reading and tell me you understand all this mess.

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/

      Do you not realize that you linked to a summary of the law that I linked to in my post?
      The link on the page you provided that points to the full text is the exact same document I linked to from the gpo.gov.

      Full disclosure: I worked for a hospital these last couple of decades, so I'm familiar with the terminology already, and I had good reason to read this years ago.
      And what I wasn't already familiar with, I knew how to look up.
      I still maintain it's not hard to understand. I've had trouble with partial differential equations, but not this stuff.

    127. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I took it as sarcasm to your incorrect assessment. You said for Obama, the Republicans blocked everything so when there was a relection, Obama/democrats lost seats.
      So for the same thing, Democrats oppose all Trump and for re-election time, Republicans will lose seats.

      Tl;dr: you are both terrible writers with bad grammar that makes your points confusing.

    128. Re:Uhm... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      l like looking out for the less well off as much as the next Lefty but your post is nonsense.

      1/3 of American voters cant vote for something because rich people dont let them? How does that even work?

      Republicans draw a ton of support from poorer Americans who are therefor, paradoxically, voting against their own economic interests. That's the nut that has to be cracked to get socialized medicine in this country.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    129. Re:Uhm... by clovis · · Score: 1

      Hi Barbara!
      I think 7-digit UIDs should not speak when the 4-digit UIDs are talking to each other. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. (joking)

    130. Re:Uhm... by clovis · · Score: 1

      I think /. url mangled my link.

      http://www.albion.com/netiquet...

      Try that link.

      If we are going to give a reference, we should at least link to an authoritative source. In this case it would be Miss Manners, to whom I defer in all such things.
      http://articles.chicagotribune...

    131. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We all know"? You "all knew" he wouldn't win, too.

      No, I don't expect him to hit all of those. No president ever has. But neither am I going to count predictions by people with a history of being badly wrong as fact. I'll judge all of that when he's done and not before.

    132. Re:Uhm... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I'd love for him to be a good president. The issues with predicting what he might do are many, here's a few off the top of my head:
      (1) He has no record as a statesman. (although his businesses have a long history of fucking over employees and clients a la Trump University. That's just the tip of the iceberg, there's a plethora of less-interesting lawsuits about people not getting paid, deliverables not going out, etc)
      (2) His position on issues changes on a near daily basis (It's a Muslim ban.... no wait, it's not a Muslim ban! His pontificating on that subject was actually used in the judgement that halted the initial ban... the competent Republicans at least try to hide the discriminatory/unconstitutional aspects of their policies, in the interest of getting them passed)
      (3) His personal concerns seem to come before the nation's - No sense of patriotic duty. (Decades of tax returns still being hidden - is it because he doesn't pay taxes, or because foreign business interests have him by the balls? Probably both.)

      Even if his actions could be predicted, and his campaign promises were consistent, I don't like a majority of them. Of the good things he proposed, many are either low-profile enough for him not to care vis-a-vis his popularity ratings (H1-Bs), or they are in conflict with corporate interests, which he's going to choose every time. Look at how the Keystone XL pipeline was approved a few days ago - his campaign promise was that it would all-American, built with American steel, etc... those requirements did NOT make it into the approval. That would hurt the oil companies' bottom line, and we can't have that.

      What it sounds like is that you've been listening to (some of) what the man and his alt-fact cronies are saying, but paying little attention to what he is DOING. In other words, you got duped by a politician. As time goes on, people will become more familiar with who he really is and what he wants for the country, which is not going to help his re-election. I think one of Trump's strengths this election was his lack of a governing record - people could project whatever they wished for in a president onto him. As long as you didn't like Muslims, none of his speeches or rhetoric would acutely turn you off. For the record, I don't like Muslims. I'm never going to be close friends with a Muslim and some of their philosophies are downright disgusting to me. I'm probably prejudiced too - if I see a bitch in a hijab I'm not going to talk to her. What I am not is a fascist. I recognize that we can't legislate this religion into irrelevance, and that trying to do so will be counterproductive. Leave the mosques alone - the ones here, and the ones in Iraq. Just recently we had these airstrikes in Mosul that hit, among other places, a mosque, killing several hundred civilians. How many families are going to grow to hate America just from that one strike? I've actually heard libertarian types use our engagements overseas as reasons to vote for Trump - as if he will do anything to stop it. By the way, his budget proposal has the military's budget increasing by 10%. What happened to letting other countries defend themselves so we could reduce our budget? Another broken campaign promise, it seems. The arms manufacturers wouldn't like that. Corporate interests trump the nation's interests - again. And it won't be the last time. You will see this over and over.

      We are still in the honeymoon period and his approval is already dipping into the 30s. Trump 2020? I doubt it.

    133. Re:Uhm... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      THIS is the exact reason Trump is sitting in the White house. It will of the reasons he will be sworn in, in 2020 for a second term. You constantly underestimated Trump from the time he threw his hat in the ring all the way up to election night.

      Let's not get stupid here. It's less an underestimation of Trump than it is an overestimation of certain voting demographics. Trump didn't vote himself into office, after all.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    134. Re:Uhm... by Gussington · · Score: 2

      You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.

      I see this response quite frequently I wonder if it's on the Trump fanboy talking point sheet.
      Something for you to think about, just because someone thinks Trump is nutbag doesn't automatically make them a Democrat/Hillary supporter. I'm not even American, nor do I consider myself aligned with either side of politics (each has merits/faults) but I know plenty of conservatives who think Trump is batshit crazy too. Quite clearly half of Trump's own party think he's crazy because they are voting against him. How does that fit in with your narrative?

    135. Re:Uhm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing.

      I possibly have billions elsewhere. I don't, but I possibly could. That means fuck-all. However, we know for sure that Trump is in a shitload of debt — No really, an entire shitload.

      So no, no it is not clear that Trump knows what he is doing, and it cannot seem that way unless you willfully ignore the concept of debt.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    136. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes H1B visas absolutely are the best talent. Not every company is optimizing for minimum wages.

      However, the H1B visa program has already made negative progress under Trump by suspending paid premium processing. Forcing companies to *pay* for H1B applications is the #1 best way to distinguish between people who really believe they are getting the best talent and the bullshitters who are throwing a million darts at the wall hoping some talentless bozo will get in and now be obliged to them.

    137. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, haven't heard her tell any lies in my lifetime. Granted she doesn't say much, but still a lot better than the Orange Overload.

    138. Re: Uhm... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      That sounds like both sides to be honest. The alt-right and the ctrl-left are both a bunch of fuckers. I wish you'd both fuck off.

    139. Re:Uhm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even Trump has to admit that healthcare is complicated. The reason it is so long is that there are so many corner cases to deal with. Even Trumpcare spent three pages just detailing how big lottery winners wouldn't get any more tax credits.

      And if you actually look at Trumpcare, it's obviously and horribly broken. For example, you get tax credits towards your health insurance. Problem is, the credits come at the end of the tax year, not when you need to buy your health insurance. So if you are due thousands of dollars of credits, you need to have thousands of dollars you can spend today while you wait for the next tax year and hope the IRS doesn't screw up.

      It's clearly been thrown together, slap-dash in a hurry, with little thought into how it will work in practice for people. That's why it is relatively short.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    140. Re:Uhm... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      When I do my taxes, I take advantage of every available loophole and write-off

      Really? I doubt that. I mean sure, with write offs. That's what they are for, and that's their intent. Loopholes are all the unintended bits. So unless you've created an offshore corporation in a tax haven which gets paid when you render services, the chances are you're not remotely using every available loophole.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    141. Re:Uhm... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

      THIS is the exact reason Trump is sitting in the White house. It will of the reasons he will be sworn in, in 2020 for a second term. You constantly underestimated Trump

      Wrong again,

      What we underestimated was your stupidity. We honestly thought you wouldn't be dumb enough to vote trump.

      You see, now it's out of your hands. The republicans are trying to control Trump and failing. I doubt he'll last half a term, let alone a full one before he becomes so unruly that half the republicans will be forced to dump him just to have a chance of saving their seats. Thats if he doesn't do anything so unconstitutional, the court will have no choice but to impeach him.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    142. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decide which is it: Trump being this evil genius who will do everything he said ("zOMG Mooslim BAN"), or he is ineffective and lies 100%.

      Did he lie about cutting costs, bringing American jobs back, trying to repeal and replace Obama care, trying to stop radical Jihad, trying to normalize relations with Russia, nominating a solid Supreme judge? So far, he actually tried to do everything he promised: not his fault Ryan and Pelosi got a few screws lose.

      More importantly, did your side lie about "bringing America together?" Post-Obama, I see ruined inner cities, rampant "thug lives matter," flood of radical "raperefugees," safe space snowflakes, abundant poverty and shrinking middle class, doubled national debt, nuclear Iran and NKorea, antagonized Russia, skyrocketing healthcare costs... I mean, isn't there anything he hasn't failed at (besides Obama's unstated goal of weakening America).

      You got to pick your dick and suck it... but once you see it wasn't a good choice, you can get off it, and join the sane side... or at least have the decency to stick to "zOMG, Literally Hitler!"

    143. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. And even better, his 30 day plan to defeat ISIS.

      I was trying to restrict myself to lies he said since the inauguration.

    144. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2

      An alt-right fanatic isn't going to listen regardless of whether you're smart or stupid, civil or obnoxious, logical or wildly emotional. Don't engage them at all, it wastes your time and gives you stress for quite seriously no benefit.

      Logical argument is for people in the middle. I hate Hillary Clinton. I think she's the flag bearer for corruption in the Democratic Party, and cares almost (but not quite) nothing for the middle class and working poor. I think her string of expensive speeches to Wall Street is a clear sign that all of the progressive aspects of her election promises were lies told to try to get the vote from Bernie Sanders supporters. She only came to support gay rights after enough popular sentiment shifted that it hurt her chances to oppose it. But I still voted for her. At her worst, she was still a better option than Donald Trump with respect to gay rights, abortion rights, issues of clean air and water (fuck global warming, but I care about reduced pollution because I have severely asthmatic children and the Flint Michigan lead scandal terrifies me), and appointing judges that have a reasonable perspective on those topics to the Supreme Court. I tried to convince the people who stayed home or voted for Jill Stein that Clinton, as bad as she is, is clearly not a Republican clone, much less a Donald Trump clone.

    145. Re: Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      If you review the numbers of outrageous political lies shared on social media over the course of the last election, in terms of the number of lies and the amount of shares, the alt-right had more than double the numbers of the ctrl-left.

      So you're still left with tens of millions of more reasonable people on the US left than the US right.

    146. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACA is...

      You're going to have to specify whether you are talking about the "Affordable Care Act" or the "American Care Act" here, as the republicans seem to be doing everything they can to confuse their voters into thinking the quality of care they are getting right now is due to Trump, and any reduction in that care when they run it into the ground out of spite is due to the uncooperative Democrats.

    147. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Okay, I think you are done here.

      Okay, I think you are stupid here.

      Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, is it?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    148. Re: Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I took it as sarcasm to your incorrect assessment.

      Exactly. I think it's clear that "jwhyche" isn't the sharpest bulb in the race.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    149. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they lend them out to investments for more rich people who have the credit. The only "lending" that happens to the working poor are payday loans.

      There is no trickle down, it's just trickle around and around and around.

    150. Re:Uhm... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon all lied plenty but none - not even Nixon - have come out with as much nonsense as Donald Trump.

      I always feel the most ardent Trump supporters don't understand what a false dichotomy is. Because they believed others have lied, they must that Trump is always telling the truth. No, Trump lies regularly but they won't admit it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    151. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      1. This is the internet. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

      2. Being offended when corrected is a passive-aggressive defensive behavior that attempts to deflect justified criticism. So fuck off.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    152. Re: Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You don't "own" it if you have a mortgage on it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    153. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course you do - but mental handicaps such as your retardation don't count wrt bathroom access. You can use the regular toilets - just don't eat the mints in the urinals again.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    154. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Your "left" is to the right of other country's right wing parties, such as Canada's Conservatives. If you think the dems are centrist you've been ignoring the last few decades.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    155. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You can't vote for something that the rich and powerful will never let get to the ballot box. Lobbies and graft - you really need campaign financing and other electoral reform.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    156. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      One of the things to do to stave off mental rot is to try to take contrary positions and run with them. Turns out, it's also sound policy because the majority are wrong the majority of the time. Gotta stay ahead of the curve :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    157. Re: Uhm... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Do, or do not. There is no try.

    158. Re: Uhm... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent?

      I don't believe that the United States has a monopoly on talent. There are talented people all over the world, indeed the vast majority of highly-talented people are born outside of the US, because the vast majority of people are born outside the US. Whatever the immigration mechanism, it's in the United States' best interest to draw the most talented people from the whole world to work and live here.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    159. Re: Uhm... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I have no more in common with the shrieking harpies and pathetic wimpy bearded white boys than I do with Alex Jones and neckbeard Twitter trolls. I don't care who are the bigger liars, I'm sick of the lot of them.

    160. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      No, that is just you being wrong, period. An just like so many others of your mind set when you find someone who won't be beaten in to submission you resort to personal attacks.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    161. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      What I find interesting the reaction of some of the other people in this tread. I asked this one person to cite their sources and people are losing their mind. The snoops article that was linked to had some good points and was a good read.

      But I'm still not seeing this 75% failure rate. I'm still interested in this evidence.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    162. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/pages-from-trumps-tax-returns-raise-a-decades-worth-of-questions/ar-BByFIXZ/

      Here you go. I was referring to the leaking of his 2005 tax returns last week. If you refer to paragraph six, you will see the references to the numbers I was referring too. Specifically, to the over 100M and the over 30M numbers I stated.

      So, there you go. You, in a round about way, said I didn't cite my sources and ask me for them. So there you go.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    163. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing

      While I admit you do have a point but bankruptcies and closing business doesn't necessary mean he doesn't know what he is doing. It could be just the opposite, and show he clearly knows what he is doing.

      You have to find out how Trump got into these business and what was happening before hand. Where these business in trouble before he bought them? If so then using the bankruptcy laws to shield himself from debtors while he rearranges the business is a correct and proper business move.

      So is knowing when to cut your losses. So closing up show also can show that he knows what he is doing. If the market has changed and there is no hope left, know when to quit is a good thing to know.

      Having a business in bankruptcy isn't always a sign that you don't know what you are doing. It could simply mean market forces changed in a way that you didn't see. Or some other crises, that you didn't foresee, have affect your business plans in a manner that you can't adapt to fast enough.

      Invoking bankruptcy protection while you change your business around is often used practice. There are a number of highly successful business out there that got a fresh start by going through the bankruptcy process.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    164. Re:Uhm... by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon all lied plenty but none - not even Nixon - have come out with as much nonsense as Donald Trump. none of them are self made billionaires that actually care about the US either.

    165. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      No, I said nothing about your sources. I said that your logic was faulty.

    166. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Okay. Explain. In what way is my logic faulty.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    167. Re: Uhm... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You left Trump off your list when he should be at the top as he is burger of those things. You actually think he's send made. ROTFLMAO

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    168. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      The parent cited weak evidence that Trump didn't know what he was doing, you called him on that weak evidence and then cited weak evidence of your own and claimed that he did know what he was doing.

      Unless you think that being rich is evidence of competence or virtue? I had pegged you as a hypocrite, but I hadn't considered that you could be one of those gospel of wealth people.

    169. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found the handicap stalls to be comfortable, always cleaner, and just better overall compared to normals stalls. I can usually spread my legs nice and wide without having to bump feet with my neighbors. That awkward foot bump we all dread.

    170. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, that is just you being wrong, period. An just like so many others of your mind set when you find someone who won't be beaten in to submission you resort to personal attacks.

      So Obama did get a 2nd term? Woah, who knew? Next thing you'll tell me "healthcare is complicated".

      Or is it that you're denying that the Republicans opposed every single thing Obama did while in office?

      Their obstructionism was so bad they're still blaming him for making poor innocent Donald fail...like the whole ridiculous "deep state" thing.

      Remember Romneycare? Everyone in Massachusetts loved it, and it was a Republican idea...but when it was tweaked and presented nationwide as "Obamacare", suddenly it was the work of the devil and would destroy America.

      Sure, King Don isn't failing at everything he does because he sucks, he's failing because Obama is undercutting him from his secret Martian Moonbase on Jupiter.

      Obama was also behind the Pizzagate thing, plus he sank the Titanic and caused the Polio Epidemic. He even made us lose the war of 1812! THANKS OBAMA

      But umm, yeah, the Republicans didn't oppose Obama on anything, ever. They worked with him on everything, right?

      Sorry, dude, your alternative facts won't fly here.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    171. Re:Uhm... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.

      Business has something in common with war and engineering:
        1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
        2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
        3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
        3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
        4. PROFIT!

      In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.

      So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.

      So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.

      Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    172. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This needs to be modded to 50000

    173. Re:Uhm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I won't say his lies are true, I will say they are unimportant to me or anything substantial. Obama wiretapping trump tower? Who cares? It is not like he will be prosecuted or anything. Lock Hillary up? Who cares, I would rather nothing be done at all than what she would have done if elected. It's insignificant if she is locked up or roaming the streets freely- she just cannot do the damage I expected her to do. Besides, most politicians do get away with murder. Just ask Ted Kennedy- there once was a senator from Mass. He went out in search of some ass. Lucked up and found it, but fucked up and drowned it, and that wasn't even the end of his ass. They say he was doing around 190 mph when his car left the road- because that is how more force from the impact it would take to knock her panties off and put them in the glove box.

      But I don't care if he lies. He isn't pressing the reset button with Russia after criticizing the previous administration for frustrating their moves and then spending the next 7 years complaining about Russia running wild. So far, Trump's lies have only impacted the number of democrats in office and little more. I'm not sure that is a bad thing or a good thing but I'm sure it is insignificant in the bigger picture.

    174. Re:Uhm... by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Yep, everybody is saying this is a "defeat" but is it? They're assuming he wanted to win this one.

      Another way to look at it is that this was a pawn sacrifice, that he's just pivoting his public image.

      --
      No sig today...
    175. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      So in other words, you can't.

      I asked the original poster to cite his evidence so that I might learn where he got his extra ordinary clam that 75% of Trumps business fail. To date, he has yet to post that evidence. If you have a extra ordinary clam that you clam is fact then you need to be prepared to if someone calls you on it.

      You, on the other hand, have no ideal why I asked for that. What you saw is some one that might not have agreed with your view point. Did it not occur to you that I might be generally interested in where the poster got his information?

      As for my evidence being, weak as you put it. It does no such thing. In 2005 Trump filed a tax return for over 150M in personal income. Every business reputable publication and source cites him as being worth at least 3B in assets. You don't get that rich and keep it by being incompetent in business.

      So, yes, he clearly knows what he is doing in this area. If this will translate into a successful political career remains to be seen. So far I see there might be some issues in this translation.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    176. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      You are quite correct. I just tossed that one up there because I couldn't find the one I was looking for. You have probably been around a long time so you should know the article I was looking for. It was a manners FAQ that used to circle around usenet.

      I remember every September that one would make the rounds.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    177. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      This is the internet. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

      Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Are you serous? You really went there. That is just so, adorable.

      Being offended when corrected

      Trust me, I'm in way offended by your correct. If you will notice I have correct the reference. Just for future references as you can note I have been on /. for a very long time. Before that I participated in, and even incited, some of the greatest flame wars in the history of Usenet. The great comp.sys.amiga split, scientology vs ars ,alt.flame .. oh those where good times.

      Well, where I'm going with this, there is nothing you can say or post that has any chance of annoying me or offending me in any manner. Point blank, its all been said to me in the past.

      But thank you for the correction. I will remember it. An thank you for the chuckle. You brought back so many good memories.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    178. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      What I saw was someone who said, "With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing." and I called him on his bullshit. Then he went on to say that, "You don't get that rich and keep it by being incompetent in business." elevating Trump's business prowess to the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.

      I say again that your logic is faulty, though I will longer call you a hypocrite. You do indeed seem to subscribe to the gospel of wealth.

    179. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      One of the things to do to stave off mental rot is to try to take contrary positions and run with them. Turns out, it's also sound policy because the majority are wrong the majority of the time. Gotta stay ahead of the curve :-)

      I would argue that, that is the wrong thing to do. I agree with your assertion that mot of the time the majority are wrong on most things. To me the thing to do is to listen to both side, not stating where my option is, then make up my own mind. That is what works for me.

      But that is me, you option might work well for you. Barbara, I'm going to do something that I rarely do. I'm going to apologize to you. I'm sorry if my "passive aggressive" stance has offended you.

      I think you for the correction an I will keep it in mind. In turn I would like to leave you with this, it's the guiding philosophy of my life. "True wisdom is knowing what you don't know." I believe that quote is by Confucius.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    180. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Ted Kennedy was just the latest in a series of crooked Kennedy machinations. There's enough crap and corruption on both sides of the aisle, maybe the solution would be to split up into multiple smaller republics and let people vote with their feet so they can choose their particular brand of poison / political fantasy.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    181. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Preview button. It's there for a reason! I must use it more. That should read I'm in no way offended by your correction.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    182. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Holy crap - even speech-to-text software can do better than the typos you just barfed out. But I agree - the flame wars and trolling (especially the trolling) on usenet were an education.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    183. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Then we will just have to agree to disagree. But what is this "gospel of wealth?" You have used that term twice and I'm still unsure what it means.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    184. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality is that the rich just saved it â" they put it in the bank. They never invested it. No jobs were ever created by tax cuts for the rich. Why? The rich like seeing their wealth grow, not shrink. They hardly ever want to spend it on risky ventures like starting a company and hiring employees.

      Here is a hint. Banks do not pay decent interest rates and rich people do not let money sit idle. Sure they let some sit so they have liquid assets for spending but the bulk does not. It is invested in existing companies or new ones in the form of stocks and bonds and so on. When companies save money from taxes or anything else, they either invest it into the company or disburse it via stocks (dividends) or pay down debt. In some cases, they bank it for foreseen future liabilities. Even if it was sitting in banks, it only means banks had more capital to leverage for loans to the risky ventures.

      Now here is where the entire lie about trickle down is fictitious. Lower taxes spark economic activity which in turn does create jobs. Economic activity is the core or what both democrats and republicans whether they support trickle theories or not gauge the success or failures of state or the economy. We do this primarily by measuring the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and mark increases as success. Of course this is offset by inflation but they are not serious about that as it doesn't measure food and fuels which tend to be one of the largest costs for a household outside of housing.

      The real problem is in pinning down the increase in economic activity to a specific policy or a policy's specific impact to any specific economic activity and or the time frame within. You can however mandate that the banking sector use a certain type of accounting admitting program and track the economic activity associated with that. You can mandate doctors using an online accessible patient record system and measure the economic activity from that. It is a lot easier than saying here, keep more of your own money that you earned and do whatever with it. For instance, you might take the savings and pay off your mortgage faster. You might put more gas in the car and go for short trips to state parks or attractions in nearby cities. You might save more for retirement in which case no economic activity will be measured until it offsets negative activity of you losing your income at retirement.

      But there is a gross tax intake benefit to the government when a company saves on taxes and they disburse through dividends. Lets say a company's tax rate went from 35% to 30% and you and I have rates that dropped to 28%. Now lest say both of us receive $1000 of that saving a piece due to the shares we own in that company. That is $2000 between the two of us and the 5% difference for the company would be a loss of $100 in taxes paid on it (35-30=5% 1000*2*.05). But because it is in addiction to our normal income (dividends are income while capital gains are separate), it would be taxed at the high rate of 28% which comes out to a $560 increase in taxes collected ($280 a piece paid) (1000*2=2000 2000*.28).

      Now you can complain that we would be paying more in taxes than the company would have on that $1000 or you can look at it as having an extra $720 in your pocket (which is about the price of dinner and a movie it seems anymore).

    185. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      You don't know the half of it. I scored 98 out of 99 on testing for science. Out out 99 on grammar and spelling, I scored 35. My spelling and grammar are atrocious. In my defense I do work at it, but seems I have a lot more work to do.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    186. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Don't apologize - this is the internet, where nothing is any more serious than we let it be :-) I'm more worried about the woman who has gone silent in the last couple of hours who was messaging me about how the church folks have finally pushed her over the edge and she's going to kill herself today. I respect people's right to self-determination, including suicide, but I also think the shit-peddlers who have been egging her on for the last few years should be punished, either way. But they won't be held accountable, and that sucks. In such cases, all you can do is encourage people to hang in there and remind them of the good things they had planned, and how they might change things to achieve peace. I guess I'll find out at one point whether I was successful or not. I know that at least once in the past I was successful with someone, but that wasn't over the internet, and there's an immediacy that just isn't there when it's not in person :-(

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    187. Re:Uhm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean like federalism? You know, with a limited federal government and the states and local governments taking much of the role of governing the people where it is also easier to find like minded people and influence change? And if we limit those to state constitutionally mandated roles, we can preserve much of the liberty for ourselves as long as we do not trample on other people's rights in our pursuit of happiness.

      But moving (voting with your feet) is not always an option for some people. Resources, family, and other obligations could prevent someone from seeking greener pastures. So it is important to have a strong federal government in respect to its limited powers to ensure some rights and privileges simply are not trampled on. I would suggest those within the bill of rights and later amendments are a good start.

      I'm not trying to toss gasoline into a fire by smaller republics is somewhat how the country was founded. The original federal government superseded a confederation of countries (the original 13 colonies) and took over only the roles in which were seen as required to provide uniformity among the states in trade with each other and to deal with foreign powers.

    188. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      A believe system in which wealth indicates virtue.

    189. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, all governments seek to expand their role with time. And there are just some things that cannot be reconciled. The majority in some states want a christian theocracy, others want a secular society. Best for everyone to divorce, everyone gets what they want.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    190. Re:Uhm... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      When your claim is how "great" you are as a businessman, having 6 bankruptcies means you couldn't figure out how to make more money than you spent and had to resort to shirking all financial responsibility 6 times.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    191. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      That is a tough one. You can't be on the internet as long as I have been and not heard the suicide story a dozen times. The old internet adage is this is nothing more than a cry for attention and to ignore them. I've never been comfortable with that adage. It seems just to cold, even for me.

      I have no advice to give you on this. I won't tell you not to worry about it because I know first hand this never works. I hope you hear from her soon and she is okay.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    192. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      That screws everyone not living on one of the coasts. Even though the electoral map painted most of the country red, an awful lot of the 'red states' had 30%+ people that voted Democrat. Your divorce idea is going to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater.

    193. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      He's not self-made. His initial investments were with multi-million dollar loans cosigned by his multi-millionaire father.

      And we can agree to disagree that he cares about the country and they don't. I would take any one of the ones I listed save Nixon over Trump.

      But in any event, I was responding to the assertion that Trump is more honest than all of the others. He's not, he is the biggest liar out of all of the major national leaders in modern history.

    194. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. No you are quite incorrect there. All I see is that his success in business and his accumulated wealth is a indicator that he knows business and what he is doing in that issue. It has nothing to do with virtue. In fact I do question some of his virtues.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    195. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      Do you have some mod following you around or something? Every one of your posts in this thread has been modded +1. That's not weird, mods take sides all the time, but this has happened almost as soon as you've posted for every post. Deep in a thread for a story from yesterday that's off the front page. Like this mod is just sitting around waiting for you to say something.

      I don't want to imply that there's some funny business going on, on not implying that. It's just... That's weird.

    196. Re:Uhm... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      I don't know why, but I read that as "handicapped single-player stall".

    197. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a known mental issue, sir.

    198. Re:Uhm... by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      You ended your post incorrectly. Sad.

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    199. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      It is because of my stunning personality my wit, and charm. It is hard being me but being me has some advantages. I get to move to the front of the line as movies. Specials seats at all the major events. I've been given a special seat on the first mission to mars. There are other perks but I won't mention them.

      Yes I'm joking. I really don't what is going any more. The posting at +3 started a few weeks ago. There was issues with my account posting to low. Someone at /. central fixed the issue. The +1 says karma bonus. I just assume that I was posting at +3 because of the 4 digit uuid. There are so few of us left.

      But today I saw another 4 digit uuid doesn't have the same bonus. There is probably still an issue with my account. I sent email to have it corrected.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    200. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      No, you where just wrong and you can't admit it. Your attempts to pass it off as sarcasm just made you look more foolish.

      As for alternative facts, you seem to have posted a number of facts here. Well if you want to believe that I'm sure you have your reasons. I'm not going to ask you to cite your sources. I'm sure you have a number of them that make you happy. Hell, there are people that believe the Earth is flat.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    201. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look your boy didn't even bother to figure out what the value of NATO, Japan, and South korea was. He openly advocated an "alliance" with putin.

      This shows by the time he had taken office he hadn't bothered to learn the very basics that a US president should know about the world. I'm honestly shocked that he didn't know more just from doing international business.

      The only thing that stopped him from driving the country right over a cliff was that luckily the right had a hard on for mattis because obama fired him for being difficult to work with.

      Luckily mattis has predictably laughed at trump as he does all politicians and did the right thing according to his lifelong study of war and foreign policy.

      You are wrong sir, I used to argue the finer points of all this shit with trump's supporters but it doesn't do any good. I think it is better to call you names.. most of you make decisions based on hearing your friends curse the name of barry hussain mohammad obongo and killery.. since you're on SD I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're some incel autistic or once productive idiot savant whose business was ruined by the MBA/Chinese sweatshop love affair and not actually stupid.

    202. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      In the course of full disclosure then I'll admit that I'm very bias against the ACA. I had a really bad experience with it.

      I probably erred when I said no body understands the full law. What I should have said is while people know what the law says and what they expect it to do. They do not know or understand all the ramifications that come in to play down the road. I believe that with the way things are turning that my assessment in this case is correct. We know how the law was supposed to work, but we didn't expect it to work the way it did. I will say one thing and I'm 100% correct on this issue. The day government, be it Trump, can fix the healthcare to where everyone is happy will be the day I take a tour around Memphis on my flying pig.

      Why am I posting at +3? I assumed it was because of my 4 digit UID but I see that you don't post with the same level.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    203. Re: Uhm... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes H1B visas absolutely are the best talent. Not every company is optimizing for minimum wages.

      Undoubtedly. But that's real talent, and not people provided by Wipro or similar outsourcing companies for a pittance.
      People with neither highly paid prior work experience nor a degree from an internationallly accredited university should, IMHO, never get a H1-B visa, because the risk is high that they're only going to be employed to save a penny, and not because resident workers can't be found.

    204. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, you where just wrong and you can't admit it. Your attempts to pass it off as sarcasm just made you look more foolish.

      Do you actually believe that I didn't know Obama got a second term? Really? If so, you're far more foolish than I gave you credit for.

      -

      As for alternative facts, you seem to have posted a number of facts here.

      [citation needed] What alternative facts have I posted? Name 'em or admit you're lying. Oh, and while you're at it, please feel free to refute anything I've said so far.

      -

      Hell, there are people that believe the Earth is flat.

      It's not?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    205. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you where just wrong and you can't admit it. Your attempts to pass it off as sarcasm just made you look more foolish.

      Man, trying to attack somebody over obvious sarcasm AND after resorting to the toddler-level tantrum of a plonking which you couldn't keep for more than 2 hours...no wonder you're a joke.

    206. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Really? Sock puppets too?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    207. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And the current arrangement isn't throwing out a lot of babies with the bathwater every 4 years? This is probably an intractable problem, which is likely the reason why so much sci-fi deals with a future USA that is divided into various political entities, instead of remaining united.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    208. Re:Uhm... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Sure, I never hid the fact that I have ptsd and mdd. Nothing to be ashamed of. But transsexualism is not a mental disorder - believing it is, on the other hand, is delusional, which IS a mental disorder.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    209. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Really? Sock puppets too?

      Sock puppets? You think all the other people dragging your ass over the coals here are me in disguise? LOL!

      Sorry, bud, but apparently other people here think you're full of shit too.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    210. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what, since she was working here illegally she should get a free pass, right?

    211. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only cos traditionally we dont count children, students and retired people as being unemployed even if they have no jobs.

    212. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please look at yourself and your assumptions that your beliefs apply to millions of people who belong to one of three immensely broad categories; it is damaging to your argument and the discussions you participate in. You don't speak for "Americans". You don't speak for "independents". You don't even speak for your family and friends, although you may think you do. You speak for you and you alone.

      Opposing an administration at all costs has been conclusively shown to be an effective tactic for making a presidents legislation appear to have failed (rejecting medicaid expansion, not setting up state health insurance exchanges, et al) and giving your party a real shot at re-taking the Executive and Legislative branches. If you can't think of an example that proves that statement, something tells me you are quite young, despite the 4 digits.

      Also, if you were paying attention, Democrat congressmen were rolling along with the initial trump agenda (still mostly nominations at that point) until it was widely reported, at the local and national level, that they were under pressure from their constituents to adopt a resist all stance. Seems okay to me for a member of a representative body to represent the desires of their constituents.

      I'm an independent voter who said Trump was far from the worst GOP candidate on the block, and still stand by that. Doesn't mean I think he's competent or good for the overall state of the country/world. His actions so far have come off as reckless and not well thought out. But that's just my opinion, and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone else but me.

    213. Re:Uhm... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I believe that is more likely than you have some anonymous band of followers digging this deep in to a thread.

      Look you clearly have some kind of mental issue. I'm just going to move on now. You can sit here and stew if you want too. Take care.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    214. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not saying these things for any means beyond hearing people agree with him. This whole presidency is a vanity project, and he's the audience.

    215. Re:Uhm... by guises · · Score: 1

      All right, thanks. Good to know I wasn't imagining something.

    216. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would have taken the money Donald received from his father and put it in a S&P500 index fund you would have done better than Donald did. It helps to be rich to begin with.

    217. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably an intractable problem, which is likely the reason why so much sci-fi deals with a future USA that is divided into various political entities, instead of remaining united.

      Nope, it's just relatively interesting. Of course, so are the alternatives, but there is also a vanilla version, so to speak.

      But works of entertaining fiction aside, showing maps in stark red and blue is a lie, a deeper one that most realize.

    218. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget he fired Preet Bahara.

    219. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      > jwhyche (6192) has made you their foe.

      LOL! Awww, you poor snowflake, did I squash your delicate little ego? Does this mean we aren't BFFs anymore? lol

      -

      I believe that is more likely than you have some anonymous band of followers digging this deep in to a thread.

      Riiiiiiiiight, it couldn't be that there are other people here actually disagree with your bullshit, so OF COURSE I have a dedicated, shadowy band of followers who side with me against all comers....

      -

      Look you clearly have some kind of mental issue. I'm just going to move on now. You can sit here and stew if you want too. Take care.

      Yeah, my "mental issue" is that I've put forth arguments for which you have absolutely no substantive response.

      Thanks for playing, better luck next time. And ask your doctor if anti-paranoia medication is right for you.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    220. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And unlike the career politicians he's actually followed through on his promises so far. Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.

      Followed through? He failed. Donald promised he would repeal and replace President Obamacare. That still hasn't been done.

      Is that your measure of success - to say, "whelp, he gave it the ol' college try"?

    221. Re:Uhm... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      The current situation is pretty shitty, but - at least for the moment - we still have nation-wide abortion rights and no remaining enforced laws jailing people for non-heterosexual behavior. My guess is that if the country splinters, the coasts might turn into Denmark but the rest of what used to be the US will turn into Uganda.

    222. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiiiiiight, it couldn't be that there are other people here actually disagree with your bullshit, so OF COURSE I have a dedicated, shadowy band of followers who side with me against all comers....

      Shhh, don't let them know about our Secret Cult!

      Outsiders must never learn the truth!

      Yeah, my "mental issue" is that I've put forth arguments for which you have absolutely no substantive response.

      That, and you aren't intimidated by his pompous blustering. What a shameful thing.

      You really should hate yourself for not knuckling under to his majesty.

    223. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only factor in whether Trump gets re-elected lies in who the Democrats set up against him. If they pick HRC again, it's pretty clear Trump would win again. If they find -someone- with some leadership qualities and some reputation, there's a good chance Trump will lose.

      This is the thing about a race, you're racing against someone. You don't have to set a world record every time, you just have to beat the other people in the race.

    224. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I'm an American IT worker and in many cases H1-B workers -are- the best talent per dollar spent. They have some really good workers who will work very hard for less money, in general. That still doesn't mean the H1-B framework is a good government policy. We're handing multinational corporations a benefit at the cost of our own citizens.

    225. Re:Uhm... by clovis · · Score: 1

      So true - the text of the law, the intent, and its consequences are be very different things.

      If I were placed in charge of fixing this mess, the first thing I would do is split it into separate bills (change nothing to expedite the processs) with each bill being only made of things that are alike. Then repeal, replace, fix each one on its own over time.

      The insurance exchange, mandates, and things directly associated with insurance goes in one bill.
      Medicare has it own bill.
      Medicaid etc
      The stuff about quality standards into another, pamphlet-writing programs, etc.
      Nurse education, Indian affairs, and so on to each its own.

    226. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With ZERO Democrat support either. So yes, Republians tripped on themselves to stop it, at the end of the day, Democrats own the fail of Obamacare 100% to the bitter end; and we will all pay for it in higher premiums!

      What ignorant tripe. The Republicans didn't need support from any Democrats to repeal it, the Republican congress just couldn't decide whether it was better to deny health care to 20 million Americans or 30 million Americans.

    227. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More over you are letting your hatred and bitterness, this oppose Trump at all cost, blind you to what is coming down the road.

      I think Trump is going to be a terrible President & I hate some of the things he stands for & will oppose the racism, bigotry & sexism he promotes. However, I'm not against anyone working with him if - like a stopped clock - he is actually right about something. I suspect most Democrats are the same.

      I don't see the GP post as hatred & bitterness - just a statement wrt Trump's lack of intelligence & skill. I can understand the caustic nature of the comment as a reaction to the "Oh, he must be smart because $$$" comments ... which many of us know is an empty argument.

      Also, I sincerely hope that I am completely wrong about Trump being a terrible President. Please may he prove me wrong & be great. If he does, I hope we will be re-elected in 2020. (I'm not holding my breath.)

    228. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... you are mostly right in general, but unless rich people are saving all their money in mattresses, they do invest in the economy by keeping money in the bank. Where do you think the money for business loans comes from? Paper in a vault actually decreases in value due to inflation, so what banks do to earn interest and get their cut is make that money flow as much as possible - i.e., invest.

      Stop, and really think about the stock market. How does money invested in the stock market create jobs? For the most part it doesn't. Only the initial offering of the stock raises money for a company. All further trading in the market only creates wealth for the investors as they consume dividends and bid up the price of stocks, which most often will be re-invested in more stocks. So as far as job creation is concerned, all of the money invested in the stock market is effectively stuffed in one giant mattress.

    229. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I voted for him twice

      Aaaaaaannnnnnnddd I stopped reading right there.
      How are sub-human mongs like you even allowed to use the internet, much less vote?

    230. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that?

      Yes, many people give him credit for that - they align with his intentions and personality.

      And this affects how many people vote.

    231. Re:Uhm... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That would still be a long list. Might be easier to just list the things he told the truth about. It'd save time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    232. Re: Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obamacare doesn't persist because it is a failure, it persists because it is a success.

      Your insistence that Obamacare is a failure does not make it so. Indeed, your political posturing on the matter is the fail here. A truly failed policy would lose bipartisan support and be repealed (oh! there's that word again!). I understand that your sense of identity is at stake. Therefore I'll only ask you to meditate upon the continued reality of Obamacare. It is like the Fast And Furious movies, huh? If they are so terrible, why do they keep making them?

    233. Re: Uhm... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The dude couldn't pass a law with full control of the house. If that was strategy it was the worst play ever.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    234. Re:Uhm... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, you where just wrong and you can't admit it.

      Stop being stupid. I mean, you're pretty good at it, but now you're just coming off as a clown.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    235. Re:Uhm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I find it highly strange that of all the things to be thankful or positive about in this country with its currently divided politicking, you pick sexual behaviors and killing unborn children (fetus if you must but it is the same). I can understand people wanting to get their jollies however they can but killing kids doesn't seem to fit unless you are one of those crazy idiots who think the world is over populated or that certain people are too stupid to practice birth control and need a second chance and not reproducing after the fact. Perhaps I'm wrong and it is just a sexual fetish for you.

      Oh well, I think you are wrong about Denmark and Uganda but I guess since I simply do not understand the killing kids thing, I'm probably missing something in your logic.

  2. Premium processing has been canceled this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump already ordered H-1B premium processing canceled this year.

    Personally, I think H-1B is fine. They just need to prevent the kind of abuses by Tata, CSC, Wipro, etc. In other words, the H-1B holders should be employed by where they work at normal rates, not by the mass outsourcers at low rates. Currently, bad for Americans, inhumane for Indians.

    1. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by Bartles · · Score: 1

      So you think H1-B is fine, except for all the problems with it. Got it.

    2. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by Gorobei · · Score: 5, Funny

      The H1-B program is a mess, but when I look around my office:

      1. There is a small group of H1-Bs who are actually competent and probably help keeping us profitable
      2. There is a bunch of H1-Bs who are useless, underpaid fucks who make the codebase worse
      3. There a small group of citizen programmers who are actually competent and probably help keeping us profitable
      4. There is a bunch of citizen programmers who are useless, overpaid fucks who make the codebase worse

      Revoking for citizenship of group 4 seems the best plan. Then we can work on group 2.

    3. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think companies need to figure out a better way of dealing with the varying levels of skills of the developers they hire. There is a shortage of exceptional talent, that's just how it is. If companies only hired them, they wouldn't have enough developers and the job market would be saturated with unemployed developers with novice and intermediate talent that won't have an opportunity to improve. It takes years and active commitment to improving your ability beyond what you do while at work. There's obviously not an easy answer here because the limited skilled developers need to be doing their own work, not spending their time coaching/teaching/correcting the less skilled ones. They also can't have the less skilled ones sitting around doing nothing.

    4. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      And when you get to age 50 and your boss decides that you're incompetent as a way to dump you because you're causing his insurance rates to rise, we can also remove your citizenship? Goody!

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by shanen · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Humor-rich target, but this is the first funny-moderated comment I've found. (I scan from the back...) Unfortunately, it should be "insightful", even though you didn't explicitly mention group 4 is much larger than group 2. It is possible that your company has more employees in group 2 than group 4, but the joke depends on it being the other way... It's the old false positive joke for medical diagnosis.

      Oh well. Moot for me, since I never get a mod point to give. Then again, I'd probably prefer not participating in the travesty unless there were some signs the moderation system itself was being improved...

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    6. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Slashdot admins:

      The moderation system is fine. Pay no attention to this crybaby. He's just upset at being ignored.

    7. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "1. There is a small group of H1-Bs who are actually competent and probably help keeping us profitable"

      This would be the sort of person we want as a conventional immigrant, rather than as a peon who is tied to one employer and gets sent back as soon as that employer is done with him.

    8. Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year by robinsc · · Score: 1

      Seems to be my Impression too. Also the people up in arms about the H1B are usually group 4.

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
  3. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source: Betteridge's Law

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: Betteridge's law only states that a question in a headline can be answered with no. It does not mean the answer is correct, though.

    2. Re:No by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Of course, Obamacare is essentially a Republican architected plan...great for big pharmy, big healthcare and big insurance. When made into national plan, flawed assumptions were used about young healthy people and the type of insurance they would get. So the whole thing is going to collapse anyway, the Democrat's failure some will say. Would a robust public option be a viable solution and what Obama and company should and pushed for?

  4. Dear President Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of covering for my H1B visa friends.

    They aren't skilled but they are cheap.
    They send all their money back to their own country.

    Please do the needful.

    1. Re:Dear President Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds nasty, but really, it is based in fact.

      Go, the needful need to do (made that up myself, yup).

      CAP === 'denizen'
      Todaty's was 36 chaaracters long - I ain't typing that out for some stupid machine, then I remembered
      that 'denizen' is the universal back-door cracked versification string so I used it instead. Smart, ain't I?

    2. Re:Dear President Trump by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      how do they feed themselves, have a roof over their head, get themselves to work etc if they send all their money home?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re: Dear President Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They live 8 to an apartment and sleep on the floor.

    4. Re: Dear President Trump by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's called short term pain for long term gain. They pay the least for lodging here to use it at home.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re: Dear President Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8? That's not many. Here there's at least 8 families to 1 apartment.

      For them it's better than back home.

      For us it's a nightmare since all they do is google code.
      That's use google to search for code snippets they cut and paste to get the most done with the least effort.
      Who cares if it actually has a design?
      That's what they're used to, that's where they come from, that's why their countries are in shambles.

      Sad but true.

    6. Re: Dear President Trump by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      You're free to do the same thing. Don't hate them because they're smart enough to not play by the arbitrary rules that you invented. I would live with 8 people too if it meant getting my kids into America.

    7. Re: Dear President Trump by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      i get pissed off continually seeing the "they send ALL their money home" crap and never realise that their own countrymen who also work abroad for better wages also send money back home.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  5. Re:Ryan was defeated, not Trump. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Trump was adamant that there should be a vote yesterday, presumably because it was the ACA's anniversary.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. It figures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The republicans have set themselves up as the party of "no". When the Democrats were in their attitude was to block everything, no compromise, no middle ground. Well, it still seems they're using this tactic now, except it's between themselves, not aimed at the democrats.

    Unless they can figure out how to compromise rather than merely impede then they will find themselves utterly unable to govern. Trump is the same. His bully style tactics work as a CEO because you can fire anyone who stands in his way. The president can't do that. I look forward to the fireworks.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:It figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how the "party of no" is always "the other party".

    2. Re: It figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand. Usually the other party is the party of no. Now the republicans are in power everywhere and they are still the party of no. You don't need democrats for that. That is funny.

    3. Re:It figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it depends on the issue. Republicans are pretty fractured internally. Trump advertised a super great healthcare bill that would take care of everyone and cost less money. Whatever bill he signs has to at least do one of those two things. Many of the Republicans in Congress have run on the destruction of any national healthcare plan or anything that looks like it. Others have basically promised something like what Trump did. The positions "lets improve the healthcare bill in a Republican way" and "eliminate subsidized healthcare" are fundamentally incompatible.

      H-1B is another place that Republicans are divided on, but it's definitely one that is closer to Trump's actual base arguments. It's much more reasonable to assume that we'll see Republicans succeed at making some change on this issue if they actually get around to it.

      Meanwhile, there are other issues that Republicans are totally united on. These things will pass and become law, but the general existence of them precludes working with the Democrats on any other thing. The fact that Republicans whined for eight years about Obamacare not having a single Republican vote, and then the first thing they do when they have triple red is to launch a healthcare bill that they at NO POINT expected would get a single Democrat vote, is telling.

    4. Re:It figures by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "A do-nothing congress, the worst in history." -Truman

      It's funny that the lines politicians use keep working for centuries.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:It figures by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's funny that the lines politicians use keep working for centuries.

      Some of the nastier ones seem to get resurrected from time to time too.
      By any means necessary
      Heute Deutschland, morgen die Welt!
      Carthago delenda est
      Safety First

    6. Re:It figures by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:It figures by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Why is "do-nothing" a bad thing for a Congress?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:It figures by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "Now is the winter of our discontent"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: It figures by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      But how will they complete their mission of running the country into the ground if they do nothing?

    10. Re:It figures by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's funny that the lines politicians use keep working for centuries.

      Or maybe we just keep getting worse congresses.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. more healthcare by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it depends on what's said on Fox in the morning. I don't think H1B reform is a hot button issue for its own sake, or for the sake of employers or visa holders, but if it can be co-mingled with outrage over someone who can be an easy target for blame and looks like they're getting a better deal than they deserve regardless of the facts then it will rise to be the next big thing. I doubt he's walked away from healthcare, there's plenty of rage left to be mined there.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:more healthcare by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      H1-b problems doesn't make good news. Health care on the other hand effects average joe. While the purpose of these elected officials are to cover the complex stuff we citizens are board by it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:more healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      affects ... bored ...

    3. Re:more healthcare by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I disagree. American workers being replaced by third world guest workers is big, provided you plan on fixing it. If you don't plan on fixing it then best to keep quiet.

    4. Re:more healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most times the american workers are forced to train their replacements.

      That's when the bean counters get in control.

      Look at what happened to VMware.
      Code is shit now.

      Same with Apple, Microsoft and Google. Disney outsourced their IT. So did that college in southern CA.

      Might appear to work in the short term but it's all gonna come crashing down.

    5. Re: more healthcare by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      They're only forced to because we don't have a UBI. If we did they could just quit and feel safe.

    6. Re:more healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I think this is true, the problem is not the company, but the outsourcing firms being used to "launder" H1B's into companies while keeping the companies free to dispose of them at will since they are kinda like permanent "temp workers".

      I would probably go one further and recommend that H1B's never be given to staffing/outsourcing firms to begin with. A company must absolutely prove that what they need is a specialized person and that no person in the entire United States or Canada can fit that role. Yes I said "or Canada" because NAFTA should be prioritized. Canadians are not scrambling to get into the US unlike people from India who live in some ridiculous poverty trap that even living in the US in poverty is still better than living in India in poverty.

    7. Re:more healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trump has 4 years to unfuck what obama fucked up in 8 and will probably do it in his first year.

  8. Sure, if they had the willpower... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I had a team of several million people, I could build a sustainable city on Mars.

    As long as I could be totally devoted tot he task, and the willpower to follow through the billions of setbacks you'd hit on the way, especially including my own ignorance.

    Trump fixing H1b? It's possible, but similarly absurd to expect.

    The Trump coalition isn't the team to fix H1b. They're a wrecking crew, not a construction team. They can foist individuals to make plans, but they're philosophically aligned against, say, the kind of planning that would make a national constitution or something along those lines.

    Even if theoretically Trump actually meant the half-dozen things he said on H1b, and DIDN'T mean the several things he said that contradicted that, he'd still need to coordinate with a team that implements it, and a political base to enable a political climate that will make disobeying the rule a bad idea.

    Trump could GET folks on board to get all that done... but at this point, he'd really need to construct everything needed from whole cloth. I somehow doubt that enforcing and enlarging H1b rules on the nation's CEOs is going to be a high priority compared to everything else he wants done in the world. It's POSSIBLE, just very unlikely, unless somehow Trump is thwarted on literally every other big thing, and yet not impeached.

    H1b is a horrible system. It's virtues are nice - getting qualified folks in to do needed jobs - but that does not justify a system of modern day quasi-indentured-servitude. The way it's used it horrible too, basically used to quash local workers wage increases. Trump speaks against it, but he's exactly the wrong person to choose as a person to crusade against it - he's basically the living avatar of the idea of shortchanging workers using sketchy legal tactics.

    Don't expect too much from Trump on this.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      One amendment would fix the H1B Visa problem - do not give outsourcing firms any H1B tickets.

    2. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you supposed to be someone everyone on Slashdot should know, Ryan Fenton, or do you sign your name because you are a narcissist?

    3. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Or prioritize them by salary instead of a lottery. Or make them bid on the available billets, highest wins.

    4. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by fermion · · Score: 1
      Most Trump supporters are probably not worried that immigrants are coming from India and taking the jobs from IT workers. most of these workers are in the 'liberal' coastal cities that did not vote for Trump, and as such, are of no consequence. Trump campaigned on closing the border to immigrants that are taking low wage hard jobs that Americans do not want.

      On the other hand Trump has asked for visa for over a 1000 foriegn workers over the past decade of so. These are for the type of jobs that should be easy to fill with US workers. Cooks, golf caddies, picking grapes, etc. These are not high skilled jobs, and the only reason to import workers is because of the potentially lower pay or ability to deport workers if they refuse to work, or complain about the condition, of violate confidentiality agreements.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      This. Just banning fucked up firms like WiPro, Tata, etc. from receiving H1Bs would go a LONG way toward curbing abuse.

    6. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Too hard to define what those firms are in legal terms. There are many multinational companies out there with workers in many countries. Are they outsourcing or not? I used to work for Nokia, they had workers in the US, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Poland, China, India, etc. Were the an outsourcing company? Then there's a real outsourcing company in my view, who has workers in the US, Europe, and India. The only thing that says to me that they're an outsourcing firm and Nokia isn't is that their primary product is cheap lower skilled tech workers. So would a law define the difference here, if all the outsourcing firm has to do is manufacture something then that's not hard to do. Some of these outsourcing firms have their headquarters in the US as well.

      To outsourcing firms, H1B is a minor issue - they only want a few workers in the US on visas to be team leaders to all the grunts back home. Cut out the H1Bs then they just move to having daily 6am conference calls instead.

    7. Re: Sure, if they had the willpower... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      CEOs from any company needing H1Bs should have to fight in the octagon. Then we'll see how badly they actually need those workers.

    8. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're over-simplifying it.

      Your example, Nokia, is not an oursourcing firm. They are a multinational. They can hire more US people for US-specific jobs, or they can hire more people in Europe for Europe-specific jobs. The manufacturing is still going to end up in either Europe or Asia. Nokia found that it's mapping software was more valuable than retaining a presence in the cell phone market, so they licensed the "Nokia" name to Microsoft and spun off most of their cell phone assets to Microsoft while retaining their profitable businesses. So what really happened? Did all the Finland Cell phone employees get shipped to the US? No. They were all just let go. The US staff probably deal with mapping in the US and were likely not affected if they weren't working directly in Redmond. Everyone in the company has specific jobs they were hired for, and are not "mobile" like an outsourcing/staffing firm is.

      A staffing/outsourcing firm, has no jobs themselves. They go to a company like a bank and go "Let us cut your costs by hiring some cheap East Indians or Chinese", then they put a job in the Indian or Chinese paper looking for "english-speaking tech people, no experience necessary" that would be paid a pittance in their home country, the staffing agency then "hires them" to work for that bank, in which the bank then trains them to replace their in-house staff. The end result is that the employee remains in limbo, neither working officially for that bank, nor actually working for the staffing agency. The H1B becomes portable since if the bank decides they don't want that employee, they can shuffle them off to another bank client. From a legal perspective, the staffing company is the employer, but they are doing work as an "outsourced" staff.

      H1B's were not designed for this kind of abuse. The simplest way to fix the H1B problem is that H1B's not being given to staffing agencies. There is no reason why a staffing agency can't find domestic employees, that is their job.

    9. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the obvious solution.

      It's "leveraging the free market" which should make the Republicans happy. Instead of the government determining relative importance of what the private sector wants in terms of work force or possibly even worse randomly have the free market determine them via how much they are willing to pay.

    10. Re:Sure, if they had the willpower... by houghi · · Score: 1

      They will then say 'but we are not an outsourcing company' just like Uber isn't a taxi company.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. don't encourage him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he doesn't even read the 'executive orders' that he signs. not that reading comprehension would help him any. once a moron, always a moron.

  10. Not hard to fix... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    - Limit H1bs per company, preferably limit in proportion to company's US tax contribution (or total US tax contribution of company's employees if you prefer).
    - Prioritize people with grad degrees from US universities. (taxpayers often partly subsidize the education of top students in state universities - it makes no sense to not try to keep them afterwards).
    - Make H1bs more desirable by making switching company easier, giving dependents work status. Currently the restrictions don't help attracting truly highly-skilled (thus highly-paid) workers who would easily find opportunities (and be treated better) in other countries - rather they are only appealing to the average Indian outsourcing firm low-pay employee.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Not hard to fix... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      The problem is that it requires a Republican Congress to vote in favor of something that lets corporations get away with being stingy. Trump might decide to support it because he doesn't like Silicon Valley, but I can't imagine a Republican Congress siding with the little guy when it comes to money.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Not hard to fix... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the first two conditions already exist to some degree, but companies are finding clever ways around them. Giving visa holders a work permit for a limited duration but not tied to the company that employs them would help them to not just be an indentured servant.

      In Europe there are labour issues that are somewhat similar. Eastern European job agencies are sending people to work here Western Europe as labourers construction workers or truckers, at far lower wages. The issue is not one of immigration, but what amounts to circumventing minimum wage laws and such. A proposed solution is to require "like pay for like work in the same location": foreign companies sending their employees here on a long-term job (essentially indeterminate) would be required to pay them locally prevailing wages. This would make it even more attractive for foreign talent to come work here, but it would also mean that cost would no longer be a reason to hire foreigners, but filling positions with scarce foreign talent would still be viable. Perhaps that would also be a reasonable fix for the US H1B programme? IIRC, Trump already suggested to increase the minimum wage for H1B workers.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Not hard to fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Limit H1bs per company, preferably limit in proportion to company's US tax contribution (or total US tax contribution of company's employees if you prefer).
      - Prioritize people with grad degrees from US universities. (taxpayers often partly subsidize the education of top students in state universities - it makes no sense to not try to keep them afterwards).
      - Make H1bs more desirable by making switching company easier, giving dependents work status. Currently the restrictions don't help attracting truly highly-skilled (thus highly-paid) workers who would easily find opportunities (and be treated better) in other countries - rather they are only appealing to the average Indian outsourcing firm low-pay employee.

      - Already prioritizes grad degrees from US universities. About 1/4 of the H1Bs are reserved for it.
      - It is easy to switch and dependents get a work visa that is better than H1B.

    4. Re:Not hard to fix... by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That will not work. You are misunderstanding the major issue - which is the same for low skilled workers as high skilled workers.
      Employers do not want to pay the wage that americans demand for doing that work.

      Their is a simple solution that WILL work. Create a new type of visa/ green card, called an A10 Visa (or whatever) The rules are simple for the A10.

      1) The US will give out unlimited number of A10 visas to anyone that is legally allowed to visit the US. Anyone that wants one can get it

      2) A10 Visas come with a number similar to a social security number, but starts with the letter A. When you get work with an A10 Visa, your employer is required to pay an additional 10% of your salary directly to the Federal government.

      3) Any state may (or may not), pass a law adding a state tax equal to up to an additional 15% income tax on top of the Federal Tax.

      4) Anyone, including foreign workers, can report someone hiring foreign workers but not paying the A10 taxes. Should the employer be found guilty, the reporting person (which can be the worker) gets a set fee of $10,000, and the employer goes to jail for a minimum of 2 years.

      Note, currently H1 Visas tend to get paid about 10% less than Americans doing the same job.

      End result - American workers do not need to worry about illegals costing the country money or stealing jobs - unless those jobs pay so little that an American won't agree to do them for 10% more than the foreign workers get.

      If the state (I'm looking at you South West), thinks this isn't enough, they can up it to 25% - and suffer the resulting lack of foreign workers who head to California and other friendlier states.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Not hard to fix... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Make H1bs more desirable by making switching company easier, giving dependents work status

      Not going to work. Those Indian H1B holders incur huge debts for "relocation" and the Indian companies are going to want their pound of flesh if the H1B holder changes company.

      No, the suggestion was given elsewhere. It's simple and obvious: prioritize H1B assignment by salary. Highest salary gets the visa. This would have to be backed up by regulations to ensure that the hiring company is not able to claw back that salary somehow.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Not hard to fix... by clovis · · Score: 1

      Also, change the way the slots are allocated. Right now the lottery favors large companies (think Tata) that ask for a very large number of slots. These large requests are squeezing out the small companies.
      So ...
      Go through the list of all locally owned and managed American companies asking for an H1B that year and allocate one h1B to each of them
      Any company asking for just one would get theirs in the first round and drop off the list.
      Go through the list of remaining companies and again, assign one slot to each.
      Keep doing this until that years annual cap is reached, or the list no longer contains local American companies.

      This may solve the perennial problem of small companies that actually have a need for a certain person having a specific talent being squeezed out, and it would likely make it difficult or impossible for out-sourcers such as Tata to fill the staff with all H1B workers.

    7. Re:Not hard to fix... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Switching companies on H1B apparently isn't that hard. Had one worker get our company to renew his H1B and do all the necessary paperwork, and as soon as the processing was done he quit and went to a different company.

      I think H1B is really a small visa problem, there are lots of other abuses of visas elsewhere. Like the rotation of workers into the US for temporary work, overstays of student visas,etc. Outsourced workers are not visa holders either, but whenever I hear people gripe about H1Bs they start talking about outsourcing firms.

    8. Re:Not hard to fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a fix that involves rewriting tax code, and I don't think it would happen.

      Here's a better fix based on the same idea.

      1) Require tax forms to include a passport number. If you do not have a passport, you're considered "undocumented" for the sake of international tax obligations and pay the highest tax rate of the country that you're working in, even if you're born in that country. So get a damn passport.
      2) Anyone has the freedom to work anywhere they want in the world as long as they have a Passport.
      3) Come tax time, you put down your passport number and expiry instead of your local tax payer ID number (these numbers will only be used for issuing benefits like they are supposed to), the SSN/SIN/TIN/etc type of numbers are only used for benefits, which you can only get as a citizen of that country. The "basic" universal tax form will be sent to both the country you are working in and the country that you have citizenship in. It will contain only the gross income, net income after benefits, and net income after local tax obligations (eg state/federal tax of where you live.) No addresses or names.
      4) You fill out a "taxpayer benefits" form which uses the SSN/SIN/TIN/etc taxpayer benefit numbers of the country that you have citizenship of, and you pay this to your home country. In turn your home country will cover your medical, pension and other benefits offered by your home country. You do not get benefits from the country you are working in. Should you need medical coverage in the country you are working in, you provide your passport, and they will bill your home country's medical system.

      That solves the job mobility issue. If you are a foreigner working in the US, you are effectively paying two taxes. You are paying benefits taxes to your home country, and you are paying all US taxes except what covers benefits in the US. So as an example, you'd be exempt from the taxes that pay into healthcare, welfare, pension, unemployment. You'd not be exempt from any other tax that is a consequence of living where you choose to live and work (eg sales taxes, income taxes)

      The only complication here is just breaking out the taxes that go into benefits from the ones that go into everything else. This also offers a level of transparency of how much each country "costs" to have as a home country and would encourage tax policy changes to either encourage or discourage foreign workers. Sure the US might cost 45% in taxes, but only maybe 2% of that actually goes into benefits programs.

      But this is obviously too complicated too.

      A simplified version is simply "anyone can work anywhere they want, education, experience be damned, as long as they have a passport and a bank account", push the tax collection step at the sales tax level (yes sales taxes suck) but it makes it so that everyone is paying taxes without having to deal with payroll taxes or income taxes.

    9. Re:Not hard to fix... by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pricing is the right approach, although using percentages to alter pricing is risky because you run the risk of "A10" workers being paid even less in nominal terms so that they're still cheaper WITH the added taxation.

      I think with a lot of the outsourcing mills that are foreign-owned, you might end up seeing complex compensation systems that involve fractional payment deferred or paid into accounts overseas so that the nominal wage remains competitive even with additional marginal taxes.

      I would tweak your plan slightly:

      1) H1B workers must be paid 125% of the job's regional maximum

      2) H1B workers must be employed and paid directly for the business who is the end beneficiary of their work -- they may not perform any contractual labor

      3) H1B workers are fee to switch employers during the term of their visa

      4) Violation of these terms is a crime. Employers are subject to a fine of 3x the employee's annual salary and a 5 year ban on hiring any H1B workers. H1B workers are subject to immediate detention and deportation for violating these rules. Employers who violate these terms for more than 1 employee concurrently are subject to criminal prosecution.

      (1) Insures they are no longer cheap labor and business-critical innovation geniuses will make this kind of salary anyway.

      (2) Prevents them from being used in labor mills or enabling foreign-owned firms from side-channel payments. They must be direct hires.

      (3) No indentured servitude. This prevents businesses willing to accept higher salaries but who set extreme working conditions to cost-average their output to local salary levels ($/hr).

      (4) Puts teeth into enforcement.

    10. Re:Not hard to fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump had even a few Democrats on board in the House/Senate, there would be no problem. The few asshole Republicans would be swept aside... It's a golden opportunity, with a President like Trump who doesn't give a flying fuck about parties or partisanship, only getting things done.

      Instead, the Democrats turned into the party of NO. Nancy Pee-losey and Chucky Schummer would be happy to see the whole country burn, as long as they could somehow pin it on Trump/Repubs.

      It's just sad to see the old corrupt obstinate alligators defending their DC swamp. Also, bat-shit crazy as fuck (I mean you, McCain, and your coddling of terrorists).

    11. Re:Not hard to fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send Hadjie home.

  11. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And few people have noticed that Trump masterfully defeated Ryan

    Only wishful thinkers among Trump supporters. Trump was calling all the shots during this past week; he was the one who insisted on a showdown vote yesterday, to put all the Freedom Caucus members' votes on record. Of course, it was cancelled when they saw they were going down in flames.

    and is letting the fuse burn down to the Obamacare implosion.

    More wishful thinkers, but this time including the President.

  12. Let's see if I have this right by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see, Obamacare is a plague on the nation that must be killed right now. The GOP could do so much better. So they propose Obamacare-lite and can't manage to pass it even while controlling the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. Let me guess, somewhere in Arkansas the county dog catcher is a Democrat and that gummed up everything.

    Slow clap.

    1. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to what the pundits on the left like to believe, the GOP is not one monolithic voting bloc in fact if you explore voting history along party lines, you'll find it's the Democratic party which votes more as a bloc. (Sort by "votes with party" and it's mostly Democrats at the top.)

      Half the GOP wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare-lite, half wants to completely end government involvement in health care. That was the impasse. Ideally, the moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans would get together and come up with something, giving a middle finger to the hard left Democrats and the hard right Republicans. But the two parties are under the control of the hard left and hard right, and will ostracize any moderates who fail to toe their respective party line.

    2. Re:Let's see if I have this right by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would say it's also contrary to what the pundits on the right would have us believe. Remember how so much was going to get done now that the GOP has the trifecta?

      How Obamacare would be replaced by something soooooo much better (but the only deal on the table was basically the cheap Chinese knock-off version of Obamacare)?

    3. Re:Let's see if I have this right by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Democrats are under the control of the "hard left"? Please, what radicalism has the Democratic party proposed on par with completely dismantling the bulk of our government? By international standards our country has no hard left and the hard right looks downright nutty.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:Let's see if I have this right by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Coming up with something would require planning, negotiation, and "horse trading" skills. Trump is not known for any of these skills.

    5. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would characterize Obama as center-left, more moderate than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Obama was actually much more traditionally conservative in foreign policy compared to Donald Trump. But Obama was the first African-American President, which raised the hackles of many working class whites who feared that their place in society was further eroding, and so he became a lightning rod for conservative media. Trashing Obama was their ticket for high ratings! The Tea Party sprung up very early during Obama's term, although they paid lip service of opposing Wall Street and some of the policies of ex-President George W Bush as well as Obama.

      Obama should have been able to govern by forming coalitions in Congress, but with the energized Tea Party bloc in Congress, this was no longer possible. This same bloc pushed John Boehner from power and, as we read from post mortems of Trump/RyanCare, they also torpedoed the AHCA. All these people know how to do is vote no, dress up in expensively tailored suits and explain to the media how they are taking "principled" positions.

    6. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention actual knowledge of the subject matter, and attention to details. He's even less known for possessing any of those...

    7. Re:Let's see if I have this right by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      This never got to the floor, and even it had and had passed, the Senate would likely have rejected it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to what you might have heard, the Affordable Healthcare Act has not been a plague on the US.

      The hardest hit were the health care insurance agencies, and they still managed to pull 7 cents of every dollar spent on insurance in their pockets as profit.

      Politically the reason it is a plague on America is because it was passed against the Republican will. There was nothing damaged in the United States except the Republican Party and the Insurance agency's ability to put 12 cents of every dollar spent on insurance in their pockets as profit. Keep in mind that while the Democrats worked with Republicans, the bill started to go nowhere, so they disconnected and pushed through a bill without Republicans. This, more than anything, showed the American people that if you want to get it done, the Republican Party is not the party for you. If you want to thump your chest, make a lot of noise, and act like you'll do it when you don't actually have your act together enough, then you're a Republican.

    9. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      No sir. Which party owns 2/3 of state governments, both houses and the White house?

      Not the dog catcher from Arkansas. It's you guys. All 100% on you and your constituents the party of No

    10. Re:Let's see if I have this right by sjames · · Score: 1

      You missed what I was saying. The Rs have characterized it is some kind of plague to be eradicated, not me. Personally, I consider it to be necessary insurance reform but far short of what we need to reform health care in the U.S.

      I just find it hysterical that after 6 years of moaning about Obamacare the best they could come up with was a cheap knock-off of Obamacare and they couldn't get it passed even while controlling both houses and the Oval office.

    11. Re:Let's see if I have this right by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coming up with something would require planning, negotiation, and "horse trading" skills. Trump is not known for any of these skills.

      Oh, come on. I think the President is a buffoon but even I still recognize that if he has one legitimate claim to competence in any field is it "negotiation and horse trading." I have no doubt that he is genuinely good at it.

      The real problem, as Trump is painfully beginning to discover, is that running a government involves a kind of negotiations that are exponentially more difficult and unsatisfying than business negotiation. Here's why:

      In a business negotiation, one of the most vital factors is the fact that (generally speaking) you can always walk away. You're trying to buy Company X or real estate Z and your negotiating partner wants an unreasonable price or unacceptable conditions that there's no breaking the impasse over? Walk away. No deal gets done, but the world keeps spinning on its axis just fine with no real consequences. (Mostly.)

      But in government? You don't get a debt ceiling increase passed, you don't get to walk away while the government stops paying its bills and torpedoes the world economy. You don't get an acceptable deal with Iran over its nuclear program, you don't get to walk away and just let them build nukes. You don't get a Middle East peace agreement that you want, you don't get to walk away and remove the US from the region while wholesale slaughter starts. There are real stakes in much of what the government does and no option to just walk away.

      So I think that while Trump is undoubtedly good at negotiations, he's having to do them in a completely new environment with a different set of variables and new stakes. And with a 35% or whatever it is approval rating, he doesn't have as much leverage as he's used to. All in all, it's pretty much a perfect recipe for anyone to fail at being a negotiator even if they're otherwise good at it.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    12. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving the finger to both the left and the right is basically how we ended up with Obamacare. The hard left are not Obamacare supporters, they want a single payer, government funded medical system like the rest of the western world has.

    13. Re: Let's see if I have this right by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Anything that takes money away from the rich is a "plague" to the Republicans.

    14. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The GOP is several blocks of people with little agency that do what they're told. Not just one. ( History tells us this. No, I don't have much respect for most GOP voters as functional, free-thinking entities.)

      Currently they invited the "crazy" block and though it helped them secure more votes it's a Faustian bargain that's eating the party from the inside out. They can't control the house freedumb fuck-ups.- And the embrace of literally racist elements have driven away what remains of the conservative intellectuals.

      To top it all off the Trump admin is proving to be grossly incompetent and generally poor at leadership from top to bottom. Not evil, not stupid, just completely inept at a basic functional level. We essentially are running on two branches of government right now. It's that bad.

      If you want to read some scathing, mean shit about the Trump administration go find a conservative lawyer's blog. What liberals write is gentle by comparison.

    15. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. I think the President is a buffoon but even I still recognize that if he has one legitimate claim to competence in any field is it "negotiation and horse trading." I have no doubt that he is genuinely good at it.

      Nope. There is no evidence to support that, on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence he's good at chicanery, flim-flam, braggadacious, and more.

      His entire business structure has been built on a house of cards, and unlike Frank Underwood, he isn't savvy about where he is, and he will fail, because his years of practice in indulging his vices have not learned in him the habit of being virtuous.

      He lacks temperance, he lacks restraint, and he lacks reason. It is a recipe for disaster, as there's nobody to steer him away from his tendencies and no hope of his doing so on his own.

    16. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The Democrats are under the control of the "hard left"? Please, what radicalism has the Democratic party proposed on par with completely dismantling the bulk of our government? By international standards our country has no hard left and the hard right looks downright nutty.

      US political parties are Middle-Right and Hard Right The right have succeeded in being so far right, they make the middle right look left by comparison.

    17. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Ideally, the moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans would get together and come up with something

      The ACA is already based on moderate ideas. It's mostly based on a Heritage Foundation paper, a right-wing think-tank. The far left wanted single payer (similar to what other industrialized countries have).

      It just needs some tuning due to mistakes and GOP budget bullet holes. Let's hope moderates can do that much.

    18. Re:Let's see if I have this right by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I think that depends on the issues. In regards to social issues (like gay marriage as a single example) our Left is a good ways to the left by international standards, although not to any kind of crazy extreme in my opinion.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    19. Re:Let's see if I have this right by sjames · · Score: 1

      Another problem for him is that government negotiations don't benefit as much from using other people's money. For example, Trump came out of Atlantic City OK in spite of building the only casino that couldn't manage to turn a profit during the boom there. Of course, he lost a big pile of other people's money. That particular con isn't useful in government.

      Come to think of it, that is more or less what just happened with Obamacare-lite. Only he isn't able to leave Ryan holding the bag because political capitol doesn't work like the financial kind.

    20. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lie to claim that half the GOP wants to end all government involvement in health care. It's never been the case in the USA and can never be the case, the government is always heavily involved in health care. Follow the money.

    21. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats are under the control of the "hard left"? Please, what radicalism has the Democratic party proposed on par with completely dismantling the bulk of our government? By international standards our country has no hard left and the hard right looks downright nutty.

      No we certainly have a hard left and hillary very foolishly pandered to those nutjobs too. Depending on the arena they'll typically proudly declare themselves to be a "radical-something or another"

      They might not exist where you live but we should acknowledge their existence and ridicule them until they go away. Where do you think the right gets this safe space snowflake talk from? Their propaganda machine closely watches developments in the radical left so they can use their stupidity as a way to other every person who isn't drinking rupert-murdoch kool-aid.

      I'll agree 99% of the right is practically insane now. It's gotten to the point where the few republicans who more or less do their job like grahm and mccain are painted as RINOs. In the case of POW mccain he's somehow an unpatriotic traitor and draft dodging offshoring trump is somehow supposed to make us all great.

    22. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, trump is fucking stupid. For awhile I believed he was secretly smart but now that he's in office I've seen him make endless stupid mistakes and I'm convinced that the only reason we're not in WWIII right now is because mattis has some brains to spare.

    23. Re:Let's see if I have this right by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on what you call "hard left". In the context of social issues like race, gender, and sexuality (which I think is what you are getting at) then I agree with you. There are certainly those on the Left who play the bigot card given the slightest provocation without the slightest bit of critical thought put forward considering maybe there's some other explenation. (Disclaimer: Yes discrimination along the lines listed above happens and people should stand up to it. I've seen some claims of it though that are just terrible on the part of the accusers.)

      In my above post I was refering to hard left more in the realm of economics (I didnt make that clear at all though) and things like gun control, law and order, and education.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    24. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I think that depends on the issues. In regards to social issues (like gay marriage as a single example) our Left is a good ways to the left by international standards, although not to any kind of crazy extreme in my opinion.

      Equal rights is hardly a left issue. The UK for example legalised gay marriage under a conservative government, as did New Zealand.
      This is probably a good example of how the extreme right make the centre right look much more left than they actually are.

    25. Re:Let's see if I have this right by msauve · · Score: 1

      Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    26. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I like your post, I always get a chuckle when Americans define their own politics in terms as "left", "center" or "right". As an outsider looking in, American politics has no left wing. Or center. You have a "right", a "far right" and since the rise of the Tea Party and its ilk a "cuckoo cuckoo right".

    27. Re:Let's see if I have this right by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the implicit second step after 'walk away,' which is 'find somebody else to deal with.'

      In the US system, the there's no alternative. The US electorial system is a fine example of why monopolies are bad.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    28. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He inherited a fortune, and has gone bankrupt a number of times.

      I would wager based on that that his ability to carry out business deals is based on the law of averages at best. I doubt you'd do any better or worse flipping a coin as to whether any of the deals he's done are good or bad. You'd probably end up no worse off than he has with his numerous bankruptcies - for every deal he's done that's made him billions, he's made deals that have lost him billions. He just dropped 220 spots on the rich list in the latest rankings, there's no consistency, just randomness.

      For what it's worth it's also a myth (albeit popular) that walking away from a business deal doesn't have downsides - there's a risk someone else makes the deal and takes the market from under you, there's a risk that you lose investor confidence and lose funding as a result. This is why takeovers bids take so much caution, why they're often first heard about as rumours, because companies do a lot of exploration on the possibility of a deal quietly and carefully before they commit, precisely because of the risks - the analysis of the value of a deal in itself can cost sometimes 10s of millions of dollars.

      The hard part is making money in the first place, the Bill Gates, Richard Bransons and so on of the world are good examples of people who have done that, but even then it's mostly about being in the right place at the right time. Beyond that most people who break this initial hurdle see their fortunes waver like crazy over the years as they struggle to make good deals with any kind of consistency. Even those that do manage to grow their wealth fairly consistently are often border like criminals, such as Philip Green who basically stole £400m from one of his company's pension pots.

      The number of people who are actually good at making money and growing their wealth consistently are incredibly small. Many of those who are good at making their initial fortune struggle to then grow it, which is hence why they hire people who were unable to make that initial fortune, but were good at growing other people's fortunes - we typically call these people hedge fund managers.

      Trump is no Warren Buffet - that's someone who both made his money and shows a fairly consistent (but by no means unfaltering) ability to make good deals.

    29. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American political parties went so hard to the right that Obama was actually pretty conservative right wing guy by Europe's standards.
      So what seems hard left to you is actually the moderate middle.

    30. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.

      Criminal under both left and right governments. Or did you miss that bit out on purpose?
      None of this is the point though, we are comparing the US political system with other similar western democracies all founded from the former British Empire eg UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc you could also include North Western Europe too if you like, since it is also similar, but the point still stands. The US 'left' is more right than most other similar political parties in other similar nations.

    31. Re:Let's see if I have this right by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Criminal under both left and right governments."

      Never mind. You're just defining terms to suit your argument. It's extremely naive to think of politics as a simple linear left-right scale.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    32. Re:Let's see if I have this right by Gussington · · Score: 1

      . It's extremely naive to think of politics as a simple linear left-right scale.

      Er, the was exactly the point I was trying to make. Glad you could join us...

  13. Re:Ryan was defeated, not Trump. by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Trump can now say he did all he could to fulfill his campaign promise. Democrats and a few Republicans refused to reform Obamacare, so now when (not if) it collapses, he and Ryan have scapegoats. It remains to be seen what will happen to fix it then but it definitely will put Trump in a better negotiating position.

  14. Re: Just repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, dude 24 million people losing healthcare is bad and there is no way to spin it positively, because well.... there is no way to positively spin 24 million people losing healthcare.

    It was a crappy bill. It was designed to be a crappy bill, because the purpose of the bill was not to reform healthcare, but to get $1 trillion for what the GOP really wanted: tax "reform" (i.e. making the middle class pay more in taxes than Donald Trump). The healthcare stuff was just a convenient vehicle to do it, so they threw in a some "health care-ey" stuff to make it look like it wasn't a tax bill. That's why it failed.

  15. Re:Just repeal it by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with that, as long as those same Americans are denied health care at all times until they can pay, even at the ER. Until you do that, when they DO get sick (not if), I don't want to pay the astronomical price they can't afford (because they don't have insurance), when they have to take the far more expensive option at the ER (because they never thought they would need the insurance or didn't have it to go do basic preventative care).

  16. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the GOP defeated itself, Trump blames everyone else for his failures, and he is not masterful and not a dealmaker. It's all a lie.

    He is a narcissistic racist piece of shit. How will this play in the 2018 elections? When the populace that voted for him wakes up from their opioid slumber and realizes that Trump lied his ass off during the primaries, election, and as president, they will kick the GOP's ass just for fun. Mid terms are brutal for those in the White House, and this will be doubly so.

    A win for the Donkey party in Congress will probably land Trump an impeachment in the House, and the possibility of removal in the Senate.

  17. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans voted 62 times in the House to repeal Obamacare when it didn't matter because President Obama would have never signed the bill, wasting taxpayer money and cynically understanding they could vote to repeal without being held accountable for the consequences, and suddenly when they are in a position of actually enacting a repeal and replacement bill into law they came up with nothing.

    The Republican Party is a fractured mess that was great at being an opposition party using Obama and Clinton as boogeymen but is completely and utterly incapable of actually governing because they have no party-wide plans for doing anything other than saying "No" to Democrats which worked well with a Democrat in the White House but doesn't work when they have majorities in the House and Senate and one of their own in the White House.

    Democrats would be wise to treat Trump the same way Republicans treated Obama while coming up with a plan to actually govern when they get their turn again. Unless Trump, Ryan and McConnell come to their senses and actually try to govern in a bipartisan manner.

    Moderate Republicans and Democrats can deal but only when both parties agree not to give in to their far right and far left nut job activist bases.

    1. Re:Trump by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and suddenly when they are in a position of actually enacting a repeal and replacement bill into law they came up with nothing.

      It's even worse than that. They've had how many years now to sit down and think about a replacement plan, to go through the details, crunch the numbers, and get their party on board with a plan so that when they eventually could put it into action they could succeed. Instead they did nothing and tried to push out a cobbled together mess that they couldn't even get enough of their party behind to hold an actual vote on it.

      Both of our major political parties are completely dysfunctional at this point. The Democrats spent all of their effort trying to push their anointed party insider candidate who needed significant party help to make it out of a primary against a fringe candidate no one was talking about seriously in the lead up to the election and the republicans had such a weak and unappealing array of candidate that a loud-mouthed bozo that was a complete outsider (he'd only changed to a Republican in 2011, but had bounced back and forth between the parties before) practically take over the party.

    2. Re:Trump by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      What you are seeing is loyalty to lobbyists instead of loyalty to party or country. If Americans want to control their destiny they must get the money out of federal politics. The other direction is a milk cow getting run through rollers to extract the last drop.

    3. Re:Trump by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Sure, pushing for a poor candidate is totally the same as not knowing how to govern. I completely agree!

      *rolls eyes*

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've had how many years now to sit down and think about a replacement plan, to go through the details, crunch the numbers, and get their party on board with a plan so that when they eventually could put it into action they could succeed.

      To be fair, they did. The result was Obamneycare.

  18. Re:And masterfully so by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obamacare isn't imploding though, for the most part it's working much better than anything that can't before it. So many people are now invested in it, reliant on it.

    Trump is losing hard. His two flagship policies are on the rocks. The Muslim ban he promised isn't a Muslim ban any more and even then gets stuck down again and again. And now Trumpcare, because he sucks at making deals and massively underestimated how complex healthcare is.

    Don't forget that he promised to defeat Isis by now too. He's a used car salesman who promises to fix everything, tells you it's going to be the best wagon you every owned...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  19. Re:And masterfully so by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    He actually put the blame on the Democrats for his own inability to close the deal with GOPs.

    That was a real funny one. It's like he thinks the Democrats have magical powers.

  20. Why Fox? by s.petry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fox is wrong as much as the other guys. Sean Hannity was out telling everyone Ryan's healthcare was good. His saving grace is that he also pointed out some of the problems with how it was planned and rolled out. Trying to be in the middle should not be the goal, being right should be the goal. RINOs pushing the bill were not right, and the Democrats putting their heads in the sand and doing nothing except cheerleading after the bill could not get off the ground were not right. Working to fix a horrible bill would have been right.

    The answer is something Trump said a couple weeks ago. The Federal Government should never have gotten involved in health insurance. The answer is quite simple really, but I doubt his advisers would begin to do the right thing. Answer: GTFO of healthcare and provide vouchers to people who can't afford it on their own. Let the market set the rates, not the Government.

    The Democrats passed the ACA on a line of bullshit. People needing assistance is not a reason for the Government to take over a complete line of business as they did with ACA. The arguments were a false choice. One should notice key changes in rhetoric, like calling Government Assistance of all forms "entitlements" instead of what they are, and arguing that health insurance is a right. The latter is bullshit. People should be able to get healthcare when needed, but that is not the same thing as health insurance.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The answer is something Trump said a couple weeks ago. The Federal Government should never have gotten involved in health insurance. The answer is quite simple really, but I doubt his advisers would begin to do the right thing. Answer: GTFO of healthcare and provide vouchers to people who can't afford it on their own. Let the market set the rates, not the Government.

      So let me get this straight... you will let a handful of companies setting the rates then you will pay any difference they come up with AND assume competition will make the rates go down?

      I'd love making business with you... I'd get rich!

    2. Re:Why Fox? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      History shows that letting private enterprise run healthcare without government interference results in a second rate highly expensive system, (Ex. USA or Somalia).

    3. Re:Why Fox? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't you think that living in a country that has the most expensive "treatment industry", and before Obama basically no "health care" as in the sense of "making it possible for everyone to actually consult a medical" is rather ridiculous?
      What is so complicated in simply looking how other countries doe it, e.g. France, Denmark or god forbid China? And copy the good parts?
      How one can be against healthcare and claim to live in a first world country is beyond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name one country where what you are proposing has been implemented successfully? The fact is that every single system that successfully is able to provide healthcare to a large majority of the population does so with a strong involvement from government. A free market solution simply does not work in a situation where the "customer" that has the most demand for a service is also the least profitable for the provider and often has the least ability to pay for the services rendered. Treating healthcare as if it is was any other commodity may fit well with your ideology, but it's a simplistic way of thinking and frankly not very intelligent.

    5. Re:Why Fox? by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Because some people treat ideology like their religion. It's really that simple. They don't care what the rest of the world does. They'll grab the skeletal remains of Jefferson and Adams and make the jaws move as they declare. "government shouldn't be in health care."

      Meanwhile, back in the real world the US has some of the worst health care outcomes of any developed nations, despite having one of the most expensive health care systems.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Why Fox? by s.petry · · Score: 0

      The Free Market medical system produced the best Medical practices in the world. Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care? But hey, if you think China's care is so great why don't you go live there and become a citizen. How about France or Denmark? Oh yeah, none of them would take you (go ahead and apply for citizenship so I can laugh at you).

      Malpractice and it's insurance, tort, and other regulations have been the problem with our Health system. Those are all problems due to Government, not "free market".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Why Fox? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why you are such an idiot is beyond me.
      Some rich people fly to the USA for treatment, because they are rich and come from second or third world countries.
      No one from Europe would fly to the USA for treatment, unless he is an rich idiot.
      Why should I apply for citizenship in Denmark or France is beyond me. I'm european. I can freely live in any country in the EU I want. In Denmark, Norway etc. healthcare is free and payed by tax money. Facepalm.

      the problem with our Health system
      You would be better off if you accepted: you have no health system, facepalm.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Why Fox? by bmo · · Score: 1

      > despite having one of the most expensive health care systems.

      Not "one of" but "the" most expensive healthcare system by 100% increase from the next most expensive. Canada's.

      But in Canada, if you want to start a business, you don't have to wonder if you're going to die in the process of not having healthcare at the beginning.

      --
      BMO

    9. Re: Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Free Market medical system produced the best Medical practices in the world. Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care?

      Your argument is poor, s.petry, because all you are saying is that the US lets those with money but what they want, but speaks nothing about what the average person can expect. You know, the ones who can't pay out the cash for it.

      Besides, the McKinsey study indicates that hundreds of thousands of Americans go overseas for medical procedures themselves. Bangkok is popular, but also the UK and the Netherlands. And Sarah Palin is familiar with going to Canada herself.

      Sorry, but your story is no good even if unchallenged, because you aren't asking the right questions.

      Try asking why medical expenses are a prime cause for bankruptcy. Try asking why insurance companies incessantly raise rates, but never cut executive salaries. Try asking why pharmaceutical companies increase prices by hundreds of percent, but you never question it. Try asking why hospitals cut staff and training, and hide the consequences of their fountain displays.

    10. Re:Why Fox? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The other problem is that people seem to forget that if they live long enough, they too will be making the most demands and being the least profitable, and probably having the least ability to pay on a fixed income.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Why Fox? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Cut military spending by 1/3 and we could afford health care without losing any military superiority. Other countries have good health care because that is what their government decided is important. The US government doesn't really think health care is that important, or jobs, or quality of life, etc. The US government is mostly interested in federal programs to the military industrial complex and a few other industries. Toss in a few local issues to keep certain senators in office. They may make it sound like they care about the citizens but have not really shown it for many decades.

    12. Re: Why Fox? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      To be fair, those people go overseas to get treatments that are illegal in the US, not because the medical quality or technology is better.

    13. Re:Why Fox? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Perform a search for people who fly to the US for treatment from the UK, France, Canada, Spain, Denmark, Finland, all because their Healthcare is either not as good or takes months to get an appointment. Nobody is racing to Denmark for dental care, nobody is racing to Sweden for heart surgery, nobody is racing to France for cancer treatment, and nobody is racing to China or Germany for things like limb replacements. The only time people in the US leave is because the FDA does not approve treatments they consider to be experimental.

      As I stated before there are problems with Health care but mainly related to Malpractice suits, Tort, and insane regulation. Fix those and costs go down. Instead of even touching those valid issues, you decided to just lie. You are a disgusting person.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re: Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, those people go overseas to get treatments that are illegal in the US, not because the medical quality or technology is better.

      Nope, hip and knee replacement isn't illegal in the US.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/us/the-growing-popularity-of-having-surgery-overseas.html
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/10-best-and-10-worst-medical-procedures-to-have-done-overseas/ss-BBnHeTo
      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209585018/paying-till-it-hurts-why-american-health-care-is-so-pricey
      http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/08/21/knee-surgery-in-singapore

    15. Re: Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, s.petry, but I just posted these links:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/us/the-growing-popularity-of-having-surgery-overseas.html
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/10-best-and-10-worst-medical-procedures-to-have-done-overseas/ss-BBnHeTo
      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209585018/paying-till-it-hurts-why-american-health-care-is-so-pricey
      http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/08/21/knee-surgery-in-singapore

      Turns out many thousands of people in the US are going overseas for rather routine medical care and treatment.

      Maybe it is you who should do a search.

    16. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Before Obama"? The ACA is just mandatory participation in the for-profit insurance scam. Did you think that it was an actual healthcare system, or something (which we already have in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and laws requiring that hospitals admit patients who can't pay)?

      Your silly biases and politics are showing.

    17. Re:Why Fox? by Gussington · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care?

      The US attracts 60-85k people for medical procedures each year, compared with Thailand that receives 2.8 Million.
      750k American leave the US to seek medical services elsewhere, so the free market is speaking loudly and clearly.

    18. Re:Why Fox? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Free Market medical system produced the best Medical practices in the world.

      It produced average outcomes similar to those of Cuba for orders of magnitude more money. Simply on the basis of economic efficiency, it must be rated a failure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people aren't looking at the whole picture.

      People from Canada go to the US for medical procedures that are not available in Canada. This the only reason why anyone outside the US comes to the US for medical procedures, these are typically cosmetic procedures and the occasional experimental trials of last resort.

      People from the US go outside the US to save money (even after the plane ticket) and can't simply go to Canada, because like I said in the previous statement and in another comment, Canada has a government-funded health care system, and if you aren't a citizen, they will bill you for it, which can be just as expensive as the US to dissuade Medical Tourism. This also happens when you go to Europe or Asia. It will be expensive, but we're talking about at least one significant figure's difference. So like a procedure that costs 100,000 in the US, costs like 10,000 in Canada or costs even less if you can get to one of the EU countries with "will treat anyone" healthcare.

      Honestly I'm surprised Canada doesn't just do something to leverage the medical tourism of US citizens and allow Americans to come here for medical procedures at "our costs+10%", but it's the government's stubborn refusal to allow any form of private clinic/hospital in Canada that makes this not happen. So too many Americans crossing the border and being admitted to the hospital instead results in longer wait times for Canadians.

      That is the downside of many government run healthcare systems. The wait times are longer for specialized procedures, because of a lack of trained doctors. The US poaches the best doctors, and Canadian doctors HATE having to live in ass-backwards small communities with no hospitals.

    20. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care?

      You need to pipe the fuck down about things you don't know.

      Far, far more people go from the US to other countries for various forms of medical care, than to the US.

      Do some reading about the topics you post in, before you spout your arrogant bullshit, for once.

      Sticking to facts isn't one of your qualities.

    21. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American people live free and dangerously and more of them abuse themselves in various ways then those more well-regimented places you mention. Americans do not all have perfect flower boxes on their windows and do not all wear form-fitting track suits.

    22. Re:Why Fox? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your examples make no sense.
      Americans are to poor to fly overseas to get healthcare they can not afford in their own country.

      As I said before, only 'super rich' fly to the USA for treatments. And to be super rich or does not really matter how poor the country is you come from.

      The rest of your post makes no sense either. In europe everything is centered around 'health care'. Foreigners flying to europe have by definition no 'health care' but need a private contract with the hospital or doctor they want to seek. Same as if they visit the USA. Why would one fly to Denmark for dental aid? Hu, every country on the world has good affordable dentists, facepalm! I fly to Thailand to fix my teeth, or I could fly to Greece or Tunesia. To combine a vacation with treatment for the same price it would cost me in germany. However: I have a private health insurrance. If
      I had a tooth problem, they pay up to $4000 per year. As I take care of my teeth, they never have to pay anything.

      The parents of an american friend of mine actually live close to Paris, they are from Camerun. They both get Hepatitis and cancer treatment ... so yes: rich people do fly to Erope to get treatments.
      The story is quite funny, as she was with her parents she needed a routine operation. As she is from Camerun and her family has 'residentship status' she would be operated 'for free'. But as she was a director of an american mutual-funds bank, her health insurance insisted she flys back to the states. They refused to pay any followup treatments if anything would go wrong in the hospital in Paris.
      So she got a first class flight and an operation in Washington that costed far over $10,000 ... would have costed less than $1000 in Paris (plus stay and food etc. ofc. in both cases)

      The USA might have a few specialized institutions that are above European level (in terms of quallity of service), but most certainly not in numbers that are in any way relevant.

      The first heart transplant was not done in the US ... you are watching to much Dr. House. Do you know where most US soldiers are treated that get severly wounded somewhere on the world?

      Hint: not in the USA ....
      Answer: In my country ... should be not be hard to figure which it is.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Why Fox? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Cite? These numbers are interesting, but need sources.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Why Fox? by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, no. Texas tried tort reform and the problem got worse than ever as a result. The other key word in your post is wealthy. U.S. healthcare works for the wealthy and leaves the majority of the country with none but for a few charity teaching hospitals.

      Americans are going to Mexico for their dentistry and Singapore for major surgery.

    25. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, This reply was an exercise in idiocy, Kill yourself, you're a stupid cunt.

    26. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK has the National Health Service. But it also has BUPA, a private healthcare provider. For areas experiencing high population growth the health services are stretched and BUPA is an standard employer provided benefit. Costs are between £1500 and £3000/year for an individual or a family.

      In socialist countries like Norway, dental healthcare is private, but you are free to choose whatever dentist you like. You can book an appointment same day, but you are billed for every individual item down to ampoules of anaesthetic. General practitioners are free but your doctor is decided by the health board.

    27. Re:Why Fox? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      Faux is wrong FAR more often, as study after study has demonstrated
      Not only that, but Faux is unable to explain away why their "retractions" happen just once, compared with thousands of echo chamber declarations of the false news

      meanwhile, Healthcare
      When Capitalism cannot, or will not, solve a problem, Government is the only choice.

    28. Re:Why Fox? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Don't you think that living in a country that has the most expensive "treatment industry", and before Obama basically no "health care" as in the sense of "making it possible for everyone to actually consult a medical" is rather ridiculous? What is so complicated in simply looking how other countries doe it, e.g. France, Denmark or god forbid China? And copy the good parts? How one can be against healthcare and claim to live in a first world country is beyond me.

      Don't worry, we're going to slip into second world status in a few years.

      Here's the big problem the Rpublicants have though. Once the Kenyan Terror baby got Romneycare passed and enacted, removing it became very, very hard.

      After having 8 years to come up with a better plan, the Republicans not only didn't come up with a better plan, they came up with a plan that was so awful, so jacked-ass evil, that couldn't support it. Those old jokes made years ago about the Republican plan being "Die Quickly Please" wasn't far off the mark.

      And the more intelligent among them knew it. And that is why Ted Cruz tried his desperation filibuster to actually stop the Government a few years back. Because once you start something like Romneycare, its really hard to turn back. All you can do is tweak it.

      One of the completely messed up parts of the situation is that prior to Romneycare, we were headed toward a mutant version of universal healthcare.

      Poor people and the uninsurable were using Emergency Rooms as healthcare. The last year of my father's life, I was graced to spend a lot of time in emergency rooms. I noticed a lot of people who were obiously not wealthy in the emergeny room, and none of them looked like they were having an actual emergency. I asked the doctor attending my father about this, and he told me they were poor people who couldn't afford treatment. I asked how they paid, and he said they didn't.

      Not much later, I listened to a report on Emergency room healthcare. So here's how it worked. uninsured people use Emergency rooms as basic healthcare, without a lot of choice. This is the most expensive type of medicine, and the American version tops the list.

      But they don't pay, because they simply don't have the money.

      But the Hospital needs paid for the service. So the entire cost is distributed to everyone else's bills. Which gets billed to insurance companies, who then raise their rates. The rates rise, and more people drop off the insured rolls because they can't afford it, and businesses drop insurance because the copay is too high. My wife's employer was paying around 20 K a year for insurance in 2010, but he couldn't do anything about it because of pre-existing conditions. It was either pay that much or be uninsured.

      So what we wer having was a good old fashioned positive feedback loop. As more people became uninsured, they used the emergency rooms, which caused rates to continue to go up, which caused more people to become uninsured, and on and on.

      And why does one group remain so steadfast against a normal healthcare system? Because the insurance industry has enough money to pay them a lot of money to be against it.

      And now you know - the rest of the story.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    29. Re:Why Fox? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      > despite having one of the most expensive health care systems.

      Not "one of" but "the" most expensive healthcare system by 100% increase from the next most expensive. Canada's.

      Here's a nice citation: https://www.statista.com/chart...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe the government "took over" the healthcare industry? Officially or effectively? Please describe how.

    31. Re:Why Fox? by robinsc · · Score: 1

      Medical Tourism is a thing here in India Too.

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
    32. Re:Why Fox? by houghi · · Score: 1

      What is so complicated in simply looking how other countries doe it, e.g. France, Denmark or god forbid China? And copy the good parts?

      Because then you would just see the financial parts of it.
      Let us assume that you do not need to increase taxes to pay for it, there is a lot more to it than just implementing it.

      You need to start to understand WHY the bills are so high in the US, compared to e.g. Europe. The answers I see are:
      1) Because of insurance due to lawsuits
      2) Because the insurance companies are taking so much

      Looking at the first, you would need to change a LOT to get this down, if it is really the case and not just doctors playing golf.
      The second is even harder to change, because of the amount of money that is invested in it. The first step would be to forbid advertising medicine to the public AND to the doctors.
      The second step would be allowing generic medicine and even demanding it if available.
      The third would be toget prices lower by single bidding and that can only be fair if you reshape party funding and reduce lobbying by a LOT.Extremely hard to do in a winner takes all political system. It will be yes or no and no place for negotiations or watering down.

      This is why it is so hard. Because everything influences everything.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    33. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "for the Government to take over a complete line of business as they did with ACA"

      That part is just ridiculous. The insurance companies still exist, the hospital management companies still exist. Adding some framework and some regulation to an industry does not mean "take over a complete line of business". If those companies were all transferred to government control, you'd have a point.

    34. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How one can be against healthcare and claim to live in a first world country is beyond me.

      Stop misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with.

      I, for one, do want health care. And I can, will, and do pay for my health care.
      But I resent being made to help pay for others' health care just as you would resent being made to help pay for my mortgage or my grocery bills.

    35. Re:Why Fox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a bit of misinformation though, a lot of those people leaving the US do so because the FDA requirements for new procedures are ridiculously long so they go to other countries that are already using these procedures.

    36. Re:Why Fox? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I was not talking about the insurrances but about the hospitals and doctors.
      Those are the most expensive in the world, for no aparent reason than: they are scarse, only a few people can afford a hospital, the whole system is rigged to offer services to those few people. Of course insurances have to adapt to that. Which means they are expensive and that only a few people can afford them.

      There can not be a gradual change to that. You have to be prepared to radically change the system, the "health industry".

      A modern country simply pays about 15% of its GDP for health. The question only is: do only a few benefit from a super expensive health industry, or do all benefit from affordable health care?

      Actually in countries from Scandinavia where they have no 'health care' but free health service based on taxes, the total spending for 'health' is much lower than 15%.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  21. 45 will NOT fix it; he uses H1B workers by kimvette · · Score: 1
    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  22. Re:Just repeal it by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Troll

    The astronomical prices only exist because of the assumption that everyone has healthcare and it isn't coming out of their pocket. Have people pay for these things out of their own pocket and you'll see how quickly prices come down. Prices have escalated astronomically since the so call "affordable health care act". Also, you fail to mention in your "make everyone get it" speech that Obamacare specifically doesn't apply the mandate to Muslims. How exactly is that fair to all of the real Americans?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  23. Re:Just repeal it by sjames · · Score: 1

    The problem is that a majority of Americans want affordable healthcare, not an insurance scam. I noticed that was never even on the table.

  24. Re:Just repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. And let their kids die too, because, you know, they made poor choices when chosing their parents.

    Isn't it how you social-darwinists republicans think ? Survival of the fittest. Just like old times of barbarism and savagery. This civilization thing is way overrated anyway.

  25. Re: Just repeal it by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.

    The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  26. Re: Just repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding.

    And the reason it was intentionally terrible and set to implode was so that the next Democrat president (they were so arrogant to think that the Republicans would put up another McRomney loser and they would sail right in, which admittedly would have happened again without Trump's charisma) could declare it a failure and have it replaced with "single payer", aka the government takes total control of healthcare.

    I'm really not sure how the insurance companies, in their lustful greed for Obmacare forcing people to buy insurance, couldn't see that they would have been next against the wall.

  27. needs a win but no attention span by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump has no idea how to do anything but show up to his rallies and do his greatest hits. Never a good business man his only real success was the TV show where he played a good business man. The visa program wouldn't be a heavy lift for a President whose party controlled the Congress if said President could concentrate on anything besides golf and what's on TV. Trump makes Ronald Reagan look as detail oriented as LBJ.

    No one will notice that he drops the visa program as an issue, or blames Obama in passing. His cult will shriek FAKE NEWS at the television if Fox dares report another failure.

  28. Underpaid? Vote with your feet by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Most tech workers in American earn at least the median income for their local region, or at least they could do so easily if they wanted to.

    Those workers shouldn't complain about being underpaid - they should either "vote with their feet" or admit that they like their current job even with their current pay and stop complaining.

    --

    Yes, I realize there really are some tech workers in American who are underpaid and, for whatever reason, don't have the freedom to look for work elsewhere. I'm talking about 90% who aren't in such situations.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re: Underpaid? Vote with your feet by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If something is being done to undermine your value in a market then you are being underpaid. It doesn't really matter how much you make. It would be much different if H-1b affected all industries, all jobs equally but the problem is that it doesn't.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Underpaid? Vote with your feet by davidwr · · Score: 1

      If something is being done to undermine your value in a market then you are being underpaid.

      One could argue that if something is being done to lessen - or raise - your value in the market, then that's just the market at work.

      One could also argue that the "baseline" with regards to immigration would be "free borders" and anything else is an artificial deviation from that "baseline." In other words, if NOT allowing anyone and everyone on the planet to move about freely and compete in your industry in your city causes your wages to be higher than they would be if there were no such limits, then your wages are "artificially high."

      Likewise, one could argue a complete protectionist labor force, where any labor from outside the country would be taxed enough so that the company hiring them would automatically be paying more than they would for even the most expensive domestic applicant and the "baseline" would be "set" by supply-and-demand accordingly. If you are being paid less than this amount due to a less-protectionist legal regime, you could argue that your wages are "artificially low."

      I'm not going to claim that either argument is more logical than the other.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    3. Re: Underpaid? Vote with your feet by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I agree. If they open borders for everyone then there is no issue. The problem is that H-!B is only available for certain industries. No corporate executive would think of H-1Bing other corporate executives, therefore it is an artificial adjustment to the market.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Underpaid? Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which tech workers are underpaid? In Seattle Tech workers (domestic or H1B) get paid so much that they make the entire region unaffordable for anyone outside of the tech industry. H1B workers remark on the 'cheap rent' in the fastest rising cost of living in the country. Tech workers are ALREADY voting with their feet. They're all moving to Seattle and making the cost of rent go up more than 50% from a few years ago, as far away as 1 hour + from the city.

  29. Correction: we elected a pathological liar twice by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, he left office on January 20 this year...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  30. Closing Gitmo required no congressional approval by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Obama still didn't do it. true, he should never have promised to do it, but the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not created by congress, and therefore did not require congressional approval to close.

    ObamaCare, by contrast, is a law passed by congress (albeit without a single Republican vote) and signed into law by the President. Repealing it will also require congressional approval.

    The two promises are quite different as they relate to the constitutional scope of presidential authority.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  31. Trump's plan to fix H1B's. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I think we have a pretty good picture of what it will be like based on his health care proposal.

    1) It will somehow involve a multi-hundred billion dollar tax cut for the top 1%.

    2) It will somehow remove u.s. workers protection from being replaced by H1B workers.

    And no.. I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Trump's plan to fix H1B's. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Trump has this rare gift of being both powerful and at the same time so utterly pathetic and incompetent, that he can make reality and satire coincide.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Re:Not a Republican defeat by rand.srand() · · Score: 1

    In your fantasy world the Republicans united to destroy Obamacare. Versus what it looks like outwardly... that they discovered that universal healthcare has become what the public expects, and now it's really only about how it's funded. If what you mean is that Obamacare is now passed being a single President program and is now Federal healthcare infrastructure to maintain... perhaps you're right.

    In your view, Trump has the most to gain from it not passing. Versus what it looks like outwardly, that Trump issued an an ultimatum that most of his own party shrugged off and they won't have lost anything in the process, effectively ending his days as a deal maker in Washington. I don't really see much alternative to this. Did you read the interview in Time? Trump was nearly incoherent.

    Perhaps the most stunning bit of fantasy, that Paul Ryan is now taken out of power in the Senate. Versus in the real world where he is, perhaps was, the Speaker of the House having little to do with the Senate. I don't care for Ryan myself, but at this point the Republicans don't have a Speaker problem. If you run two off because they can't unite the party around essentially anything eventually you have to look in the mirror and say perhaps there isn't a party. Hard to see this any other way... this isn't growing pains at this point, these are long established party dynamics Trump was supposed to make irrelevant and move beyond.

    And in terms of "undue fuss" ... there's been an overwhelming amount of due fuss. Perhaps when the party can stop giving itself lethal blows, it might be relevant to compare the relative strength of the other party. The way it looks on the outside, the Democrats just have to stand back while the Republicans tear themselves apart.

    Seriously, just step outside and look back in. Half of the cabinet lied to Congress during confirmation, lots of resignations over connections to Russians that were hidden or lied about. It ain't going well, and the sooner you notice, the sooner Conservative principles can move forward.

  33. Fact check, moving the goal post by s.petry · · Score: 1

    It's Congress's job to set the Budget, not the Presidents. The President provides budget recommendations.

    Your post attempts to move the goal post away from GP and my response. Have something relevant to say on topic?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  34. Wrong question by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Trump can obviously not fix anything, his followers are just utterly deluded about that.
    The right question is how many things he can make worse or break. In that light, every time he gets blocked is a good thing for the US.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. You are the one with the fantasy by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    In your fantasy world the Republicans united to destroy Obamacare.

    You are the one with the real fantasy, where there are Republicans and Democrats. If that were true, this bill would have passed.

    In te real world, there are Democrats (increasingly irrelevant), Republicans, and Trump supporters. Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican.

    So basically, any forward motion now on anything is a compromise between Republicans and Trump supporters. The bill they had arranged was never going to pass because it had the support really of only Republicans.

    Half of the cabinet lied to Congress during confirmation

    And you say *I'm* the one with the fantasy? Riiiiiight.

    Enjoy your eight years of being utterly mystified why anything happens the way it does! I'll let you have the last word because Democrats will argue for days without saying anything of value or truth. You can learn rom the discussion, but I know you will not.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You are the one with the fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one who isn't informed enough to know Paul Ryan is in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

      I am not from the USA. I know this.

      So... yeah. You are the one with the fantasy.

      Maybe, in the real world, there are Republicans, Democrats, and brownshirted authoritarian dimwit strongman-validating Trump voters. I'll give you that.

      But since Trump has no party... in the actual elected seats of power, there are Republicans and there are Democrats. And if you think the Democrats are increasingly irrelevant: look what happens to a bill when it has zero Democratic Party support! They can literally torpedo any GOP legislation, simply by letting the GOP divisions show.

      Enjoy your four years of the GOP failing to do anything because the broad church dissolves once their individual whims stand a chance of power. But it might be more like another 18 months. And as to Trump: if he isn't gone in a year, you won't have a constitution worth a damn.

    2. Re:You are the one with the fantasy by rand.srand() · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your eight years of being utterly mystified why anything happens the way it does! I'll let you have the last word because Democrats will argue for days without saying anything of value or truth. You can learn rom the discussion, but I know you will not.

      I'm not a Democrat. None of the Republican party's problems has anything to do with them. You have been blinded by hatred and apparently taken by a con man. Good luck with that!

    3. Re:You are the one with the fantasy by sjames · · Score: 1

      That "R" next to Trump's name on election night suggets he is a Scottsman^wRepublican. If that bothers you, you should reconsider your party affiliation.

    4. Re:You are the one with the fantasy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In te real world, there are Democrats (increasingly irrelevant),

      The Democrats got very substantially more votes than the Republicans in the recent elections. I'm not sure how winning by a fluke of the electoral system makes your opponent "irrelevant".

      Oh I know how. You are incapable of discussing politics. You put yourself forward as a conservative, but you're not. You're simply a republican cheerleader.

      That aside, the Republicans won, but by a negative margin. Voter turnout wasn't all that high. A *lot* of people have cover under the ACA. Thing is the Republicans much the Democrats really do like being voted into office. It's from their point of view a complete no-go to piss off 5-10% of the electorate when their margin is within those bounds too.

      So basically, any forward motion now on anything is a compromise between Republicans and Trump supporters.

      That seems unlikely to happen then for a while. With Obama in power the republicans adopted the attitude of never giving an inch, never compromising on anything. That way they got exactly what they wanted which was to stop whatever Obama doing. The trouble is that tactic doesn't work when you're in power and you want to have things rather than merely block things. The republicans are going to have to learn to actually compromise again before they can get anything of substance done.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  36. Re: Correction: we elected a pathological liar twi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Projection much?

  37. Well... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "After Healthcare Defeat, Can The Trump Administration Fix America's H-1B Visa Program?"

    No, because they couldn't care less and Trump uses the H-1B program to hire cheap labor.

    In other words....

    "After Chicken Coop Massacre, Can The Fox Fix The Hen House Slaughter Program?"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  38. Re:Ryan was defeated, not Trump. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    The Republicans control all 3 houses of the US government. If he can't pass a law to remove the most (Republican) hated law in existence, then he can't do anything. This is like trying to ban abortions in the bible belt and failing (another Republican failure).

  39. Nonsense. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    There are 4,100 pages in the US version of the childrens book series Harry Potter, so yeah, how could any one person possibly process 3,500

    The Affordable Care Act has been around for 7 years and is currently one of the most contentious political issues in our country. The idea that "no one person understands" it is prepostorous. There are people in Washington whose literal job is to understand stuff like this.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Nonsense. by jwhyche · · Score: 0
      The Harry Potter series was actually a good read. The ACA was one of the worse pieces of legislation to ever come out of Washington. Nancy Pelosi herself said we have to pass it to understand it. So clearly, those that passed it didn't under stand it ether.

      If the full concept of the ACA was understood when it passed it wouldn't be such a mess. So, no, no one person understands that mess. People may have read it, but they don't understand it.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Nonsense. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      When you have an answer to "There are people in Washington whose literal job is to understand stuff like this." get back to me. It's been 7 years and the ACA is not some sort of encrypted Alien transmission.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think all pages are created equal you fucking moron?

    4. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Harry Potter series was actually a good read. The ACA was one of the worse pieces of legislation to ever come out of Washington. Nancy Pelosi herself said we have to pass it to understand it. So clearly, those that passed it didn't under stand it ether.

      If the full concept of the ACA was understood when it passed it wouldn't be such a mess. So, no, no one person understands that mess. People may have read it, but they don't understand it.

      Wouldn't the first step to fixing the ACA to be able to list specific complaints? You listed 0. Legislation is not supposed to entertain you. Here is my analysis.

      Actual Problems

      1) First of all the medicare expansion was limited. Cause: republicans and the supreme courts ruling.
      2) Prices have gone up more the last year. Partial Cause: Healthcare is complex. You have an adjustment to try to get to parity. This likely won't occur the next year in the same amounts.
      3) Deductables are too high: Cause: Actual cost of health care and what plans are offered. Insurance does not in itself make health care cheaper.
      4) Little competition. Sorry, free market magic dust doesn't always optimize, particularly in the short term.
      5) People are skipping paying and just paying the fine. Cause: Fine too low and/or cannot afford it regardlessly.

      Fake Problems
      1) People whining that they don't want some service offered and don't want to pay for it. See Hobby Lobby and republican bs. Not a real problem. Get over it. I still have to pay taxes yet I don't approve of a lot of things the government does. Everybody pays for minimum coverage, not because it is fair, but because we are spreading the costs over the actual risk pool. That is what insurance does.
      2) Obamacare is exploding, imploding, death spiraling. Just a flat out often repeated lie. See CBO analysis.

      Actual Solutions.
      1) Use the republican idea to buy across state lines. It probably won't be magic, since insurers don't have to do it, and even if they do, they are liable to raise rates for states with higher costs. Still, if we keep the global minimum requirements, it should be fine.
      2) General health care is too expensive. Study and try to implement the republican idea of paying for the outcome, though be careful of the possibility of health care providers just providing bad service to get rid of people that would not be profitable.
      3) Expand medicare in all 50 states.
      4) Since we are expanding medicaid. Also, make it buyable, likely on a state by state basis. If republicans whine about it not being fair to insurance companies, well, you could make it only available if the state has fewer than 3 independent providers. The service should aim to be net neutral, with year to year changes in cost as appropriate.
      5) Deductibles are too high. To some extent 4's solution is this solution. I'm wary about forcing insurance companies to lower deductibles. We need to encourage competition. Perhaps deductibles would be controlled if there were very few providers. Lower the protection as the providers increase, but make sure your not driving them out of business.
      6) Increase the fine as needed. Also include the republican penalty for not maintaining continuous coverage.
      7) One main focus is to make it make sense to go to your primary provider rather than the emergency room. For that purpose we likely need to train more doctors to lower costs, and, or import them.

      At any rate, score that solution and I bet it is a clear improvement with more covered at a better rate. To be fair it might take a few years to let all the changes bubble out, but it should help. What will not help is moving backwards and bringing back the problems obamacare solved. That is just a perfect example of republicans tripling down on stupid.

      Take the good and make it better. Don't let republicans lie about it or whine that it is not fair, etc, etc. To be honest I fully expected the republicans to just flat out repeal obamac

    5. Re:Nonsense. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The problems you list aren't the problems. Not having a universal public health-care system is the problem. Get the insurers out and watch costs drop. After all, they're in it for the profit. That profit has to come from somewhere. It's extra burden and overhead that public single payer systems don't have to support.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re: Nonsense. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Do you really think all pages are created equal you fucking moron?

      #allpagesmatter. :-) But seriously, there are 381,517 words in the Affordable Care Act. That's less than half the words in the Harry Potter series (and less than half th bible - and if you can read the whole bible in 1 year by reading a couple of pages a day, you can certainly make your way through the ACA in 7 years at 150 words a day.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only the profit, the costs as well. All that unnecessary work and those corporate jets need paying for.

    8. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Harry Potter series was actually a good read. The ACA was one of the worse pieces of legislation to ever come out of Washington.

      First off, I need to point out that you are idiot who understands nothing about government. Read that fact and accept it, if you stop believing that you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, you'll then be able to actually learn something useful. You know nothing, start from there.

      Nancy Pelosi herself said we have to pass it to understand it.

      No, Nancy Pelosi said she couldn't tell reporters what would be in the bill until after it was passed. To anyone with a thimble-full of knowledge of how congress works, this should be obvious. Bills go through multiple iterations, have to reconciled between the House and Senate versions and can have entire sections replaced while they are under debate, but apparently you don't know that.

      So clearly, those that passed it didn't under stand it ether.

      Oh definitely some of them didn't understand it in it's entirety, it's complicated legislation and American politicians are mostly professional campaigners. The people who wrote the bill and championed it, however, do understand it. This is no different from your boss or your boss's boss not understanding everything about how you do your job (unless you are unskilled worker).

      If the full concept of the ACA was understood when it passed it wouldn't be such a mess.

      It's a mess because it contains many compromises to ensure that it would be passed.

      So, no, no one person understands that mess. People may have read it, but they don't understand it.

      You are projecting here. You only say no one understand it because you don't and therefore you assume it's impossible.

  40. Nope... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point.

    "No" can be used as answer (and it will be a correct answer) to any HEADLINE which ends with a question mark.
    Because, if the answer were "Yes" - paper (or website) would NOT have used a question mark. Headline would have been an affirmative statement instead.

    I.e. They are covering their ass, knowing that their headline is bullshit/clickbait.

    Betterige's law is not about some underlining force of nature, or a mathematical rule which magically decides answers to headlines in the form of a question.
    It's about sensationalism and CYA mentality of people who sensationalize crap.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  41. They meant some Republicans are still saying "no" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats didn't have a chance to say no in this case. Republicans also made zero effort to consult with Democrats on this, unlike how Obama handled his healthcare plan, which many thought he compromised too much on.

    The issue serviscope_minor is describing is that the current Republican party is built on "no" and uncompromising opposition. Promoting this sort of mentality has backfired on them now that they have to power to pass what they want. There are groups within their party that are not willing to compromise and that's why this bill was finally pulled.

  42. Re:Not a Republican defeat by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    I predict Trump's next move will be to repeal Obama-care without replacing it, then a mad scramble to pass a replacement (that will fail).

  43. NO !!!!! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The Trump administration could not take care of one soggy bottom with a 24 pack of Charmin tissues.

  44. ...to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am talking about compromise within their own party, not compromise with Democrats. They do not need the support of Democrats to pass this if most Republicans agree with it. As it is right now, there are groups within the Republican Party that want different conflicting things and are not willing to compromise.

  45. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best wagon I every owned?

  46. Re:And masterfully so by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't forget that he promised to defeat Isis by now too.

    ISIS? They're Junior Varsity, nothing to worry about.

    Obamacare will need to be fixed before too long. Pelosi designed it to bankrupt the insurance companies and it's doing exactly that. What happens next is anyone's guess, but it can't go on the way it is.

  47. No by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The inept Republicans had six years to come up with a healthcare bill they can pass ...but they spent measly two weeks to glue together a craptastic bill that had failure written all over it from the get go. Even Trump didn't like it. Now the OP wonders if they can pass H1B reform? No way! The administration made up of billionaires also has no interest in changing anything. Even if there are changes and the minimum wage is increased and number of visa given out is reduced, it will not make a difference as far as jobs go. Rather than move workers to the US the work will go to India. Taxing outsourcing may help. The move to Indian workers is not that they are better or equal (although many of them are), but they work for much less money. Remove the financial benefit for corporations and the issue will resolve itself. Another measure is drastically increase the insanely low filing fee. Currently, it is around 2k per application. Make that 150k and non-refundable and the debate about H1B will end really fast.

  48. Re:Correction: we elected a pathological liar twic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately, he left office on January 20 this year...

    You do know there is often differences between talking points and truth correct? Republicans always whine about the if you like your plan you can keep it line.

    Technically he should have said, "If you like your plan you can keep it unless of course your plan fails to meet minimum standards."

    The problem is a lot of Americans are stupid and lazy. They elected the hawker of hate and his plan consisted of saying he makes the best plans, and then repeating believe me a bunch. Had Obama tried to explain things in that level of detail the plan may have gotten bogged down and never passed. That doesn't make Obama's lack of precision correct, but it is at least understandable.

    All that being said, Obama was not a pathological liar. That would be Trump. Look at the actual numbers not the talking point. Hell he couldn't even be honest about the weather and the crowd size at his inauguration, and we have pictures of both. He called Obama the founder of ISIS. He called cruz's father part of the JFK assassination. He said that health care would be easy, that Mexico was paying for the wall, etc, etc, etc. If Obama's few inaccurate statements rated a 4/10, then Trump would be at 200.

  49. You're wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're thinking long term too. H1-Bs let them cut education funding without losing their trained workforce. It moves the training costs overseas. It also makes employees disposable. You don't care if they quit, there's another batch ready and waiting.

    As an employee and a member of the working class you're only thinking in terms of wages. The ruling class have a much, much broader picture of the economy...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're wrong by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're giving them too much credit. While what you write is true with respect to the long term effects of using imported educated workers, most companies and executives are strictly focused on the current fiscal quarter and year. They don't care what the impact of importing H1-B workers does to their own company in five years, let alone have interest in examining what it does to the country or the world.

      And that's capitalism right there. If it's cheaper to poison the water, poison the air, have the laborers work in unsafe conditions, cut medical benefits, cut education costs, etc... for the next year, then the decision is automatic.

  50. Re:Foul, oversimplification by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sigh. Where do the prisoners go? Not USA, because of Congress. To another Gitmo? Hardly an answer. Go free? That gets way complicated.

    Congress blocked the obvious path to closing Gitmo. Remember, Congress can override a veto with enough votes, so the President can't just thwart the lawmakers. He only enforces the laws within the legal framework, and your objections are addressed here.

    http://time.com/4178779/obama-...

  51. I don't want the program fixed by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I want it wrecked. It's destruction would benefit me, and after 30 years of taking it in the shorts on wages, benefits, education, healthcare and everything else that really matters I don't care anymore. Let it burn. Let it all burn.

    And that, ladies and gents, is what elected Trump. Americans _want_ that wrecking ball.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: I don't want the program fixed by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Well we're getting the wrecking ball alright...

  52. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pelosi? How long has she been working for Romney? The entire ACA was lifted wholecloth from "Romneycare", solely because it was the only way a healthcare bill was ever going to be enacted while the loony wing of the Republicans - Cruz, Ryan, etc - were in full control. That this pitiful faker couldn't get his version in place and is blaming the Democrats despite having a majority in both houses is hysterically funny, not that it even got as far as being voted against by the Democrats because this useless clown didn't have the backing of his own party. I've seen reports that it was Bannon's attempts at bullying the waverers that finally sunk it; that shit might work on some young idiot ideologues at Breitbart, but against fully grown adults that he has less than no power over? Get real. If he doesn't start playing the game soon he'll be out of there, by hook or by crook.
    I've not seen any swamp-draining yet, either. When's that starting? Before, during or after he's installed crony donors and brown-nosers into every seat of power in the country? Face it: you were sold down the river. Yes, you were an idiot to believe that this fool would do anything to benefit anyone but himself and his cronies, but maybe use your brain next time the opportunity comes along to vote.

  53. Re:And masterfully so by skam240 · · Score: 1

    No she didnt as that doesnt even seem possible under current conditions. Health insurance rates going up, which the Republicans site as the end of ACA, is not happening because of some arbitrary reason. The rates are going up to offset ACA costs.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  54. Re-writing history are we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Prior to massive regulations insurance was affordable. Competition ensured that it was. Blue Cross was the "primary" and best employer insurance, but not the only game in town. Pricing led to HAP and others gaining popularity as a cheaper alternative for people to get through their employers. I paid less than 500.00 a year for a policy during college since my employer didn't provide insurance. It wasn't great insurance, but I didn't need great insurance. I needed something to cover me if something bad happened. You know, the whole point of paying for this thing called insurance.

    Once I finally got a job with insurance, my monthly contribution was triple what I paid for catastrophic, but still affordable. Until ACA, I was never employed at a place that didn't have at least 2 choices of provider. Today, even at the large companies you have 1 (except for CA where you can choose Kaiser).

    Private insurance meant competition. you know, that thing that is totally lacking in the ACA where most areas have been reduced to 1 provider with no competition. Policies can't be formulated by providers now, the Government mandates everything in them. Catastrophic coverage does not exist.

    If competition was allowed, people could simply receive vouchers for plans with competing agencies. Just like employers had. Choose the provider you like the best and the Government picks up the tab instead of the Government stifling competition for the whole market.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Re-writing history are we? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Prior to massive regulations insurance was affordable.

      Um, that's if they're willing to sell it to you. I could not get insurance for epilepsy pre-ACA because the medications I needed were expensive, and also because people always called 911 after every seizure which meant routine ER visits, about two per month. Since insurers wanted to keep their insurance "affordable" for healthy dickheads trying to decide if they even needed it, that meant telling me GFY- which they did because there were no "massive regulations" preventing them.

    2. Re:Re-writing history are we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Strange, because I have 3 relatives with epilepsy and they all get covered by the Government because they don't work normal jobs due to their conditions. Not a single one was ever turned down at the Hospital, not refused medication, not refused an ambulance when needed, and not refused care for medical reasons. Those three relatives are in 2 different States, so it's not a State doing something the Feds won't with Medicaid. Either you are an extremely well off person, or you are not telling the whole story.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Re-writing history are we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment shows a willful obliviousness to the situation.

      You are using your wallet to make a decision. If Trumpcare actually went through as is, what would have happened is that everyone on the ACA would have lost their health insurance, and have NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER. Their insurance is just gone. You're complaining that insurance is expensive. Well sunshine it IS. That is what happens when two generations of people have no insurance and then then the chickens come home to roost.

      Whenever you hear "tax cuts" and "medical care" in the same statement, you know the underlying scheme is to gut healthcare, and that is what Trumpcare was doing.

      Where everyone screwed up was back when ACA (Obamacare) was initially rolled out and the GOP fought tooth and nail to weaken it. That is why the ACA is "a bomb ready to go off" now, because the GOP undermined it from being a single-payer government healthcare plan, to a way to leverage private insurers.

      The correct way to go about this was to create a government healthcare system that you were automatically enrolled into, and paid via your taxes, and like in Canada, the insurance companies no longer have to deal with basic coverage, only things that are not covered by government coverage (like private rooms at a hospital, and most "non-medical" alternatives like accupuncture) Your healthcare insurace from a private company would be in the 10's of dollars per month then, if you even want it. In Canada Blue cross is like 11$/mo until you add dental, then it becomes 100$/mo. So Dental should have been part of Canada's medical program, but it isn't, thus people forgo dental treatments.

      But the other half of the problem isn't solved by government healthcare "insurance", you also need the government (at the state level) to nationalize the healthcare facilities like hospitals that are currently owned by the insurance industry and entirely responsible for the high costs of healthcare. No more corporate overlords siphoning money into their own pockets.

      Like outside the US, it's a huge joke how backwards Americans are sometimes. Too many lawyers who want to sue for everything (thus driving up the cost of things like malpractice insurance) , too many middlemen involved in drug pricing (the government should just produce the medications itself if the patents have expired and they are frequently needed, that avoids drug price escalation.) The reason "drugs are cheaper in Canada" or pretty much everywhere outside the US, is because the government buys the drugs in bulk to get government pricing, where as in the US that doesn't happen.

    4. Re:Re-writing history are we? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      That is an entirely different situation. If you are extremely disabled then the social security and medicare will apply, that was never the issue the ACA was trying to solve. People who have conditions that are expensive to treat but if you treat them you can live a normal life are who benefit from the pre-existing condition regulations.

    5. Re:Re-writing history are we? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      That's Medicaid. One of the programs that the Republican health care bill was going to slice to ribbons.

    6. Re:Re-writing history are we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Yet another flat out lie. The cuts would have been the expansions that the ACA put in, which gave 38% of the Middle Class free healthcare through the program.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Re-writing history are we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      No it's not, it exactly counters the fabrication presented by the person I responded to.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:Re-writing history are we? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Lie.
      "affordable" being the claim that insurance covering nothing is cheap.

    9. Re:Re-writing history are we? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, so I have to present you with my fucking medical records? Fuck you, asshole.

    10. Re:Re-writing history are we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, so I have to present you with my fucking medical records? Fuck you, asshole.

      Sounds like someone was caught in a lie which explains the total lack of explanation when presented with facts that your situation does not match others with the same medical condition and the personal attack.

      Medical history? No. Honesty? Yes.

      I realize that truth and honesty are way too much to ask from a leftist.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  55. Yes. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Unlike the ACA, guest worker fraud is something that is less controversial.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  56. Start beating our replacements to pulp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, one fix is if we stop worrying what the government wants, and start hitting H1B workers in the teeth with baseball bats.

    I don't really care what our government wants, we aren't a country of politicians, we were the rebels who threw off all of that to live free.

    It isn't ideal, but without any other help from anyone as we get poorer and poorer and continue to struggle, losing our homes, our cars, our families etc. I don't see why not, they are a threat to us, an enemy if ever there was one. We should do what we always do with our enemies, attack them.

    After all, we blew up half of iraq because we THOUGHT they were an enemy, these people are an actual enemy and their walking around us in plain sight.

  57. Resorting to a Godwin? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Then you admit that Trump is more truthful for lack of any substantial argument against him.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Resorting to a Godwin? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      No nitwit, I'm saying he has kept many of his promises.

    2. Re:Resorting to a Godwin? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Where's the argument showing Trump has been the most truthful head of state.

    3. Re:Resorting to a Godwin? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... truthful != good.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re: Resorting to a Godwin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's comical for anyone to suggest that Trunp is "more truthful" when there is more video of him lying than any other president. By doing so you reveal your bias and unwillingness to accept evidence.

      The latest "I never said I'd repeal and replace in the first 64 days." He said exactly that many times and it's on video for everyone to see.

  58. Bank Economies by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Informative

    Er... you are mostly right in general, but unless rich people are saving all their money in mattresses, they do invest in the economy by keeping money in the bank

    Yes, and I'm sure the Swiss and Cayman economies, etc., really appreciate that.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  59. Re:Not a Republican defeat by skam240 · · Score: 1

    If the Democrat's filibustering Gorsuch would prove they are unfit to govern then the Republican's already proved as such. Obama's pick was very uncontroversial as well and the Republicans refused to even hold session on the topic of his appointment. Just because what they did doesnt have a neat name like "filibuster" doesnt mean it doesnt boil down to the exact same thing.

    Part of me wants the Dems to filibuster because "Fuck'em, if the Republicans are going to play that game then let the seat sit vacant. You reap what you sow assholes". However, the more rational side of me hopes they dont as I feel the filibuster mechanic is generally a healthy device in our government (for both parties) that prevents massive swings in government ideology and the Republicans might just get rid of it entirely to get their way.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  60. Re:And masterfully so by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Obamacare isn't imploding though, for the most part it's working much better than anything that can't before it.

    Damn, tell me more about this alternate reality where you live. Sounds like a great place!

    Meanwhile, back here in actual reality, Obamacare is imploding badly. Arizona is seeing a 125% increase in exchange premiums this year (that's more than doubling in a single year for those of you who are bad with math, which would include anybody who thinks Obamacare is doing well). Here in TN, we have Humana pulling out of the exchange at the end of the year, leaving one single insurer. That's what's causing the death-spiral rate increases everywhere.

  61. Re:Not a Republican defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict Trump's next move will be to repeal Obama-care without replacing it, then a mad scramble to pass a replacement (that will fail).

    How is Trump going to repeal Obama-care? By writing his signature backwards on a copy of it? Maybe a big red X on each page?

  62. False equivalency by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done.

    Obama was actually trying to close Gitmo, because it's a travesty against liberty and justice. This was a constitutionally sound, well thought out, and highly principled stance.

    Trump was not actually trying to give us good healthcare, because either he has no idea what he's doing, or he is specifically trying to benefit monied interests rather than actually see that good healthcare is made broadly available to the citizens. This is the stance of (take your pick) an idiot or an evil person.

    Yes, both were stymied by congress. But:

    Obama's Gitmo effort is fairly described as "good intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

    Trump's ACHA is effort fairly described as "bad intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

    People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish.

    Based on the ACHA failure, certainly. It was just terrible legislation that made him look like an idiot. Being an idiot isn't cause for impeachment. Otherwise we'd have been rid of Bush II early on. :/

    However, based on Trump's continuing spewage of falsehoods, his campaign's complicity with Russian manipulation of the election, based on his utilizing the presidency to take financial advantage... I wouldn't be too sure that us saying "President Pence", and fairly soon, is all that unlikely.

    Trump is obviously incompetent at the job. Between that, and his continual coloring outside the ethical and legal lines, and that of the campaign that resulted in his election, his future as president is by no means certain to extend a full four years.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:False equivalency by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on Trump and Healthcare, but not Obama and Gitmo. The president has pardon powers. He could have wielded them to close Gitmo if he was serious. Everyone wants to talk about how Obama is a constitutional scholar, and how he was qualified to be president because he knew things about things. When he claimed he wanted to close Gitmo, he surely therefore already knew that the people we keep there are not only people we want to torture without the world watching, but also people who we don't know what to do with.

      Did Obama make a good-faith attempt to close Gitmo? Let me tell you what I think that looks like. I think it looks like giving a one year deadline (or similar) to charge everyone in Gitmo with a real crime and then transfer them to a real facility with real oversight where we don't really just want to torture them, with the threat being that he will simply pardon those people at the end on the basis that we are a nation which allegedly operates by the rule of law, and then actually following through. It would be political suicide, no doubt, but he's the one who made the claim that he was going to close Gitmo.

      Trump is an incompetent dickbag who is not even trying to do a good job. None of this is a defense of Trump. But I don't think you can construct a reasonable defense of Obama, either. At least, not on this issue, and certainly not on that basis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:False equivalency by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      I think you need to go back and look at what actually happened. Obama tried to get those prisoners into the US where they could be interned in a rights-compliant way, given proper hearings and trials, lawyers, due process. He didn't try (and shouldn't have tried) to "close Gitmo" by just releasing everyone, nor did he ever say he wanted to. His attempts to get this done were stymied by others. So from my POV, while yes, that's a failure of Obama's attempt to close Gitmo, it most certainly doesn't lay the blame for the failure at his door.

      Look, I am not a blind fan of Obama. Lots of things I disagreed with him on. Some of it is just attitudes he promoted as a leader, such as his various constitutionally blind gun-control ideas, some of it is things he actually did like signing the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act. But closing Gitmo... that turned into a political nightmare, but it was a nightmare he was on the correct side of.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:False equivalency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that Obama started with about 500 inmates in Gitmo, and ended with 45. That's a 90% reduction. Yes, it sucks for the 45 remaining ones, but Obama went far beyond 'well, he tried' on this. He tried and damn near succeeded.

    4. Re:False equivalency by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly so. However, this still qualifies 100% as "failed to close Gitmo" in the eyes of the literal-minded. And this is slashdot, so... :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  63. Re:Not a Republican defeat by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    I was listening to Ryan on the radio talking about not rejecting the good because it was not perfect and accepting compromise etc. If the voice had been slightly different and the timing a year ago I could easily have believed it was Obama saying those things.

    For that matter, if the opportunity had been better to run against Hillary in the primary I could easily see us looking at president Trump the Democrat.

    What I want to see more than anything else is a healthy working opposition, not just everyone switching hats between a "Party of no" and the party of "cmon, let's just work together to get it done", but rather two parties promoting, contrasting, and building support for their ideas, but as it is, the opposition are not rewarded for co-operation or punished for blatant obstructionism it seems.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  64. Parity? Really? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Do you really think all pages are created equal you fucking moron?

    Do you think the lawyers reading the ACA legislation and the children reading Harry Potter are equal?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Parity? Really? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Do you think the lawyers reading the ACA legislation and the children reading Harry Potter are equal?

      I'm pretty sure lawyers' reading skills outpace those of Harry Potter-age children.

      Plus, the lawmakers are being very well-compensated to read legislation. It's like their one fucking job, you know?

      If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law, how are they going to pull off reforming the tax code, which ran like twenty-three volumes (without addendums) back in the 1990s? That's not counting the judicial precedents which are now law. Hell, there's like several hundred pages of law that just governs the taxation issues related to owning racehorses.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Parity? Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law, how are they going to pull off reforming the tax code, which ran like twenty-three volumes (without addendums) back in the 1990s?

      Presumably you just throw it away and start over with something simpler. Hopefully you have some numbers which tell you how much tax revenue will be collected if you do that; at least the math should be simpler if you simplify the crap out of the tax code.

      That's not counting the judicial precedents which are now law. Hell, there's like several hundred pages of law that just governs the taxation issues related to owning racehorses

      There's no reasonable way to fix that stuff except case by case, because you can't throw out all the laws as easily as you can throw out the tax code.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Parity? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep lawyers can read so well they can see lawyerese where only plain English exists, for example, amendments 1-10. I'd give gradeschoolers better credit, as they haven't learned that trick, yet.

      If lawyers read so well they can't agree on a handful of simply understood one sentence laws written 200 years ago, they will sure have fun with 3000 pages of legal spaghetti code...

  65. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump massively underestimates how hard everything is, because he had a "build without costly permits and without paying taxes" card in New York, and now that he's playing on an even playing field, he finds it hard.

  66. Re:Not a Republican defeat by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Haha how can it not be a Trump and Ryan defeat? I didn't see Trump opposing it. It was his bill!

    Sorry if I sound like an ass? Nothing personal on you, but as a Democrat I got sick and tired of hearing both sides say NO and don't work. This is all 100% on the GOP. I want voters to get angry and vote Democratic so we can start passing bills again and not just say NO

  67. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obamacare isn't imploding though, for the most part it's working much better than anything that can't before it. So many people are now invested in it, reliant on it.

    Aren't you from the UK? What do you know about Obamacare? Obamacare is imploding, hard. Premiums are way up. Wait times at hospitals are up. Number of medical providers are down. Obamacare has made it more expensive to get care at the same time as it's made it harder to get care. This isn't a surprise: Romneycare did the same thing in Massachusetts.

    Don't forget that he promised to defeat Isis by now too.

    Wow you anti-Trump people are unhinged. He never promised that. He said he has a 30-day plan. He hasn't had a chance to start implementing it yet because there are other, more important priorities like pulling our economy out of its current tailspin and repealing the disaster that is Obamacare.

  68. Re: And masterfully so by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    more important priorities

    Like shutting down the EPA? Or playing golf? Those more important priorities?

  69. She naturalized unlike many guest workers. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Melania came over on an H2B visa

    Unlike many guest workers that are here solely for duressed knowledge transfer (a la Disney), she ended up with naturalized citizenship.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  70. Re: And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shutting down the EPA is a hugely important part of fixing our economic tailspin. And the whole "playing golf" thing is hugely overblown. He plays far less golf than any other President and mostly uses it to make deals to help make America great.

  71. Re:And masterfully so by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Health care costs money. You have an aging population and increasingly expensive treatments. Every single payer healthcare system in the world is having to deal with this - and the US has the additional problem of insurance companies skimming their cut. First step is to, as Shakespeare wrote, is to kill all the lawyers (of the insurance companies). Get rid of the insurance company lobbyists, and go to full public single-payer healthcare. The money that's currently going into insurance company profits could save your life.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  72. Re:And masterfully so by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    If he has a 30-day plan to defeat isis and hasn't released it he should be charged with treason. His failure to implement it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  73. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can't do it until after Congress puts his budget through. Why do you think he needs to improve our woefully inadequate spending on defense? So he can implement his plan to defeat ISIS. Once his budget is approved, then he can defeat ISIS. Not before.

    None of this is that complicated. Why do the Make America Last crowd have so much difficulty understanding it?

  74. Ever heard of the Hastert Rule? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Whoever moderated your comment as "insightful" obviously did it based on agreeing with you, not on the basis of your fake evidence. In contrast to those "insightful" moderators, you got me to follow your link and it does NOT support your claims.

    Actually, the so-called Republicans have institutionalized party discipline that would make Lenin blush. His Bolsheviks were supposed to have been the experts, but now they look like amateurs.

    Not that I can really defend the Democratic Party. Insofar as I have supported them, it has always been a kind of allergic reaction to the gawdawful candidates the GOP has run, especially at the top of the ticket.

    In my youth, I actually did research on the top races and almost always concluded the Democratic candidate was better (or at least less bad), while on the down-ticket races I tended to vote for whoever seemed less represented, such as women or candidates with minority-sounding names. When I got older, I discovered that the down-ticket races were more important than I had realized, but by that time the down-ticket winners had gerrymandered my vote to meaninglessness. They almost managed to disenfranchise me completely last time, though it didn't make any difference (of course).

    The demographics actually prove the GOP is no more, notwithstanding their successful conversion therapy of the old Dixiecrat racists into Reagan Republicans. So they've adopted a new strategy: If you can't beat 'em, break the game.

    Evidently time to brush up on my Russian.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  75. Re: Not a Republican defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you just witnessed what not a Republican defeat. It was the true death of Obamacare. The bill proposed just patched up a few things about Obamacare, not what people were asking for and not enough to save it.

    Enter the Spin Zone! Trumpcare was indeed not what people were asking for, it was doomed to failure, if not in the House, in the Senate, or the world, as it destroyed any pretense of effectiveness on Trump's part.

    Frankly, a quick death exposing Trump's failures as a leader is more than enough, and he knows it, hence your marching orders to portray I otherwise.

    People are acting like it's a problem for Trump or anyone when in fact Trump was the one with the most to gain by the bills defeat - because it essentially thrusts Paul Ryan out of power in the senate.

    That's funny, Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House, so he has no power in the Senate. Now Rand Paul is in the Senate, but he is hardly harmed by this, it failed to even get to a vote in the House, despite Trump's demands. Paul Ryan, if harmed, will have to give up the Speaker's chair, which is bad for Trump since the next guy will have to reject Trump. He overplayed his hand on that. He didn't realize that Congress does not answer to him. He will likely fumble that again.

    Later on this summer you'll see an actual repeal of Obamacare, and that will pass nicely...

    We're at sixty plus repeals, the thing America wants is the next ten words, which clearly Trump can't deliver, and he can't admit it, so he has to blame Democrats.

    The GOP has the same problem. They ran on pointing fingers for six years, but now what? Oh yeah, blame Democrats for not awarding the 1% a bonus and not stripping millions from healthcare.

    Let's count the reasons that is dumb.

    even more nicely after the Democrats short-sightedly force the Senate to drop the bits of filibuster still remaining. If they'll filibuster someone like Gorsuch, the Demcrats proof to the public they are utterly unreliable to govern at all, and can simply be bypassed without undue fuss.

    Yes, yes, blame the Democrats as the Republicans in the Senate failed in their duty to properly decide on a President's nominee, and now he's tainted with allegations of foreign involvement, a hysterical executive order, a failure to deliver on healthcare reform after spending six years running on that train, and dozens of lying tweets.

    Democrats gain nothing on Gorsuch except by forcing the GOP to play all their cards on him. Then after Trump is impeached, they can remove his stooge from the Supreme Court. And it'll all end up with the death of the GOP, who sold themselves out for a troll.

    Who sold himself out to the Kremlin.

  76. Re:And masterfully so by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    He said he had a plan to defeat them within 30 days. No conditionals such as budgets included. And be honest, new spending takes time to work its way through the system - any weapons systems approved in the next budget won't see the light of day for years - and take even longer before they're actually deployable. Stupidity like this - a naval gun ship that can't actually fire shells because they would cost too much. A 22.5 billion dollar weapons system with no bullets. Oops.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  77. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Health care in the US is a huge morass of path-dependence bad decisions and vested interests, centered about one of the main areas where spending will always increase as free income increases. It's a very hard problem with no good solutions that will take a large amount of political capital to address in any meaningful fashion.

    H1-B is a visa program that, in spirit, is a good idea - let people with useful and hard to find talents from other countries work in the US. This spirit has been twisted into "provide cheap IT and programming labor". There's already a proposed solution that would solve the problem; visa slots are assigned by salary, from highest down, rather than by lottery. Wouldn't even take much political capital, since the big companies losing out (by having to pay higher wages) have to donate to both major political parties anyway, just in case, reform already has bipartisan support, and no-one else is against it. May not get done by April, but unlike health care reform it is quite likely to get done by next year.

  78. What the FUCK is an H1B problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giving 65,000 visas for foreigners?
    That scare the shit out of you?
    In a land of 350 Million who has better things to worry about?
    Go fuck yourself!

  79. Re: Just repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled.

    Yes, you would be, because that way Trumpcare isn't explicitly rejected by half of the GOP and all of the Democratic Party.

    It is obvious, however, from the excuses Trump made that he doesn't have an alternative, or any idea how to get advice from others.

    Here's a hint, when all you have to hope for is a cataclysm, you are not winning the game.

  80. Re: And masterfully so by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Explain how raping the environment and destroying the planet is essential to economic recovery. How does it benefit America to be a toxic wasteland?

  81. Re: And masterfully so by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Inadequate defense spending? We spend more than any other country in the entire world, we have the most advanced technology and the best intelligence, and we can't beat a bunch of smelly camel fuckers who have nothing. How is throwing more money at the problem going to help?

  82. Re: Ryan was defeated, not Trump. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    But he's the greatest deal-maker in history!

  83. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plan hasn't started yet. If ISIS knew when the plan was going to start, it wouldn't work.

    Don't worry, ISIS will be defeated. When ready. Which, thanks to the mess left by you-know-who, will take time.

  84. Was not "Trump's" healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how you leftists avoid pinning blame when it suits your interests. The Republicans have tried for 7 years to repeal Obamacare and when they can finally do it we see that RINOs don't want it cancelled. Hell, I don't believe anyone things that Trump is leading the Republican party. Except the Democrats when it gets their tiny weenies hard.

  85. 2005 was a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I estimate he's about $1.2 billion in NEGATIVE equity. I found one group of companies where he has a debt (e.g. a lease) which he borrows 120% against based on an exaggerared valuation, that company is held by a parent company on which he holds debt of 30% against the ownership of the subsidiary company (i.e. debt against company with negative equity), which in turn is held by a parent company which I couldn't get hold of the financials for, but it's not difficult to imagine he holds debt on that too. Stacked debt is a classic sign of bogus books. It reminds me of Robert Maxwells numbers, the billionaire that jumped off his yacht and drowned when the BBC dug into the finances.

    His 2005 accounts was probably the last time the numbers looks realish, which is why he leaked them.

  86. Re:And masterfully so by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    ISIS? They're Junior Varsity, nothing to worry about.

    Irrelevant, even if true. Trump claimed to have a "foolproof" and "absolute" plan to defeat ISIS "quickly". He has so far failed to put his plan into action, unless, of course, his "plan" was to tell his top generals to come up with a plan.

    But even if ISIS is nothing to worry about, that makes his ongoing failure to defeat them "quickly" all the more pathetic.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  87. 500+ shell companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, 500+ *SHELL* companies (most of them shells who do business with the other Trump companies) tells me it's ALL fraud. Not just the bits I can verify as fraud.

    It's not difficult to see for yourself on the few items that can be verified. e.g. his Scottish golf course, he has a claim in his election filing for it, and you can read the REAL accounts, because under Scottish law they need to be filed at government house. You can see at once the numbers are VERY different.

    Trump's claims income of £15.5million from the golf resort. The reality of the accounts is a £3.6million loss.

    This is just one of many examples, there are almost zero company accounts that match Trump's claim, the ones that do, he is a minority investor and the accounts come from another property developer.

    He's just a conman.

    You can even estimate his REVPAR numbers and quickly realize that the claimed income from his hotels is out by an order of 3x to 10x. His borrowing keeps increasing against existing assets that are already over-leveraged beyond 100%. This is a sinking empire here. Even at 3x, it means its twice as much bluster and fraud as real accounting.

  88. H1-B Visa doesn't need fixing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It needs to end. Some of the consulting firms are using it to kill the salaries for consultants. I remember when consultants use to make good money. Not now. Consultants don't make squat since the consultant firms are flooding the market with H1-B visa holders who are severely under paid.

  89. Re:And masterfully so by Gussington · · Score: 1

    Trump is losing hard. His two flagship policies are on the rocks.

    Four.
    The Wall is never being going to be built to completion, and the parts that are built, if they bother continuing with such a harebrained scheme, will be paid for by the American taxpayer.
    And draining the swap turned into filling the swamp with even uglier toads. A complete and utter failure that everyone saw coming.

  90. Obamacare is law, Trumpcare is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously want to make it a partisan issue, but this is Republican vs Republican here.

    If the best compromise the Republicans can do AMONG THEMSELVES is Obamacare, then they really need to clean house of the lunatic fringe.

    But hey, Obama blah blah blah... it's Obama's fault the Republicans tried a massive tax hike on 98% of Americans while promising a tax reduction.

    Ooh look, Flynn did deals even with Turkey to help Trump get power, and his campaign manager Manafort had a $10 million contract with Putin to get puppet leaders elected around the world. Obama must be behind it somehow. And Trump sneaked the Russian ambasador into Trump tower when he wasn't President and not allowed to do private diplomacy.... Obama must be spying on Trump tower, otherwise how would the FBI know about the secret meeting?!

    Obama must secretly have spies in government that ensure Trump fails....

    Damn you Obama! I bet Obama is plotting to force Trump to do some mindblowing Tweet right as we speak!

  91. Re:Foul, oversimplification by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Sigh. Where do the prisoners go? Not USA, because of Congress. To another Gitmo? Hardly an answer. Go free? That gets way complicated.

    Nobody forced him to make the claim that he was going to close Gitmo. If he wasn't prepared to set any prisoners free that couldn't be charged with a real crime and incarcerated elsewhere, then he shouldn't have said that he was going to close the place. Just as soon as you can show that someone put a gun to his head and forced him to claim he was going to do it, you can use that argument.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  92. You are expecting Trump to fix anything? by dbIII · · Score: 2

    You are expecting Trump to fix anything?
    If you are in that category I pity you, four years of bitter disappointment is coming.

    It took three years to get rid of Nixon over Watergate and Trump is less likely to go quietly no matter what, so he's in for the long haul.

  93. Re:Not a Republican defeat by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    the Republicans might just get rid of [the filibuster] entirely to get their way.

    They might regret that in 4 years.

  94. ACHA "craft" by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    the lawmakers are being very well-compensated to read legislation. It's like their one fucking job, you know?

    Yes, I know, that's the point I was making. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

    If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law

    The GOP unraveled it just fine (Trump doesn't even read his executive orders... the very idea that he had anything to do with the ACHA other than as an idiot mouthpiece is mildly hilarious.) The GOP rewrote it to do what they wanted it to do, which was adhere to the usual ethically bankrupt Republican agenda of disadvantaging the poor and further enriching the rich.

    It's just that the poor, huge numbers of whom benefit from the ACA, actually got wind of the GOP's intent, and unfortunately for the Republicans, their base consists of considerable numbers of the poor.

    It wasn't that they couldn't unravel it. It's that they got caught unraveling it.

    The reason why is simply this: If you never give a baby a lollipop, it will just sit there and gurgle. But if you give a baby a lollipop and then attempt to take it away and it catches you at it, it will scream bloody murder until you give it back. That's exactly what happened here. The ACA handed out the lollipop that was healthcare to people who had never had it. The ACHA attempted to take it away. The people caught them at it. Everything from then on was entirely predictable.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  95. Tax reform by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I 100% expect the Republicans (congress in general, really, but the Republicans are presently driving the bus) to do exactly the same thing to tax law that the Republicans attempted to do to the healthcare law. Which is to say, rewrite it to further benefit the wealthy and further disadvantage the poor and middle class.

    What congress thinks is broken about tax law and what the poor and middle class thinks is broken about tax law are two entirely different things.

    It's not that congress can't figure it out. It's that what they want has absolutely nothing to do with benefitting the voters who elected them. They serve those who write them checks, hand out lucrative speaking engagements, "think tank" positions, lobbyist jobs, property and stock tips/deals, etc. They care very little for our votes. They know full well that when disapproval of congress is high (86% in a recent election), re-election rates remain high (94% in that same election.) So until disapproval numbers for a bill hit really dangerous looking extremes (83% for the ACHA, basically everyone that doesn't drool all their waking hours), they pretty much do whatever they want, and what that is, as always, is fluff the wealthy.

    The key to stopping them is exactly what happened with the ACHA: The media and the Internet need to repeatedly and in a way that cannot be ignored, put the information about what the the proposed revisions to tax law is trying to do to most everyone out under bright lights. If that can be done, it'll kill their tax agenda, which is absolutely guaranteed to be harmful to most of us. Just like the ACHA.

    The problem with actual reasonable tax reform is that you're asking the foxes to voluntarily reduce their access to the henhouse. No matter what they say about it, they are thinking "LOL, as if." That's not just the GOP, either; the Democrats trade on tax leverage too.

    A truly fair and simple federal taxation system is literally no more than a few pages of clear and simple law away. The same is true for any state or town. Likewise decent healthcare mechanisms. But we can't get there from here. The monied interests don't want that; and that means we're not going to get it. What we are most likely to get, if we're not vigilant, is something a good bit worse. Just like the ACHA.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Tax reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that congress can't figure it out. It's that what they want has absolutely nothing to do with benefitting the voters who elected them. They serve those who write them checks, hand out lucrative speaking engagements, "think tank" positions, lobbyist jobs, property and stock tips/deals, etc. They care very little for our votes. They know full well that when disapproval of congress is high (86% in a recent election), re-election rates remain high (94% in that same election.) So until disapproval numbers for a bill hit really dangerous looking extremes (83% for the ACHA, basically everyone that doesn't drool all their waking hours), they pretty much do whatever they want, and what that is, as always, is fluff the wealthy.

      I can not emphasise enough how this is the evil of gerrymandering. Who gets elected to the federal House of Representatives is not determined by the voters in most states, it's determined by whoever controls the state legislature, and the primary voters. For a little over 90% of the House seats, the result is pre-determined and only a massive change (10%-40% shift) in voter behaviour can unseat the vast majority of candidates in the general election.

  96. Common goals by swb · · Score: 2

    Business negotiations often involve motivated parties with shared goals (sell/buy land, widgets, etc). They differ on the terms of the transaction, not the transaction itself.

    In politics, you have to compromise on the transaction and its terms and there is often no agreement on the goal in question.

    With healthcare, the Republicans couldn't agree on a goal so negotiating terms was much more difficult.

  97. Re:And masterfully so by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    This is a reflection of America. When George Bush Senior admitted that he failed his "no new taxes" promise it sealed him as a 1-term president. He had a democratic-controlled congress so he compromised. Americans didn't want compromise and they didn't want an honest man who admitted mistakes.

  98. Re: Just repeal it by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    I'm really not sure how the insurance companies, in their lustful greed for Obmacare forcing people to buy insurance, couldn't see that they would have been next against the wall.

    I feel like they have the idea that they'll be the ones administering "single-payer".

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  99. Re:Just repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that the "meet our price or suffer and/or die" factor will never distort prices once everyone is paying out of their own pocket.

  100. Yes, they can. No, they won't. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    The folks in silicon valley are smart, organized and wealthy. They've purchased the requisite members of congress who have shown quite plainly that their interests diverge significantly from those of the White House and its current, er... "administration."

    There will be no change at all, or at best, cosmetic changes.

    Of course, the best course of action would be to give any foreign national who moves here for more than five years a green card, a handshake and expedited citizenship if they start a business that employs Americans in a technical capacity at standard wages for their position of expertise for more than five years.

    That's a 10 year commitment. Their kids will have grown up here. Nobody is moving back to China or India at that point. We get a new generation of smart, entrepreneurial Americans.

    Being a rational course of action that takes advantage of foreign expertise and money for the USA's benefit, it will never happen.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  101. Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again slurs against certain groups are OK if you are some kind of superior leftist and part of a culture they celebrate.

    I actually don't have anything against you, your gender, your actions or choices in those respects. Use whatever bathroom or other service you want.

    But perhaps you could stop posting for a while and reflect on your own hateful attitude towards the mentally ill, mentally handicapped, and others in far worse situations than yourself.

    1. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No response, "Barbara?" Is handling defeat graciously not your thing?

    2. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course I have a response. Just re-read what I wrote. I stand by it, and that some people deserve to be called morons and retards - they work hard at attaining that low level of mediocrity. You know, Trump supporters and such.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Why do you have a problem with me calling Trump supporters morons? They've proven that they have no f*cking clue, and that, if they were turkeys, they would be voting for thanksgiving. BTW - moron was an acceptable medical term, as was retarded. Retarded is, in many cases, a misnomer because they will never catch up with reality - it's Trump all the way down.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a Trump supporter, sir.

    5. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You sure do a great imitation thereof. Take a bow. Or maybe you're just one of those fucked up Ayn Rand libertarian types.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not know me, sir.

    7. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Nor do I wish to. But I know your type, and that's why I have no with to know you. BTW, I have no problems with slurs against certain groups. Trump supporters are stupid, plain and simple. Maybe it's the racism so many of them parade around, the rot must have spread to other parts of their so-called brains. Same as their so-called president. The idiot-in-chief.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not know my type, sir.

    9. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course I do. Repressed gay man.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks I will not date you, sir.

    11. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet you didn't deny you're a repressed little gay man. Instead, you turned the discussion to sex. And of course, a little gay man (do you have small hands, perchance) won't date a woman.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not mention sex and I will not ever date any men, sir.

    13. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It seems that BarBar Huds is hard up about dating JarJar Binks. That would make for the world's most annoying couple. Anyways I don't think this is going to help your chances BarBar.

      You might try a bath house like the one Butters found on South Park. Although I think most aren't interested in a skin pocket where genitals are supposed to be but were removed, but supposedly you'll find any fetishes over there.

      Just go in there and say something like "Misa BarBar. Misa find a man who lika misa mangina." Shake your manly spare tire around a bit to emphasize the point. I do imagine it would increase your chances. But no matter what, arguing with ACs won't.

    14. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Oh and FWIW, Barbara means barbarian:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Barbarian means uncivilized and/or primitive. I therefore understand why you chose the name you did, as it fits you better than Tom, your old biblical apostle name.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And now you're stuck with that name, because if you change it, you'll have let the trolls win. And BarBar Huds hates defeat.

    15. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You really are fucked up with your fantasies, aren't you. Or are you writing from personal experience?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Why would I object to being called a barbarian? Seems to me it's the best thing to be when dealing with assholes like you. Far better than being named after a fictitious religious character in a fictitious religious tale.

      That's one thing about barbarians - we want concrete proof of claims. We don't believe in fairy tales, whether they were made up a couple thousand years ago or posted by Trumplestiltskin within the hour. In other words, we're not stupid.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Again, barbarian is an old derogatory term for an uncivilized, primitive person. You very often exhibit both descriptions (and narcisism.) So I agree, your name suits you quite well.

      And no, my handle (which isn't my name) doesn't make any religious reference. When I was in the US Army, I was armored recon, aka cavalry, aka a dragoon. Dragoon comes from the French word for dragon.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      Beyond that, this is simply a gamer tag I use that I also carry other places for psuedonymous (not anonymous) purposes, because it loosely describes my past in a way suitable for gaming.

      Anyways, have fun sir BarBar Huds.

    18. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If you think that dating never leads to sex, you're really are one sick puppy.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You need to learn to read for comprehension. I did NOT refer to your handle. Get it right. You made reference to my original first name, saying it was "one of the biblical apostles." I pointed out that my new name was, and I quote, "Far better than being named after a fictitious religious character in a fictitious religious tale."

      And unlike you, I don't hide behind handles or nyms.

      You've just proven again that you're a moron.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    20. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm not hiding behind anything, if I was I would go fully anonymous. There's a difference between hiding and privacy. I know you don't believe in privacy because you're a dickface nazi, but that's your problem.

      In fact, because you hate privacy so much, you should wear a shirt that says in big letters "ban anonymous speech now", put the same on a big sign in front of your house, and every weekend go downtown and shout it out with a megaphone. That's exactly what you've called for in the past and you fundamentally believe in, so why not broadcast it to everybody? I'm sure other people will start calling you a dickface nazi as well if you don't keep that opinion to yourself when you're in public.

      With all the shit you believe in, I'd wager more than one person has said this about you:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    21. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mentioned sex but I'm not attracted to fatties with false vaginas, sir.

    22. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do believe that anonymous speech is the last resort of cowards. Say what you mean, and stand behind it, and damn the consequences. You have freedom of speech, but neither freedom from the consequences of that speech nor the right to be anonymous. Check your constitution - you'll see that neither anonymity nor lack of consequences are rights. Or are you going to claim that the people who wrote the constitution were nazis as well?

      Your lack of knowledge of your own laws is typically American.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    23. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You mentioned dating, not me. And I don't date gay men, repressed or otherwise, with tiny hands or otherwise.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do believe that anonymous speech is the last resort of cowards.

      Because you're an uneducated paranoid nazi. Whistleblowers often work anonymously because if they don't they'll likely face undue hardship. Otherwise you'd be arguing that people like Mark Felt are cowards. Oh, and your hero Bradley Manning tried to remain anonymous as well.

      Say what you mean, and stand behind it, and damn the consequences. You have freedom of speech, but neither freedom from the consequences of that speech nor the right to be anonymous. Check your constitution - you'll see that neither anonymity nor lack of consequences are rights.

      Nope, in fact EFF describes this in good detail:

      https://www.eff.org/issues/ano...

      Or are you going to claim that the people who wrote the constitution were nazis as well?

      They actually understood the value of it quite well. In fact, the revolution wouldn't have ever happened without it, because the British crown would have come down on the speakers like a ton of bricks. The pamphlet 'Common Sense' was very important to the revolution, and its author Thomas Paine was in fact anonymous at first, so you bet your ass that the authors of the constitution wanted to protect anonymous speech. Likewise, time and time again SCOTUS has upheld anonymous speech as being protected by the first amendment, so it's not going away anytime soon just to please little nazi assholes like yourself.

      It's a good thing that, unlike you, I know history.

      Nonetheless, the reason you hate anonymous speech is because all of your skin is pure velum, and you have no tolerance for anybody who is even remotely critical of you (a classic trait of narcissism.) You're every bit as insecure and paranoid as Hitler himself. I'll bet that everybody who knows you IRL can't fucking stand you, but they put up with you anyways lest you cry discrimination. That, combined with the fact that you crave attention like the little narcissist that you really are is why you got a sex change, only it didn't give you the attention you demand so you go around subtly asking ACs for sex on slashdot.

    25. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mentioned dating not sex so please stop making unwelcome sexually suggestive comments, sir.

    26. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "because they don't like to face undue hardship." What a bullshit excuse. A whistleblower should be willing to stand up and say "this is what I saw." Hiding just makes it look questionable, doing everyone who wants the truth a disservice, and playing into the hands of the perps, because "well, it's an anonymous source - probably fake."

      For too long we have encouraged cowardice for the sake of convenience. You're doing so right now. Your other comments, you hide behind a nym. Coward. Come here and say that and watch how fast I have the cops on your ass for hate speech. Because words have consequences, and you should be held accountable for what you say.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    27. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And as I said, repressed gay men like you just can't help but do what you're doing. It's one of the reasons I make fun of people like you - that's all you're worth.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      LOL that's funny!

      We have this thing called freedom of speech here. That means your desperate whiny little Gestapo tactics don't work here even if you did know my real identity. I'd say "go practice being a little Nazi asshole to one of your neighbors instead" but I honestly feel bad for them already. I've lived next to a narcissist before, and it's annoying having to put up with their constant attention seeking. I can only imagine having to put up with a fat narcissist that pretends to be a woman, and it must be terrible for them.

    29. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not gay but please keep your self loathing homosexuality and homophobia private, sir.

    30. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet nowhere do you refute my argument that there is no right to anonymous, consequence-free speech. What a fucktard - read your constitution and try to find it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    31. Re:Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "I am not gay" - said every single closeted gay man ever.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    32. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      And yet nowhere do you refute my argument that there is no right to anonymous, consequence-free speech. What a fucktard - read your constitution and try to find it.

      Didn't you read the EFF page I linked? It shows pretty clearly that SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that anonymous speech is protected by the constitution. That is as good as saying it's constitutional without needing it to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution (like many, many other things.)

      You lose, go fuck yourself (on second thought...I guess you can't really do that without genitals.)

    33. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet the RIGHT to be anonymous is nowhere in the constitution. Try to keep up. If it's not explicitly in the constitution, it's something that can be legislated either way, including at lower levels of government. That's how the law works.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    34. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      And yet the RIGHT to be anonymous is nowhere in the constitution. Try to keep up. If it's not explicitly in the constitution, it's something that can be legislated either way, including at lower levels of government. That's how the law works.

      No, it can't. Read the article, dummy, it specifically mentions how SCOTUS struck down laws that restricted anonymous speech. It makes a reference to no less than three separate decisions, all of which involved some government entity trying to place some restriction on anonymous speech.

      Seriously, are you just flat out incapable of reading it? Like you're actually that dumb to try to tell me how the law works even when I just showed you proof that you're wrong. I think the truth is that you are only capable of thinking with your dick, which you've since cut off so now you just can't even think at all anymore.

    35. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    36. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.

      Now you're just plain grasping at straws because your little narcissistic nazi brain can't stand being wrong, and I can't say I'm surprised. I'll bet you wish you could change your country's monarchy for a dictator too.

      That aside, when SCOTUS makes these rulings, very few, if any, justices ever dissent on this issue, so that's very unlikely. You're just as likely to see a constitutional amendment. This is because unlike you, we're not nazi assholes here, and unless and until any of that changes, it remains de-facto constitutional. In fact, there are even several laws that explicitly enforce the ability to have anonymity. For example, the only reason people can block their caller ID (showing up as "Anonymous Caller" in most cases) is because there's a federal law that says carriers must give callers the ability to make anonymous calls; otherwise, carriers wouldn't bother because they'd have to maintain such a system. I'm sure this law pisses you off too, but you're an asshole so nobody cares.

      Also, because you're so unfamiliar with what impact SCOTUS has, the original bill of rights only applied to the federal government in the beginning. At first, things like freedom of speech, the ability to vote on federal politicians (i.e. POTUS, congress) weren't guaranteed for individuals, and the representatives and senators sent to Washington, and presidential electors, were unilaterally decided by the state government in most of the original 13 states. SCOTUS changed that through a series of decisions in the 1920's, starting with Gitlow v. New York, in what is now called the Incorporation Doctrine, in which now very few constitutional rules and doctrines aren't applied at a state level.

    37. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you think I'm "grasping at straws?" The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court decisions 130 times. They also modified the original Roe v Wade decision on a subsequent hearing, and Trump wants them to reverse it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    38. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, because you're so unfamiliar with what impact SCOTUS has, the original bill of rights only applied to the federal government in the beginning.

      Wrongo!

      The Fourth Amendment alone shows that isn't true, and really, the Second and Third, and the Fifth, and really, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth.

      The Ninth and Tenth are a bit of a catch-all, but clearly apply to the People, and so it's only the First that says "Congress shall make no law" which makes your claim applicable.

      You're confusing the ineffectual enforcement of rights with actual statements in the documents.

      You are more correct on the issue of voting, however it is not and never was unilateral, as you can see in Article I, Section IV:

      The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

      Congress could and did act to some extent in regulating voting, though granted, most of the significant reforms came through the Amendment Process.

         

    39. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Wrongo!

      The Fourth Amendment alone shows that isn't true, and really, the Second and Third, and the Fifth, and really, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth.

      This is incorrect. There's a very long, drawn out history behind this, basically starting from the ratification of the constitution until at least 2010. In fact, in direct contrast to your assertion, the third amendment still pretty much only applies to the federal government, with exception of the states in the second circuit. You can read all about it here:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...

      And for further reading, here is a case law example that clearly states that the bill of rights only applies at the national level, and are not guaranteed for individuals for intra-state affairs:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

      And here's a very direct example relating to the second amendment:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

      Google the Incorporation Doctrine; if you're interested in history, it's pretty enlightening how few civil rights citizens of this country actually had in the early days of the US. Most people just assume they've always been there since the constitution was fully ratified in 1790, but it just aint so.

    40. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you think I'm "grasping at straws?" The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court decisions 130 times [wikipedia.org]. They also modified the original Roe v Wade decision on a subsequent hearing, and Trump wants them to reverse it.

      You know what, in spite of how unlikely it will ever be that our first amendment rights will be lost, whether that is through new amendments or SCOTUS interpretations, I'm going to concede your point here. The reason why is because you've personally demonstrated a desire that may actually be part of a larger problem beginning to stir within our university system, and has at least some chance at going mainstream.

      Mainly, and because I have the freedom to say this still so I'll say it anyways: Dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch assholes like you are the reason democracies around the world have fallen, and with the recent resurgence of fascism in Europe, and the "speech codes" at major universities, it is quite possible that dickless nazi son-of-a-bitches like you could very well amass big enough numbers to have your wish come true and kill our democracy. After all, as John McCain recently stated: Abolishment of free speech is the first step in establishing a dictatorship.

      So congratulations, dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch, you and your kind are well on your way to bringing about another dark age.

    41. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google the Incorporation Doctrine; if you're interested in history, it's pretty enlightening how few civil rights citizens of this country actually had in the early days of the US. Most people just assume they've always been there since the constitution was fully ratified in 1790, but it just aint so.

      You should Bing the literal text of the Constitution. You might also look at Madison's draft submissions. They very clearly do not say (except for the First) anything to limit themselves.

      What are you mistaking is the refusal to enforce such rights (and in legal traditions they antedate the Constitution through the Magna Carta and the Common Law), with the actual clear statements.

      No surprise, a look at Taney's decision shows the nadir of judicial malfeasance. A clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, twisted into pretending it followed it strictly.

      Madison must have been rolling over in his grave.

    42. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, before I forget, look up Heller and McDonald, or MacDonakd, or whatever that 2nd Amendment decision with Chicago was, when you consider the decisions with the history of the justices, it practically drips irony from the pages.

    43. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      You should Bing

      Well there's your problem, and no thanks.

      the literal text of the Constitution.

      Yep, and what part of "Congress shall make no law" did you miss? Even the bill of rights itself has clear hints that it wasn't intended for use at the state level, and in fact all thirteen of the original states had state sanctioned, official religions for periods long after the constitution was ratified:

      http://undergod.procon.org/vie...

      And why on earth would the fourteenth amendment need a due process clause if the fifth already had identical one, according to you? In fact, the fourteenth amendment alone is the basis of the incorporation doctrine.

    44. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should Bing

      Well there's your problem, and no thanks.

      Apparently it'd help you. See below. Must be your Googling is leading you astray. The Machine has turned on oy. But I'm only being jocular, at the tendency of people to use that word as a verb, as if it were the default.

      the literal text of the Constitution.

      Yep, and what part of "Congress shall make no law" did you miss?

      The part where it's not in Amendments 2-10. Well, actually, I didn't miss it. Not only did I specifically spot the absence, I'm quite glad they're not present. But you missed that that phrase simply isn't there.

      Did you miss where I said this:

      and so it's only the First that says "Congress shall make no law" which makes your claim applicable.?

      I meant it. It's only in the First. Not the others.

      Try a look yourself, I'll even include the two orphan Amendments (one since ratified, the other, however impractical, still pending)::

      Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
      -
      Article the second. .... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. see Amendment XXVII

      Article [I] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)
      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

    45. Re: Once again slurs against certain groups OK. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      But I'm only being jocular, at the tendency of people to use that word as a verb, as if it were the default.

      Or you could just do what I do and simply say "go look it up". Alas, your life is defined by Microsoft, so you're a walking talking Microsoft ad, and likewise I doubt you understand much outside of anything Microsoft tells you, including the legislative history of the US.

      The part [gpo.gov] where it's not in Amendments 2-10.

      Which is fine, except for the part that individual states had their own rules contrary to the bill of rights up until they were incorporated. And in fact, they still do for the ones that haven't been fully incorporated. If you don't believe me, look up McDonald v. City of Chicago.

      As for the rest of your post, I'm somewhat done with this topic as it has gone stale, so idc anymore.

  102. Betteridge's Law says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... No.

    Tech companies have pumped way too much money into D.C. to ever allow for H-1B reform. If anything, I expect Republicans to offer to increase the H-1B visa allotments.

    The question is, given the xenophobia that Trump has championed, will foreign workers be willing to come to the U.S.? U.S. colleges are already reporting significantly lower application rates for this year from foreign students, so it seems likely that the desire to work here is likely falling off, too.

    So, we may have finally reach the tipping point where U.S. companies finally give up on trying to maintain headquarter in the U.S. and just ship them overseas to India or China.

  103. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get rid of the insurance company lobbyists, and go to full public single-payer healthcare. The money that's currently going into insurance company profits could save your life.

    If you look a close and careful look at the existing US version of "single-payer" - Medicare - you'll be appalled. You'll find lots of hidden costs, lots of bureaucratic incompetence, lots of stress added to senior's lives as a result of the need to fight the seemingly endless mistakes the system keeps making - it's basically been a disaster since the program was created.

    It seems unlikely that the US is capable of running a single-payer system.

    Something along the lines of the Swiss system might work. As a fraction of GDP, they were spending (health expenditure, total, world bank) 11.7% in 2015. That is about on par with France (11.5%), and a lot less than the USA (17.1%) - and the Swiss have better health care results is most categories than either France or the USA.

    The Swiss system is not a single-payer system - but it costs a lot less because the doctors, lawyers, and health insurance companies aren't allowed to take a big piece of the pie. Also, as I understand matters, the Swiss public, not the politicians, gets to decide (by vote) on any significant changes.

    Another system that is not single-payer is that of the Netherlands (10.9% of GDP).

    By the way - it's not just the health care companies that are creating high costs for the USA. Problems with US law also create significant overhead, both in terms of litigation insurance, and doctors massively over-prescribing expensive tests to protect themselves from unethical lawyers and tort abuse. Yet another problem is the US patent system, which also raises the costs of medication significantly. The doctors themselves are part of the problem: they have too much control over prescriptions, and also make 30% more than their Swiss counter-parts (and since Switzerland has very high costs of living, that saying something!).

    Yes, the US badly needs health care reform - and ObamaCare is not the answer - but single payer isn't necessarily the answer.

  104. They chose to lose the battle to win the war by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2

    I feel that the Republicans chose to deal with the short-term humiliation of being perceived as being unable to repeal Obamacare for strategic reasons.

    The folks who hate Obamacare are a loud minority in their party. They can safely be ignored for a while.

    The folks who would have lost coverage and been worse of with Obamacare repealed would have fucked them in the next election. As it is, these guys will still vote Republican in 2018.

    So they let Obamacare stay. Big deal. They will dismantle regulations, start teaching religion in schools, pack the Supreme Court with Corporate-owned mouthpieces with no pushback.

  105. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do you bankrupt insurance companies when they're warts that grow out the asses of major financial services companies?

    I would love the health insurance industry to die so we could have single payer but buhhaha yeah right.

  106. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pelosi designed it to bankrupt the insurance companies

    Source? Genuinely interested.

  107. Why Is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is it that when any party fails at something, someone pops out of the woodwork to suggest, "well you know, it was inappropriate to expect success from party X, they aren't a monolithic voting block!"

    And I'm not talking about interpretations or assessments of success. Like Obamacare, which can be evaluated as either a success or a failure, depending upon your political leanings, your policy preferences, and all the rest. Although, Obamacare got passed, so at some basic level it was a success.

    Trump and the Repubs have claimed, loudly, vigorously, and incessantly for, what, 7-8 years, that Obamacare was "toast". Repeal and Replace (or was it Repeal and Reform? Repeal and Repair? Repeal or Replace??). We all know it.

    Yet they failed, and now Trump is walking away like it doesn't matter or it was someone else's fault. And I'm calling bullshit. This was a core promise to the American people!

    So why did they fail? IMO:

    1). The Repubs never did the hard work of building an alternative policy. "Repeal and Replace" became an easy slogan and the Repubs got lazy because their easy slogan sounded good. All it was, was a talking point to beat the Dems over the head with. It was superficial;
    2). "Not one monolithic voting bloc"? What do you think a party is? Parties are never monolithic! Their job is, to overcome internal policy divisions and build internal support and agreement around specific policy proposals. They can take their time doing it, but the Repubs had 8 years! What do they have to show for those 8 years? Nothing!
    3). The Repubs are showing laziness again, having failed. "Oh well, Repeal and Replace was never a core platform issue." Or is it, "the Dems are responsible!" Perhaps instead, it is "darn those Repub party groups who weren't onside, it's all their fault!" Yeah, we know an excuse train when we see one;
    4). The Repubs never had a Plan B. Spicer said almost exactly that, it was either this proposal or nothing. Since when is this a good idea?? You know who made this mistake too? Swarzenegger in California. The story was that Swarzenegger went to the state capital with one and only one budget proposal, and no negotiating position or skills. Oops.
    5). Trump likes to trumpet his negotiating skills but he's also one to quickly change course when he's failing. And claim he never really wanted the original thing he failed to get. Except, you can't walk away from this issue. He's not the corporate CEO anymore, telling people what to think, what happened, and what is important. A CEO might be able to get away with this stuff but a President cannot.

    This was a failure and a big failure. Make all the excuses you want but Trump comes off looking less than stellar in this situation. He is the man behind "The Art of The Deal", remember? At the very least he could acknowledge the failure and spin it as growing pains, to be followed by a better attempt next time. Yet Trump's ego won't permit that.

    Trump's ego internalizes and owns successes and externalizes and rejects failure. He cannot do otherwise. Which will be his undoing.

  108. Dilbert and Asok by LesserWeevil · · Score: 1

    As funny as H-1B jokes can be when read on Dilbert, they're significantly less funny when you're introduced to a new H-1B visa holder from India and told "show him around, tell him how you do your job" with no other explanation by management given. Disney was simply a public example of something happening all over the country. To say abuse/fraud is rampant in H-1B visas is to say the ocean is wet.

  109. Re:And masterfully so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some analysts over here think this forced showdown was purely a way to be able to make a "shitlist" of Republicans that can't be trusted to stick to 45's side.

  110. Re:Foul, oversimplification by vux984 · · Score: 1

    Nobody forced him to make the claim that he was going to close Gitmo.

    So everything would have been right as rain if he had pledged to 'sincerely try' instead of 'do' ? Seriously?

    If he wasn't prepared to set any prisoners free that couldn't be charged with a real crime and incarcerated elsewhere, then he shouldn't have said that he was going to close the place.

    Lets say he was prepared to do that. Still wouldn't have made a difference... congress wasn't going to let him do that. Not in a million years.

  111. Re:And masterfully so by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    If you think the insurance companies skimming their cut is bad, you'll find that's nothing compared to DMV-style "management".

  112. Republican Control Is Even Greater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your assessment of Republican control is correct as far as it goes, but it needs to go even farther. The current count (AFAIK) is that the Republicans control 44 of 50 Governorships! If the Republicans can't pass AHCA with that much power... what do they need? The power of Life and Death? The ability to transmute lead into gold? The ability to shoot laser beams from their eyes?

    Seriously, what more could the Republicans actually ask for in terms of total control? So why are they acting like the Keystone Cops?