Legal here means that the US won a war against Mexico and took the land by conquest. Force matters more than laws. Laws have to be agreed to and with force you can make someone agree. Like all those unwanted European settles showing up in the Americas and taking over, kicking the locals over to reservations, or enslaving them, or going to war with them. There was no law there other than force to ram the foreign rules onto the locals. When the US did engage in treaties they were very often broken when convenient. We have a long history of breaking the laws too - illegal white settlers in some western territories or settlers invited in who later started an armed revolution.
These same laws that says we should rip apart families and put children in jails awaiting deportation are the same laws that say you have to stop cattle grazing on federally owned land when the lease is up.
I don't mind if they keep it. I just wish companies would be honest about it and not lie when they claim that they couldn't find anyone in the country who had the skills to work on the help desk. H1-B is a joke because it's been misused and abused for so long. The original purpose of the H1-B visa though is still valid.
Mexicans were in Silicon Valley area before the first gringos arrived. We've had Chinese and Japanese here in California before Trump's grandparents immigrated. We've had south asians here too for a very long time.
They're not all foreigners. Many of them are naturalized citizens. Many of them are native born citizens. Some may have had ancestors in this country before Trump's ancestors arrived. Hurray for them!
But of course, someone will probably complain that they're stealing our precious CEO jobs and now people who could have been CEOs if not for immigrants s are stuck having to be greeters at Walmart...
Well, we are still trying to figure out what "civic society" means in the context he used it. He's bitching about Asian CEOs, so he's specifically calling out race there, and then complaining that those CEOs from those races are hurting "civic society". So the best you can assume is that he's racist against that group and prefers to have blacks or hispanic CEOs instead who would preserve civic society (both ethnic groups having been native born citizens in this country for centuries and don't fall afoul of any anti-immigrant feelings).
Which is doing a hell of a lot better than some whites here. Ie, those who will bitch about seeing Mexican flags on autos and wondering why they won't assimilate, while at the same time flying the confederate flag and claiming it's just cultural heritage.
Dunno, but looking around Silicon Valley, I don't think 2/3rds of CEOs are south or east Asian. Silicon Valley has immigrants of all type. Certainly some locations have a big representation from south Asia (Cisco Way), but move a few miles and it looks different.
The vast majority of these Asian CEOs are citizens. I would hope that a presidential chief of staff does not categorize citizens up into first class versus second class. A very large number of these CEOs aren't even immigrants but were born here.
There is no special right or ethos that grants European immigrants or their descendants a greater role in America than any other immigrant group. If whites end up being a minority, then so what?
And what's wrong with NPR? They're the most balanced and fair media outlet I've seen in the last decade. They present views and stories from across the spectrum. Liberals complain that it's too conservative, conservatives complain that it's too liberal, so it feels just right to me.
Stop picking sides like this is just a dumb ball game! Start using your brain to decide how you feel about the issues instead of letting others tell you how to think. Read the news from all segments instead of just the ones that agree with you. Once you start calling people "libtards" then you sound like a drunken fan in the bleachers.
Late night TV shows go and talk to the people on the streets and they're clueless. Ask them who they are voting for and it's "um, duh, Hillary because she's a woman?" or "um, duh, Trump because he's going to make things great?" They vote for their candidate because that's the team they always root for and not because they have the slightly clue what their candidate's policy platform is. They probably think that all of politics can be boiled down to left vs right, or liberal vs conservative, and that chemistry is earth, air, fire, and water.
If you think the US is a backwater then you're really out of touch. I think America is already great and can be made greater. I see no evidence in history that the US was greater in the past than it is today and that it needs to be made great "again". We are doing better today than in the any time in the past. We continue to make forward progress in small pieces. This does not mean that everyone is personally happy and fulfilled though, we continue to have problems that need fixing. But they won't be fixed by going back in time.
So what's historical? We have a lame duck session normally, but is it typical to demand the current government cease all work until the new government shows up? Did Obama demand that the Bush administration stop all activities? Did the Bush administration demand that the Clinton administration stop working? Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that? Now you know when the FCC does nothing that some loud mouth on the Republican side is going to claim that it's a waste of salary to be paying Tom Wheeler when he's got nothing on his agenda anymore.
No the baker should back the cake. This is not a view based on religion, despite the claims. There is nothing in the Bible supporting this action, it is a capricious acts based solely on politics. Happy to back a cake for an unmarried gay couple, an unmarried straight couple, cakes galore for people who cheat on their taxes, and so on - money is money. But woah, hold the line, no cakes for married gay couples for religious reasons. If they have not given the purity test to everyone who entered their business door then this discrimination is capricious. This is not freedom of religion, this is being used as a facade in from of the real reason, which is a political protest against gay marriage.
But there's the hypocrisy now as you point out. Ok to discriminate in one area, but not ok in others. Again, it's politics which is very rarely about high minded ideals that are applied consistently but about creating an divisive society where we want people to cheer for our team and boo the other team as a means to accrue votes.
However blocking speech from someone, whether by government or not, can lead to a backlash. Especially in a site as large as Twitter this is not going to do anything to calm down the divisions in the country, it will only fuel the conception that all media is biased and being paid off by liberal ruling class (despite the contradictions). Let these morons spout their inane ramblings where everyone can see it and disparage their ideas, having them go off and hide on "gab" is just going to let them fester and re-emerge later even more virulent.
I suspect most Trump supporters know this. But they know that the existing status quo wasn't working, so why not upset the apple cart? Everyone I personally know who voted for Trump does not actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary more (and hated Jeb more, and hated Cruz more, etc). Trump is the protest vote essentially.
We're never going to get some of those blue collar jobs back. Steel maybe, but we'd need really large tarrifs to make it happen. But coal is dying and it will never get big again. Oil is diminishing and most profits for it out outside the US or to executives. Auto makers lost out because they made really crappy cars for a very long time with a really unmotivated work force and shot down every reform effort that came up. We're never going to have large scale mass manufacturing the way it used to be fifty years ago, so focusing on small scale manufacturing is the smart bet there.
There's nothing that the president or congress can do to force companies to hire expensive workers to make an inferior product that customers don't want to buy. Any candidate promising to bring back the old jobs is lying. A candidate promising to bring new jobs is also probably lying but there's a slight chance that might actually happen.
Yes, the Tea Party was clear and concise in some ways. But vague in others. They are clear and concise that they want to upset the apple cart, get rid of the old guard (Republican or Democrat), and until the change happens they will be obstructionist. They were vastly more organized and disciplined than the Occupy movement. However they are vague in that they don't have a good solid platform of ideals. The original Tea Party people don't even have the same ideas as the later Tea Party movement, pro-reform is not the same as anti-government. The only reason they really side with republicans is because some republican candidates learned to pretend to be one of them.
As for bias, I don't think registering for a party makes one biased one way or the other. Most states require you to check a party box on a form before you're allowed to vote in primaries. That means most people feel that they need to be one party or the other (thus reducing all Americans to being one side or the other like it was just a game). I think perhaps 95% of all voters have no actual party loyalty.
Good business sense to donate to both sides of a campaign, and to ingratiate yourself to a likely winner, and to ingratiate yourself to an actual winner. This has nothing to do with actual politics, it's just basic butt kissing to get the government's favor. And it has happened forever. If people are only now annoyed with this practice maybe they haven't been paying attention, or are annoyed because they assumed business-as-usual would not continue to occur after Trump was elected.
And the reason promises aren't kept is because it can't be done. Politicians say what they think the voters want to hear, first off. And politicians may (rarely) have some actual ideals they want to follow through with. But the president is NOT a dictator. One can not simply close Guantanamo, or build a wall, or give everyone a 20% tax cut across the board. No matter how well the people like a president, the president can not create lots of jobs! A president can nudge policy here and there but are constrained by what congress and the courts will allow, which is a very good thing. A president also cannot print money to pay for things, the president has to beg for money.
About the only things a president really can do are to invade countries and instigate military action (technically not "wars"), and the president can only do that because congress is too scared to refuse it as it makes them look weak to the pro-military voters.
I also like to think that they will keep Obamacare because it's the one issue that got them elected and if Obamacare went away they'd have to actually get off their asses and start governing.
Criminals understand crime better than anyone, but you don't appoint criminals to be chief of police. The problem with banking regulation is that the bankers can not be allowed to regulate themselves, ever, and the actual regulators know that when they leave the SEC that they can get an amazingly high paying job working for the banks. The few regulators who do want to be honest find themselves losing out on promotions at work and being told by their boss that they need to "play ball" and be a team player.
Or there are site wide licenses. So 38 different licenses could means 38 different facilities. For any particular scenario you can think of for a license, it's likely the US government has dealt with that type of license at some point.
Make it clear in the license about how many machines or devices it is allowed to run on. Because no matter how bizarre you think the misunderstanding might be, there are contractors who operate that way and contractors who don't. Every single contract they have is unique. If you're dealing with the government then never ever rely upon them following the common practice used in corporations (best not to even assume corporations follow an unwritten common practice).
We haven't seen the contract so it's just speculation for now. And speculating based upon what happens on PCs or off the shelf software is most likely not even close to the situation here.
So many web devs adamantly support advertising as the way to make money and keep their jobs. So why not support government spying a a means to make money, they've already sold their souls to the advertisers so one more concession shouldn't be a big deal, right? After all government spying at least is not as intrusive as ads, the government actually makes it a point to not clutter up the web pages or interrupt you in the middle of a video, and takes a neutral stance in the war between Budweiser and Coors.
Of course they get counted. What state has laws that allow discarding some votes? They have to be counted before certifying the results. They are not necessarily counted before the news sites predict a winner, but that's a different matter.
This is why a lot of too-close-to-call elections take a few weeks or longer before the result is knows, in some cases the declared winner is not the certified winner.
This is an important point where so many "my vote doesn't count" people forget: the presidential election is just one small part of the larger election cycle. There many more things to vote on, things that have a more direct effect on the voter than the election of a president. Senators, congress, state congress, school boards, judges, propositions, county measures, dog catchers, etc. And yet people still don't bother to vote - we had maybe only half of the eligible voters actually bothering to vote, meaning that Trump really only got 1/4 of the electorate, and Hillary really only got 1/4 of the electorate(and much much less if you only count voters who voted for someone as opposed to voting against someone).
Then of course, *after* the election we have the inevitable protests (don't laugh trump supporters, if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary). I heard one high school protester saying that she needed to feel like she was doing something about the elections. But the election is over, duh, maybe she should have done someting before it was too late? No point in getting all worked up today about it, all that energy will be gone by the time the next election rolls around in two years (which these idiots will ignore because it's not a presidential election), and in four years they'll bit sitting back and apathetic again.
Talking points are by design political. For a news organization you don't want any talking points, either left or right. The current news media in America of any stripe is incapable of doing this, they muddle the line between news and editorializing. Fox News basically revived the old Yellow Journalism style but the other cable news networks have started copying.
Just trying to pinpoint where various anchors stand on the issues makes you a part of the reason that the news media biases the news - they want to keep the viewers happy by presenting what they want to hear instead of giving them the information they need to hear.
Pollsters are another beast. They do polling all year long even when not in an election. Elections are a minor part of their business. The election is when they do their marketing because they're in the spotlight. If they "lie" and get things wrong then they hurt their core business because they lose their customers. They have a vested business interest in being accurate, unlike news media. Since they weren't very accurate they're going to take a big monetary hit.
Slashdot Mirror
Legal here means that the US won a war against Mexico and took the land by conquest. Force matters more than laws. Laws have to be agreed to and with force you can make someone agree. Like all those unwanted European settles showing up in the Americas and taking over, kicking the locals over to reservations, or enslaving them, or going to war with them. There was no law there other than force to ram the foreign rules onto the locals. When the US did engage in treaties they were very often broken when convenient. We have a long history of breaking the laws too - illegal white settlers in some western territories or settlers invited in who later started an armed revolution.
These same laws that says we should rip apart families and put children in jails awaiting deportation are the same laws that say you have to stop cattle grazing on federally owned land when the lease is up.
I don't mind if they keep it. I just wish companies would be honest about it and not lie when they claim that they couldn't find anyone in the country who had the skills to work on the help desk. H1-B is a joke because it's been misused and abused for so long. The original purpose of the H1-B visa though is still valid.
Mexicans were in Silicon Valley area before the first gringos arrived. We've had Chinese and Japanese here in California before Trump's grandparents immigrated. We've had south asians here too for a very long time.
They're not all foreigners. Many of them are naturalized citizens. Many of them are native born citizens. Some may have had ancestors in this country before Trump's ancestors arrived. Hurray for them!
But of course, someone will probably complain that they're stealing our precious CEO jobs and now people who could have been CEOs if not for immigrants s are stuck having to be greeters at Walmart...
Well, we are still trying to figure out what "civic society" means in the context he used it. He's bitching about Asian CEOs, so he's specifically calling out race there, and then complaining that those CEOs from those races are hurting "civic society". So the best you can assume is that he's racist against that group and prefers to have blacks or hispanic CEOs instead who would preserve civic society (both ethnic groups having been native born citizens in this country for centuries and don't fall afoul of any anti-immigrant feelings).
Which is doing a hell of a lot better than some whites here. Ie, those who will bitch about seeing Mexican flags on autos and wondering why they won't assimilate, while at the same time flying the confederate flag and claiming it's just cultural heritage.
Dunno, but looking around Silicon Valley, I don't think 2/3rds of CEOs are south or east Asian. Silicon Valley has immigrants of all type. Certainly some locations have a big representation from south Asia (Cisco Way), but move a few miles and it looks different.
The vast majority of these Asian CEOs are citizens. I would hope that a presidential chief of staff does not categorize citizens up into first class versus second class. A very large number of these CEOs aren't even immigrants but were born here.
There is no special right or ethos that grants European immigrants or their descendants a greater role in America than any other immigrant group. If whites end up being a minority, then so what?
Where was racism mentioned in that post? You brought that up out of left field. Or maybe right field? Definitely not center field.
And what's wrong with NPR? They're the most balanced and fair media outlet I've seen in the last decade. They present views and stories from across the spectrum. Liberals complain that it's too conservative, conservatives complain that it's too liberal, so it feels just right to me.
Stop picking sides like this is just a dumb ball game! Start using your brain to decide how you feel about the issues instead of letting others tell you how to think. Read the news from all segments instead of just the ones that agree with you. Once you start calling people "libtards" then you sound like a drunken fan in the bleachers.
Late night TV shows go and talk to the people on the streets and they're clueless. Ask them who they are voting for and it's "um, duh, Hillary because she's a woman?" or "um, duh, Trump because he's going to make things great?" They vote for their candidate because that's the team they always root for and not because they have the slightly clue what their candidate's policy platform is. They probably think that all of politics can be boiled down to left vs right, or liberal vs conservative, and that chemistry is earth, air, fire, and water.
If you think the US is a backwater then you're really out of touch. I think America is already great and can be made greater. I see no evidence in history that the US was greater in the past than it is today and that it needs to be made great "again". We are doing better today than in the any time in the past. We continue to make forward progress in small pieces. This does not mean that everyone is personally happy and fulfilled though, we continue to have problems that need fixing. But they won't be fixed by going back in time.
No-win for the citizens too?
So what's historical? We have a lame duck session normally, but is it typical to demand the current government cease all work until the new government shows up? Did Obama demand that the Bush administration stop all activities? Did the Bush administration demand that the Clinton administration stop working? Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that? Now you know when the FCC does nothing that some loud mouth on the Republican side is going to claim that it's a waste of salary to be paying Tom Wheeler when he's got nothing on his agenda anymore.
Well yes. But there's likely a misunderstanding of the terms between the two parties.
No the baker should back the cake. This is not a view based on religion, despite the claims. There is nothing in the Bible supporting this action, it is a capricious acts based solely on politics. Happy to back a cake for an unmarried gay couple, an unmarried straight couple, cakes galore for people who cheat on their taxes, and so on - money is money. But woah, hold the line, no cakes for married gay couples for religious reasons. If they have not given the purity test to everyone who entered their business door then this discrimination is capricious. This is not freedom of religion, this is being used as a facade in from of the real reason, which is a political protest against gay marriage.
But there's the hypocrisy now as you point out. Ok to discriminate in one area, but not ok in others. Again, it's politics which is very rarely about high minded ideals that are applied consistently but about creating an divisive society where we want people to cheer for our team and boo the other team as a means to accrue votes.
However blocking speech from someone, whether by government or not, can lead to a backlash. Especially in a site as large as Twitter this is not going to do anything to calm down the divisions in the country, it will only fuel the conception that all media is biased and being paid off by liberal ruling class (despite the contradictions). Let these morons spout their inane ramblings where everyone can see it and disparage their ideas, having them go off and hide on "gab" is just going to let them fester and re-emerge later even more virulent.
I suspect most Trump supporters know this. But they know that the existing status quo wasn't working, so why not upset the apple cart? Everyone I personally know who voted for Trump does not actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary more (and hated Jeb more, and hated Cruz more, etc). Trump is the protest vote essentially.
We're never going to get some of those blue collar jobs back. Steel maybe, but we'd need really large tarrifs to make it happen. But coal is dying and it will never get big again. Oil is diminishing and most profits for it out outside the US or to executives. Auto makers lost out because they made really crappy cars for a very long time with a really unmotivated work force and shot down every reform effort that came up. We're never going to have large scale mass manufacturing the way it used to be fifty years ago, so focusing on small scale manufacturing is the smart bet there.
There's nothing that the president or congress can do to force companies to hire expensive workers to make an inferior product that customers don't want to buy. Any candidate promising to bring back the old jobs is lying. A candidate promising to bring new jobs is also probably lying but there's a slight chance that might actually happen.
Yes, the Tea Party was clear and concise in some ways. But vague in others. They are clear and concise that they want to upset the apple cart, get rid of the old guard (Republican or Democrat), and until the change happens they will be obstructionist. They were vastly more organized and disciplined than the Occupy movement. However they are vague in that they don't have a good solid platform of ideals. The original Tea Party people don't even have the same ideas as the later Tea Party movement, pro-reform is not the same as anti-government. The only reason they really side with republicans is because some republican candidates learned to pretend to be one of them.
As for bias, I don't think registering for a party makes one biased one way or the other. Most states require you to check a party box on a form before you're allowed to vote in primaries. That means most people feel that they need to be one party or the other (thus reducing all Americans to being one side or the other like it was just a game). I think perhaps 95% of all voters have no actual party loyalty.
Good business sense to donate to both sides of a campaign, and to ingratiate yourself to a likely winner, and to ingratiate yourself to an actual winner. This has nothing to do with actual politics, it's just basic butt kissing to get the government's favor. And it has happened forever. If people are only now annoyed with this practice maybe they haven't been paying attention, or are annoyed because they assumed business-as-usual would not continue to occur after Trump was elected.
And the reason promises aren't kept is because it can't be done. Politicians say what they think the voters want to hear, first off. And politicians may (rarely) have some actual ideals they want to follow through with. But the president is NOT a dictator. One can not simply close Guantanamo, or build a wall, or give everyone a 20% tax cut across the board. No matter how well the people like a president, the president can not create lots of jobs! A president can nudge policy here and there but are constrained by what congress and the courts will allow, which is a very good thing. A president also cannot print money to pay for things, the president has to beg for money.
About the only things a president really can do are to invade countries and instigate military action (technically not "wars"), and the president can only do that because congress is too scared to refuse it as it makes them look weak to the pro-military voters.
I also like to think that they will keep Obamacare because it's the one issue that got them elected and if Obamacare went away they'd have to actually get off their asses and start governing.
Criminals understand crime better than anyone, but you don't appoint criminals to be chief of police. The problem with banking regulation is that the bankers can not be allowed to regulate themselves, ever, and the actual regulators know that when they leave the SEC that they can get an amazingly high paying job working for the banks. The few regulators who do want to be honest find themselves losing out on promotions at work and being told by their boss that they need to "play ball" and be a team player.
Or there are site wide licenses. So 38 different licenses could means 38 different facilities. For any particular scenario you can think of for a license, it's likely the US government has dealt with that type of license at some point.
Make it clear in the license about how many machines or devices it is allowed to run on. Because no matter how bizarre you think the misunderstanding might be, there are contractors who operate that way and contractors who don't. Every single contract they have is unique. If you're dealing with the government then never ever rely upon them following the common practice used in corporations (best not to even assume corporations follow an unwritten common practice).
We haven't seen the contract so it's just speculation for now. And speculating based upon what happens on PCs or off the shelf software is most likely not even close to the situation here.
So many web devs adamantly support advertising as the way to make money and keep their jobs. So why not support government spying a a means to make money, they've already sold their souls to the advertisers so one more concession shouldn't be a big deal, right? After all government spying at least is not as intrusive as ads, the government actually makes it a point to not clutter up the web pages or interrupt you in the middle of a video, and takes a neutral stance in the war between Budweiser and Coors.
Of course they get counted. What state has laws that allow discarding some votes? They have to be counted before certifying the results. They are not necessarily counted before the news sites predict a winner, but that's a different matter.
This is why a lot of too-close-to-call elections take a few weeks or longer before the result is knows, in some cases the declared winner is not the certified winner.
This is an important point where so many "my vote doesn't count" people forget: the presidential election is just one small part of the larger election cycle. There many more things to vote on, things that have a more direct effect on the voter than the election of a president. Senators, congress, state congress, school boards, judges, propositions, county measures, dog catchers, etc. And yet people still don't bother to vote - we had maybe only half of the eligible voters actually bothering to vote, meaning that Trump really only got 1/4 of the electorate, and Hillary really only got 1/4 of the electorate(and much much less if you only count voters who voted for someone as opposed to voting against someone).
Then of course, *after* the election we have the inevitable protests (don't laugh trump supporters, if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary). I heard one high school protester saying that she needed to feel like she was doing something about the elections. But the election is over, duh, maybe she should have done someting before it was too late? No point in getting all worked up today about it, all that energy will be gone by the time the next election rolls around in two years (which these idiots will ignore because it's not a presidential election), and in four years they'll bit sitting back and apathetic again.
Talking points are by design political. For a news organization you don't want any talking points, either left or right. The current news media in America of any stripe is incapable of doing this, they muddle the line between news and editorializing. Fox News basically revived the old Yellow Journalism style but the other cable news networks have started copying.
Just trying to pinpoint where various anchors stand on the issues makes you a part of the reason that the news media biases the news - they want to keep the viewers happy by presenting what they want to hear instead of giving them the information they need to hear.
Pollsters are another beast. They do polling all year long even when not in an election. Elections are a minor part of their business. The election is when they do their marketing because they're in the spotlight. If they "lie" and get things wrong then they hurt their core business because they lose their customers. They have a vested business interest in being accurate, unlike news media. Since they weren't very accurate they're going to take a big monetary hit.