the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent
Greenland was part of Denmark, and it was the Danish government making these decisions. Denmark was part of NATO and had given Americans permission to establish air bases.
(Note that at the time, Denmark was actively trying to destroy the native Greenland culture.)
The US is also "very mad" that it provided military protection to Greenland and that neither Greenland nor Europe have paid their fair share. Both the US and Greenland will simply have to learn to live with it.
In different words, Greenland: clean it up yourself.
"For the QA Engineer position, from a pool of more than 730 qualified applicants, approximately 77% of whom were asian, Palantir hired six non-Asian applicants and only one Asian applicant. The adverse impact calculated by OFCCP exceeds three standard deviations. The likelihood that this result occurred according to chance is approximately one in 741.
That is, they are making an argument (in statistical terms) about random samples from the population of applicants, and that argument is utterly wrong.
Don't worry, Hillary's campaign staff will simply insert a few more [Smile] and [Cackle] instructions into her scripted appearances and then the Democratic zombie voters will keep following her and doing what they are told.
So your current little bit of pretending to be stupid is suggesting that only people in government can be corrupt! [...] And get a dictionary on the way out.
I notice that you are evidently unable to name any actual instances of where Trump has acted corruptly.
So you think even Hillary is more corrupt than a casino boss? Stop sampling that moonshine!
Given that Donald Trump has never held government office before, I don't see in what way he could have been corrupted. Can you name some specific instances?
Even though 77% of applicants were Asian. So they do not claim that the hirings should be representative of "the population", just that this is an unlikely outcome for a discrimination free selection (actually they claim a chance of 1 in 741).
The argument is bullshit no matter what "the population" refers to (that's why I put it in quotes). Companies select the best applicants from a pool of applicants, not a random subset of people who meet the requirements. That is almost guaranteed to result in a highly biased selection of applicants when you look at gender or cultural background, even in the absence of any bias.
To see how subtle this can be, consider a large applicant pool of equally qualified men and women (on average). If you pick the 7 best applicants, they will almost all be male, yet there is no gender discrimination. Likewise, if you pick the 7 worst applicants, they will also almost all be male. That's because male and female populations have different variances even when they have the same averages. Another counterintuitive property of these kinds of selections is that the law of large numbers works against you: the larger the applicant pool, the more biased the outcome of the selection. That's why Nobel prize winners are overwhelmingly male, and why prisons are also filled primarily with males.
The DOL statisticians aren't stupid, they understand this, which strengthens the case that this is malicious, politically motivated persecution of a political opponent.
I actually bothered to read the Department of Labour's complaint. It's more than just a simply statistical aberration.
The idea that hiring for any company or job should be statistically representative of "the population" is ludicrous in and of itself. Any such enforcement is a farce.
yes, yes, of course, it's all part of the international conspiracy of the media, the bankers, the administration, the IRS, the Mexicans, the Republican leadership, and pretty much everybody else.
No conspiracy needed here; it's the political appointees in the DOL doing what the people that hired them wanted them to do.
36% of those eventually hired across all the job openings within that timeframe were Asian -- a rate that exceeds the percentage of qualified Asian employees in the external labor market,
See, they are guilty after all!
(This is pretty obviously a politically motivated action by the administration, to punish Thiel for supporting libertarian and conservative causes. This will likely be followed by dropping government contracts, whether or not the company is found guilty of any wrongdoing.)
Come on now, the still isn't worth all that much moonshine boy so why are you worrying?
What I'm worried about is that Hillary promises to use this fictitious tax windfall to pay for all the money she is trying to buy votes with, and it's not going to work.
How about, "vote for Hillary, she's not promising to take health insurance away from millions of people from day one"
Unfortunately, Hillary has provided no credible way of fixing health insurance. Instead of fixing health insurance and bringing down costs to European levels, Hillary will continue to do what Obama has done: pay off voters by handing out free stuff, and pay off pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to get their political support.
"vote for Hillary, she's not promising to jeopardize the health, and imprison ("there must be punishment {re: abortion}.. Donald Trump") 1 in 3 women by nominating supreme court justices who will put roe v wade on the "ash heap of history"
69% of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion. Federal and state abortion laws are properly decided by lawmakers, not SCOTUS. Furthermore, most other advanced democracies have stricter restrictions on abortion than the US, while having equal or better health outcomes for women and children. A simple compromise would be to restrict abortion on demand to within the first 24 weeks.
Or how about "vote for Hillary, she realizes climate change is an actual phenomenon, and not a Chinese conspiracy"
Climate change is indeed a real phenomenon. But, again, Hillary has no credible political program for dealing with it. Instead, she is going to use climate change as an excuse for more crony capitalism.
Even if all of that were true (and it isn't even close), it still wouldn't matter. Trump is so vastly worse in every way. Take the blinders off.
No, you need to take your blinders off.
Trump got his wealth through inheritance and business. The Clintons got it through their government jobs and from selling influence. That makes the Clintons much worse.
Trump has said some nasty things and touched some women inappropriately. Bill Clinton has a documented history of violent sexual abuse and credible allegations of rape against him; Hillary viciously attacked Bill's accusers and laughed about being able to get a rapist off the hook.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of things Hillary has done, each of which make her completely unsuitable to be president.
Trump is an inarticulate, incompetent asshole who can't shut up if his life depends on it. Hillary is a manipulative psychopath whose only goal in life is to amass more power and wealth for her family.
I'll give you one thing: Hillary is much more politically competent than Trump. Given how evil she is, that's a bad thing in my book.
In any case, there are other options besides these two.
Trump is his own Billionaire Friend moonshine boy.
(1) This isn't a two-horse race.
(2) The Clintons have a personal fortune of $120 million and control of a multi-billion dollar foundation. And unlike Trump, who at least has some business experience, the Clintons made all their money based on their government jobs and their other wealthy friends.
Again, the idea that Hillary is somehow equivalent to Trump is laughable; her demonstrated level of corruption and crony capitalism is beyond anything ever seen in US politics before.
You do realise that the proposal to raise the estate tax does not come with any proposal to lower the exemption limit, which currently stands at $5.45M. This tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens, you are being misled by the very people who are taking your wealth and lining their pockets with it.
That isn't true. Clinton is, in fact, lowering the threshold for estate taxes from $5.45 to $3.5 million.
You think of $3.5M or $5.45M as cash in the bank, but that's not what this is about. This is about family businesses, and $3.5M is peanuts for the value of a family business. What makes it even worse is that there are many ways of avoiding the estate tax, meaning that people with good lawyers and foresight get out of it while other businesses get destroyed.
In addition, Clinton's claim that this will raise sufficient revenue to pay for her spending are lies. Raising the estate tax wouldn't do that even under optimistic assumptions. More likely, it would encourage so much additional legal tax avoidance that it wouldn't result in any additional revenue.
People are finding that they can't do that any more, largely because of globalism. When a wealth-building country partners with a non-wealth-building country, all the wealth flows out of the great country and into the poor country.
"Globalism" is kind of a meaningless political catch phrase that means whatever they bogeyman du jour happens to be.
"Globalism" that involves agreeing on economic meddling, "globalism" that creates free movement of people into welfare states have the effects that you give, and "globalism" that produces "free trade agreements" that are collections of crony-capitalist and protectionist policies are bad things.
"Globalism" in terms of people being able to buy stuff in other countries and not face import restrictions or tariffs is a good thing.
This entire circus that you're blindly taking at face value is just a distraction from the fact that the two parties do have some meaningful differences
I agree as far as the parties are concerned.
But that doesn't change the fact that we still need to elect a president, someone who can wreck the budget, wreck the lives of millions of Americans, and start wars.
I mean, it seems pretty weird to "not give up on Trump" at this point. You really genuinely want a republican president so badly that you're willing to elect a kiddy fiddler?
Simple: I genuinely don't want Hillary Clinton as president. I think she's a psychopath, and I don't mean that in any figurative sense. The way she has talked about drone attacks on civilians and her casual conversation about getting a rapist off the hook despite knowing full well that he was guilty make that clear. Trump is an incompetent asshole, a ruthless businessman, and a misogynist. I'll take an incompetent asshole over a psychopath any day.
Why the wait? Waiting means your "damning" evidence won't influence all the people voting early, which is a lot of people. There isn't any strategic reason to wait.
Most people don't vote early. Presumably, they are releasing late so that the Clinton campaign doesn't have a chance to counter with an irrelevant ad hominem attack ("he gropes women", "he carries his dog on a roof rack", "he likes Putin").
Hillary's lies about her actions, corruption, and duplicity about her policies, are extremely well documented and are clear facts at this point. You're still free to argue that she is the lesser of two evils, but to pretend that the grievances people have about her are "mud slinging" is out of touch with reality.
So your argument is: "Vote for Hillary, she is possibly no worse than Bush!" Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Neither does "Vote for Hillary, she is not a misogynist."
And even if there were an equivalence between Bush and Hillary on e-mails, that leaves the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's "two positions", and a string of outrageous behavior.
But the foremost problem with Hillary Clinton is the political positions she holds: both the ones her pollsters have crafted for her public appearances and the ones she has crafted to appeal to her billionaire friends and Wall Street buddies. Of course, nobody knows what she really believes, if anything.
European-style government is not national ID cards. We already have a unique identifier for every US citizen - a Social Security Number.
The social security number is not a secure or unique identifier, and it lacks biometric and legal information. More importantly, the social security number is not an ID card: the advantage of an ID card is that the information it contains can be used without a central database. Using the social security number as an identifier, without a physical ID card, is actually what creates the need for centralized databases.
I'd love to hear your proposal for issuing ID cards with zero [national-level] tracking of what cards have been issued, and no way to authenticate the card is valid.
The same way it's been done in Europe: there is a EU-wide standard, but the cards are issued and tracked locally, without a central database (there are also restrictions on private databases containing this information).
These days, the cards are chip cards and digitally signed and secured. The cards contain biometric identifiers together with citizenship information. Anybody wanting to verify someone's identity, age, address, or citizenship can do so, either visually, or (more securely) using a chip reader terminal. You can also use the cards to securely identify yourself for online transactions.
Flipping back through the entire set of links, that's not stated at all. It is implied, but so is the fact that some of these workers will be onsite.
Is this too hard to understand? First link: The University of California is laying off a group of IT workers at its San Francisco campus as part of a plan to move work offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of in the public sector.
The fact that you fall back on literal statements to support your view that they are temporary workers
I'm not "supporting my view"; I'm simply using the correct, official terminology for these workers. And given the nature of their job, I'd expect them to be gone in a year, since they are not actually replacing the staff at UCSF, but just preparing for outsourcing.
You'd be [correct]. In the US, that works through a green card application, or it used to, hence my reference to rolling back immigration laws to that of the 70s.
FTFY. You are agreeing prefectly with me: the US used to give out employment-based green cards in the past, but now it has a two step system that uses the H-1B category as a stage towards skill based immigration. That is, the H-1B category is used for two separate purposes: actual temporary workers, and workers that go on to become permanent residents.
That page already had region selected, specifically for SF. You can go back through the process via "Find Occupations" if you wish to verify all aspects.
No, it didn't. If you dig down into that page, you'll find that there is a link for state level wages, which for that job category have a median of $75k. If you look at the actual labor certification site, there is a mean wage of $83k.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to show anyway. Labor certification requires H-1B salaries to be higher than prevailing wage, and those are the prevailing wages.
Slashdot Mirror
Greenland was part of Denmark, and it was the Danish government making these decisions. Denmark was part of NATO and had given Americans permission to establish air bases.
(Note that at the time, Denmark was actively trying to destroy the native Greenland culture.)
The US is also "very mad" that it provided military protection to Greenland and that neither Greenland nor Europe have paid their fair share. Both the US and Greenland will simply have to learn to live with it.
In different words, Greenland: clean it up yourself.
Here is the argument that the DOL is making:
That is, they are making an argument (in statistical terms) about random samples from the population of applicants, and that argument is utterly wrong.
Don't worry, Hillary's campaign staff will simply insert a few more [Smile] and [Cackle] instructions into her scripted appearances and then the Democratic zombie voters will keep following her and doing what they are told.
Blame Trump for her own lousy security.
Drone-kill Assange.
Start a cyber war with Russia.
I notice that you are evidently unable to name any actual instances of where Trump has acted corruptly.
Given that Donald Trump has never held government office before, I don't see in what way he could have been corrupted. Can you name some specific instances?
The argument is bullshit no matter what "the population" refers to (that's why I put it in quotes). Companies select the best applicants from a pool of applicants, not a random subset of people who meet the requirements. That is almost guaranteed to result in a highly biased selection of applicants when you look at gender or cultural background, even in the absence of any bias.
To see how subtle this can be, consider a large applicant pool of equally qualified men and women (on average). If you pick the 7 best applicants, they will almost all be male, yet there is no gender discrimination. Likewise, if you pick the 7 worst applicants, they will also almost all be male. That's because male and female populations have different variances even when they have the same averages. Another counterintuitive property of these kinds of selections is that the law of large numbers works against you: the larger the applicant pool, the more biased the outcome of the selection. That's why Nobel prize winners are overwhelmingly male, and why prisons are also filled primarily with males.
The DOL statisticians aren't stupid, they understand this, which strengthens the case that this is malicious, politically motivated persecution of a political opponent.
The idea that hiring for any company or job should be statistically representative of "the population" is ludicrous in and of itself. Any such enforcement is a farce.
No conspiracy needed here; it's the political appointees in the DOL doing what the people that hired them wanted them to do.
See, they are guilty after all!
(This is pretty obviously a politically motivated action by the administration, to punish Thiel for supporting libertarian and conservative causes. This will likely be followed by dropping government contracts, whether or not the company is found guilty of any wrongdoing.)
What I'm worried about is that Hillary promises to use this fictitious tax windfall to pay for all the money she is trying to buy votes with, and it's not going to work.
Unfortunately, Hillary has provided no credible way of fixing health insurance. Instead of fixing health insurance and bringing down costs to European levels, Hillary will continue to do what Obama has done: pay off voters by handing out free stuff, and pay off pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to get their political support.
69% of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion. Federal and state abortion laws are properly decided by lawmakers, not SCOTUS. Furthermore, most other advanced democracies have stricter restrictions on abortion than the US, while having equal or better health outcomes for women and children. A simple compromise would be to restrict abortion on demand to within the first 24 weeks.
Climate change is indeed a real phenomenon. But, again, Hillary has no credible political program for dealing with it. Instead, she is going to use climate change as an excuse for more crony capitalism.
No, you need to take your blinders off.
Trump got his wealth through inheritance and business. The Clintons got it through their government jobs and from selling influence. That makes the Clintons much worse.
Trump has said some nasty things and touched some women inappropriately. Bill Clinton has a documented history of violent sexual abuse and credible allegations of rape against him; Hillary viciously attacked Bill's accusers and laughed about being able to get a rapist off the hook.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of things Hillary has done, each of which make her completely unsuitable to be president.
Trump is an inarticulate, incompetent asshole who can't shut up if his life depends on it. Hillary is a manipulative psychopath whose only goal in life is to amass more power and wealth for her family.
I'll give you one thing: Hillary is much more politically competent than Trump. Given how evil she is, that's a bad thing in my book.
In any case, there are other options besides these two.
(1) This isn't a two-horse race.
(2) The Clintons have a personal fortune of $120 million and control of a multi-billion dollar foundation. And unlike Trump, who at least has some business experience, the Clintons made all their money based on their government jobs and their other wealthy friends.
Again, the idea that Hillary is somehow equivalent to Trump is laughable; her demonstrated level of corruption and crony capitalism is beyond anything ever seen in US politics before.
That isn't true. Clinton is, in fact, lowering the threshold for estate taxes from $5.45 to $3.5 million.
You think of $3.5M or $5.45M as cash in the bank, but that's not what this is about. This is about family businesses, and $3.5M is peanuts for the value of a family business. What makes it even worse is that there are many ways of avoiding the estate tax, meaning that people with good lawyers and foresight get out of it while other businesses get destroyed.
In addition, Clinton's claim that this will raise sufficient revenue to pay for her spending are lies. Raising the estate tax wouldn't do that even under optimistic assumptions. More likely, it would encourage so much additional legal tax avoidance that it wouldn't result in any additional revenue.
"Globalism" is kind of a meaningless political catch phrase that means whatever they bogeyman du jour happens to be.
"Globalism" that involves agreeing on economic meddling, "globalism" that creates free movement of people into welfare states have the effects that you give, and "globalism" that produces "free trade agreements" that are collections of crony-capitalist and protectionist policies are bad things.
"Globalism" in terms of people being able to buy stuff in other countries and not face import restrictions or tariffs is a good thing.
I agree as far as the parties are concerned.
But that doesn't change the fact that we still need to elect a president, someone who can wreck the budget, wreck the lives of millions of Americans, and start wars.
Simple: I genuinely don't want Hillary Clinton as president. I think she's a psychopath, and I don't mean that in any figurative sense. The way she has talked about drone attacks on civilians and her casual conversation about getting a rapist off the hook despite knowing full well that he was guilty make that clear. Trump is an incompetent asshole, a ruthless businessman, and a misogynist. I'll take an incompetent asshole over a psychopath any day.
Most people don't vote early. Presumably, they are releasing late so that the Clinton campaign doesn't have a chance to counter with an irrelevant ad hominem attack ("he gropes women", "he carries his dog on a roof rack", "he likes Putin").
Hillary's lies about her actions, corruption, and duplicity about her policies, are extremely well documented and are clear facts at this point. You're still free to argue that she is the lesser of two evils, but to pretend that the grievances people have about her are "mud slinging" is out of touch with reality.
So your argument is: "Vote for Hillary, she is possibly no worse than Bush!" Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Neither does "Vote for Hillary, she is not a misogynist."
And even if there were an equivalence between Bush and Hillary on e-mails, that leaves the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's "two positions", and a string of outrageous behavior.
But the foremost problem with Hillary Clinton is the political positions she holds: both the ones her pollsters have crafted for her public appearances and the ones she has crafted to appeal to her billionaire friends and Wall Street buddies. Of course, nobody knows what she really believes, if anything.
I'm sorry, but you're simply a crackpot. You don't understand the basics of either economics or psychology.
The social security number is not a secure or unique identifier, and it lacks biometric and legal information. More importantly, the social security number is not an ID card: the advantage of an ID card is that the information it contains can be used without a central database. Using the social security number as an identifier, without a physical ID card, is actually what creates the need for centralized databases.
The same way it's been done in Europe: there is a EU-wide standard, but the cards are issued and tracked locally, without a central database (there are also restrictions on private databases containing this information).
These days, the cards are chip cards and digitally signed and secured. The cards contain biometric identifiers together with citizenship information. Anybody wanting to verify someone's identity, age, address, or citizenship can do so, either visually, or (more securely) using a chip reader terminal. You can also use the cards to securely identify yourself for online transactions.
Is this too hard to understand? First link: The University of California is laying off a group of IT workers at its San Francisco campus as part of a plan to move work offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of in the public sector.
I'm not "supporting my view"; I'm simply using the correct, official terminology for these workers. And given the nature of their job, I'd expect them to be gone in a year, since they are not actually replacing the staff at UCSF, but just preparing for outsourcing.
FTFY. You are agreeing prefectly with me: the US used to give out employment-based green cards in the past, but now it has a two step system that uses the H-1B category as a stage towards skill based immigration. That is, the H-1B category is used for two separate purposes: actual temporary workers, and workers that go on to become permanent residents.
No, it didn't. If you dig down into that page, you'll find that there is a link for state level wages, which for that job category have a median of $75k. If you look at the actual labor certification site, there is a mean wage of $83k.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to show anyway. Labor certification requires H-1B salaries to be higher than prevailing wage, and those are the prevailing wages.