I take a more expansive view of history, that anything old is part of history. As many of the statues are old they seem to qualify. The statues are of real historical figures, so it's not a case of "fake history". At most you dislike what they represent or perhaps how they got there. However scrubbing the world of what one doesn't agree with seems futile. I see removing statues as a form of trying to show doing something, yet it really changes nothing.
In Germany we memorialize the victims, not the criminals. That is the better method. The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
Yes, destroy all history you don't like - just like the Taliban. After all if you personally decide it's not worthy then that's enough.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately the forces of political correctness, as they discourage actual thought that is consistent, see it otherwise. The most recent victim is:
https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/...
Your original claim was that "The Democrats openly dislike and work against them [white people]". Your cites included one from someone who wasn't necessarily a Democrat, and one a call for diversity that may have gone too far. Let's see, that's jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, five yards, using it as an ad hominem, ten yards, changing the topic ten yards, that's twenty-five yards, still second down.
As far as "the qualifications be related to the job" goes, there is solid evidence that white-appearing males tend to get interviews over others of similar qualifications. How do you know that all the white guys were hired because they were the best qualified?
To be honest you only confirm my opinion. You describe blatant law breaking as "a call for diversity that may have gone too far". Not even did go too far, as it clearly did, just a maybe. I wonder what it would take for you to consider it as too far. Regarding your subtle implication that the existing white workers were maybe not qualified, they must have been. After all the leadership there is clearly against them and wants to see straight white applicants filtered out of the hiring process. Since you seem to want more citations here are a few:
I'm reminded of an old college professor of mine who was so frustrated one day. He was a solid liberal (big surprise for a college professor I know) and had always been a fan of affirmative action and the like as he always figured that it impacted someone other than him and was for the greater good. Anyway his son had just graduated from the fire academy and was second in his class having just barely missed top cadet. However he couldn't find a job. The people being most aggressively recruited were minorities and especially women. He was stunned that affirmative action could produce bad outcomes. He was equally outraged that his son was discriminated against on the basis of his skin color or gender. Me personally, when I think of a fire I want the best possible, most qualified candidate to be in charge of rescuing me or my family. I don't want the quota who is less qualified.
I'm neither a D nor an R but in general I think being a straight white male means Democrats dislike me. Not literally every Democrat, but enough that I can't get behind them. They choose illegal immigrants kids (AKA dreamers) over actual citizens like my kids. They mistake the 1% being largely white for all white people are the 1% and have it easy. Indeed it's because they don't want the best person for the job and instead want to play social engineer that I want government to be as small as possible. They have clearly chosen their side and I'm not it.
I agree with that, but giving illegal immigrants amnesty does improve the situation. What illegal immigration mostly does is create a pool of abusable labor that can be paid peanuts and treated illegally without the laborer having recourse.
Removing the illegals would also get rid of the pool of people vulnerable to abuse. It would also help deter future illegals. Amnesty creates a moral hazard - ie you broke the law and were rewarded. Expect more illegals, not less, if you give amnesty. Thus defeating the goal of removing the pool of people vulnerable to abuse.
...Currently, such employment would be mostly make-work, since we can't efficiently use large numbers of low-skill people, and the skills they learned wouldn't get them a decent living.
This is one reason why mass illegal immigration should be resisted, not given amnesty. They are by definition low skill people whose limited skills won't get them a decent living. Moreover they make life even harder for the low skill people that we already have here. Many downsides just so that the upper middle class and the rich get low cost gardeners and housekeepers.
Speaking as a white person, I find the Democrats to be welcoming and helpful. Your first cite is an attempt by the DNC to get diversity in its employee base. They've already got enough cisgender straight white men, and would prefer not to increase that. Your second is a quote from an ex-Sanders aide, and I'll remind you that Sanders is not a Democrat.
In other words, the Democratic Party is just fine for whites who don't insist on keeping supremacy.
You do realize that it's illegal to attempt to get diversity by excluding people upfront right? I don't think it's "white supremacy" to ask that the qualifications be related to the job and not which protected class you are. I see your subtle dig where you imply that anyone who disagrees with you must be promoting white supremacy. If excluding people who you have enough of is "diversity" and implying that disagreeing with excluding people is "keeping white supremacy", and all that is what you call welcoming and helpful, I'll pass.
We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
To be fair who else is a white person to vote for? The Democrats openly dislike and work against them (citation below). Seriously, this is like David Duke wondering why he doesn't get the black vote.
The Paris Climate Agreement contains no enforcement mechanisms. That means it was created so countries could say they were doing something without having to actually do anything. We have been down this road before a couple times. So how is an unenforceable agreement going to "save the planet?" Its previous versions didn't.
You're taking it at face value. Even the UN admits the Paris deal is a fraud. Of course enforcement is a fraud. Of course the US is the only country required to actually do anything. Meanwhile China has more emissions than anyone yet gets special status. The treaty was all about virtue signalling and vague promises that were never intended to be delivered on while piling on the US. The only good thing about the US declining is that when the world police goes away the world will get to go to hell. Have fun with China calling the shots.
Regardless of the merits of the detailed examples, a lot of the article just struct me as saying, "If it's not from Disney you can't trust it!" Never mind your local children book authors! They may be up to something no good! CONSUME ONLY DISNEY.
The days of Disney being family friendly are long gone. Now all you see are very snarky kids shows with the lamest stereotypes and PC garbage. Disney traded in wholesome family entertainment for the Hollywood crowd.
I think that already happened with racism, news in general, and even Nazis. It's bad enough that you put up a poster that says "it's OK to be white" or "all lives matter" and it's a problem. The end is getting pretty near.
Why not? If I never see the money because it goes straight to state taxes, why should I have to pay taxes on that money?
I'll have more sympathy for this argument when it gets applied to child support. The tax system is thoroughly broken and puts incentives in the wrong places.
Then again, the US in general is too big and needs to be split. The economies and value systems are too different between the left coast and the "flyover" states. Both sides would likely be happier if they can *peacefully* split.
That's absurd. It's actually easier than just about any other dealing you will have with the government.
Assume you live in your current state. You were born in a neighboring state (pick one). Due to chaotic life events common to the poor, you've lost most of your possessions, including your expired driver's license, birth certificate, and all other forms of ID. You are living in a room you rent (no utility bills), and obviously don't have a vehicle.
This is not an uncommon circumstance for the poor, btw.
Now, look up what you would require to get state photo ID.
Still think it's easy?
I think that if you can't even get ID together then you've shown a *complete* inability to do basic tasks. Why would you advocate for such a person to vote? I take voting seriously enough to consider a minimum standard. While I agree that the minimum standard shouldn't be too high ID easily is met by that. Moreover, how do you suggest preventing fraud? What's to keep me from voting dozens of times? Or volunteering for voting booth duty and then filling in all the unclaimed ballots? Some level of fraud preventing is necessary to prevent things like having 3.5M more registered voters than citizens:
If you must be a "productive member of society" to vote, that's practically the definition of a poll tax.
In the US, our Constitution defines birth under specific conditions as the "minimum level of participation required to be a citizen". If you don't like that definition, then jump through the required hoops to change the Constitution and quit asking for a lower hurdle.
There are simple solutions, like giving away ID cards for free. In truth, I doubt that would placate you as the real issue is elsewhere. I doubt the constitution will be changed as we can't even agree on basic standards - fox example proving you are who you say to vote. What I call common sense you, and others like you, call voter suppression. I'm holding out hope for US 2.0, which with a bit of luck will be a peaceful fragmentation not unlike the Soviet Union breaking up into more manageable countries.
That's absurd. It's actually easier than just about any other dealing you will have with the government. Moreover any even marginally productive member of society would already have ID. Your statement is false and fatuous.
If you don't drive, are poor and can't get credit what piece of ID would you have?
What you are probably unaware of is that states also issue ID. It looks just like a drivers license in California other than it says "Identification" instead of "Drivers License". It's easier to get as it doesn't require a test like a drivers license would.
There are many parts of the USA that are essentially third world. Voter ID laws mean that people from these places won't be able to vote so their areas can then be further ignored.
The parts of the US most like a third world are the immigrant heavy portions where all the signs are in a foreign language. They get catered to by us translating all government documents into the language of their choice.
Lets be adults for a moment. Would you agree that there is a minimum level of participation required to be a citizen? Unless you say no and have no standards then I think we can agree that getting ID is part of that minimum. If someone cannot be bothered to even have ID I have no issue calling that person unqualified to vote. The fact that on average a higher percentage of certain minorities lack ID says more about those groups than anything else. There is no racism stopping them from getting ID, "the man" isn't keeping them from getting ID, only they are keeping themselves from getting ID. If they want to vote, it's a small price to pay.
People call it racist when you require any ID at all. If someone cannot be bothered to even have ID why on Earth would you trust them with voting? It boggles the mind.
...Further, the USA has barely scratched the surface of its mineral resources. We have confirmed rare-earth metals and lithium deposits we aren't touching -- because China is mining away just fine for cheaper than it'd be worth for us to bother... especially considering the environmental impact of mining in our own back yards.
I hope you don't mean the ones in California. Mining is a real industry that produces more than electrons. That's just the kind of thing that California hates and has largely chased / exported to China. Illegals are welcome but industry is despised and pushed out. I suspect it won't end well.
My observation is that wealth transfers are focused on the poor while the middle class gets little relief thus the gap between middle class and poor shrinks. Already in many states it makes more sense to be on welfare than work (citation below). Between the subsidized health care, no-copay medical, free phones, free food, and other perks the poor may on paper make less than the middle class yet really do as well or better. Meanwhile the 1% soar ever higher because once you have all the money you need the balance goes into more money making investments. When the (former) middle class revolts this will not end well.
Do non-english speaking "types" have the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency? Does antifa have so much as a single seat in any state legislature? Who's the one talking about marginal boogeymen, and who's talking about a group that has near-total control of government?
I live in California. The inmates I mock very much run the asylum. So while you fear Christians being authoritarian dicks I get to see daily just what liberals do in that position. I see the hypocrisy of saying that you support mass immigration then going to pricey neighborhoods that only have illegals around for lawn and housekeeping. I see people complain about the high cost of housing but not being bright enough to figure out that letting in another few million will only hurt that. Same argument applies to traffic as another few million on the road won't help anyone's commute. I'll take my chances with the Christians any day.
Ever check what the Christian Right has in store for America? It is not much different than what Islam would like to do to America.
Christians and Muslims are fine, until they become overwhelming majorities. Then they turn into authoritarian dicks.
Ah yes the Christian right boogeyman. Way worse than an America full of illegal non-English speaking types waving other countries flags. Far worse than Antifa beating anyone they suspect of being wrong in their eyes. And the horrors of only two bathrooms... how would one ever live under such oppression? Far better that we shout down anyone who disagrees with our benevolent view and prevent them from even speaking lest anyone believe their blasphemy.
China's main political push right now is preventing societal instability...
In contrast to the US, where identity politics are the norm and people are constantly barraged with how someone is keeping someone else down. China prospers while the US courts a second civil war.
Let me ask you a question since you feel that populous states should set the tune for everyone. Are you OK with the non-populous states who you will bully with your numbers from leaving? Can, say, Idaho leave the Union? The issue of more populous states bullying smaller states is exactly why the senate is 2 per state vs the House which is by population. If you want to change the rules are you OK with letting less populated states leave in peace?
Hopefully the right 1% of people change their mind before the next election.
The 1% I keep hearing about is trying their best to pillage the country before it tanks, so you'll have to look in other areas. Still though if you're thinking that importing tens of millions of low skilled people who don't speak English will help then I'd love to hear your explanation. Immigration is actually kinda simple - unskilled labor hurts a country and high skilled labor helps. The "best and brightest" Elon Musk types help while the far more common unskilled non-English speaker only hurts. This is both what the research finds and it makes sense at a basic level as well.
H1B could be solved in an afternoon by auctioning off the permits instead of a lottery. Those companies that *really* wanted a particular person could bid higher get their key person while the issue of paying below market wages issue would be dealt with immediately. As a bonus it would reduce the deficit since the revenue from the program would be higher.
No, you dumb fuck. Good, decent people know the law has nothing to do with whether an act is moral, good, or decent. Appealing to the law as the ultimate arbiter if moral good is something only shitty assholes do. Like you.
If only we could appoint you supreme ruler of the US and you could personally decide what is right or wrong. You're as silly as the Antifa crowd beating people in the name of suppressing their own type of behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
I take a more expansive view of history, that anything old is part of history. As many of the statues are old they seem to qualify. The statues are of real historical figures, so it's not a case of "fake history". At most you dislike what they represent or perhaps how they got there. However scrubbing the world of what one doesn't agree with seems futile. I see removing statues as a form of trying to show doing something, yet it really changes nothing.
In Germany we memorialize the victims, not the criminals. That is the better method. The majority of the confederate statues are not from the US civil war but from the era of the fight for civil rights. They functioned as intended then, as threats to the people fighting to be equals. That is why now they have no history worth saving, and must be destroyed to destroy the last vestige of implied approval for segregationist idiocy.
Yes, destroy all history you don't like - just like the Taliban. After all if you personally decide it's not worthy then that's enough.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately the forces of political correctness, as they discourage actual thought that is consistent, see it otherwise. The most recent victim is: https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/...
Your original claim was that "The Democrats openly dislike and work against them [white people]". Your cites included one from someone who wasn't necessarily a Democrat, and one a call for diversity that may have gone too far. Let's see, that's jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, five yards, using it as an ad hominem, ten yards, changing the topic ten yards, that's twenty-five yards, still second down.
As far as "the qualifications be related to the job" goes, there is solid evidence that white-appearing males tend to get interviews over others of similar qualifications. How do you know that all the white guys were hired because they were the best qualified?
To be honest you only confirm my opinion. You describe blatant law breaking as "a call for diversity that may have gone too far". Not even did go too far, as it clearly did, just a maybe. I wonder what it would take for you to consider it as too far. Regarding your subtle implication that the existing white workers were maybe not qualified, they must have been. After all the leadership there is clearly against them and wants to see straight white applicants filtered out of the hiring process. Since you seem to want more citations here are a few:
https://www.realclearpolitics.... https://www.theguardian.com/us... http://www.newsweek.com/white-... plus the free pass they give extremeists from Black Panthers, La Raza, Antifa, and other shameful organizations that would all qualify as bad to the media if they were trying to help white people.
I'm reminded of an old college professor of mine who was so frustrated one day. He was a solid liberal (big surprise for a college professor I know) and had always been a fan of affirmative action and the like as he always figured that it impacted someone other than him and was for the greater good. Anyway his son had just graduated from the fire academy and was second in his class having just barely missed top cadet. However he couldn't find a job. The people being most aggressively recruited were minorities and especially women. He was stunned that affirmative action could produce bad outcomes. He was equally outraged that his son was discriminated against on the basis of his skin color or gender. Me personally, when I think of a fire I want the best possible, most qualified candidate to be in charge of rescuing me or my family. I don't want the quota who is less qualified.
I'm neither a D nor an R but in general I think being a straight white male means Democrats dislike me. Not literally every Democrat, but enough that I can't get behind them. They choose illegal immigrants kids (AKA dreamers) over actual citizens like my kids. They mistake the 1% being largely white for all white people are the 1% and have it easy. Indeed it's because they don't want the best person for the job and instead want to play social engineer that I want government to be as small as possible. They have clearly chosen their side and I'm not it.
I agree with that, but giving illegal immigrants amnesty does improve the situation. What illegal immigration mostly does is create a pool of abusable labor that can be paid peanuts and treated illegally without the laborer having recourse.
Removing the illegals would also get rid of the pool of people vulnerable to abuse. It would also help deter future illegals. Amnesty creates a moral hazard - ie you broke the law and were rewarded. Expect more illegals, not less, if you give amnesty. Thus defeating the goal of removing the pool of people vulnerable to abuse.
...Currently, such employment would be mostly make-work, since we can't efficiently use large numbers of low-skill people, and the skills they learned wouldn't get them a decent living.
This is one reason why mass illegal immigration should be resisted, not given amnesty. They are by definition low skill people whose limited skills won't get them a decent living. Moreover they make life even harder for the low skill people that we already have here. Many downsides just so that the upper middle class and the rich get low cost gardeners and housekeepers.
Speaking as a white person, I find the Democrats to be welcoming and helpful. Your first cite is an attempt by the DNC to get diversity in its employee base. They've already got enough cisgender straight white men, and would prefer not to increase that. Your second is a quote from an ex-Sanders aide, and I'll remind you that Sanders is not a Democrat.
In other words, the Democratic Party is just fine for whites who don't insist on keeping supremacy.
You do realize that it's illegal to attempt to get diversity by excluding people upfront right? I don't think it's "white supremacy" to ask that the qualifications be related to the job and not which protected class you are. I see your subtle dig where you imply that anyone who disagrees with you must be promoting white supremacy. If excluding people who you have enough of is "diversity" and implying that disagreeing with excluding people is "keeping white supremacy", and all that is what you call welcoming and helpful, I'll pass.
We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
To be fair who else is a white person to vote for? The Democrats openly dislike and work against them (citation below). Seriously, this is like David Duke wondering why he doesn't get the black vote.
Citations: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/...
The Paris Climate Agreement contains no enforcement mechanisms. That means it was created so countries could say they were doing something without having to actually do anything. We have been down this road before a couple times. So how is an unenforceable agreement going to "save the planet?" Its previous versions didn't.
You're taking it at face value. Even the UN admits the Paris deal is a fraud. Of course enforcement is a fraud. Of course the US is the only country required to actually do anything. Meanwhile China has more emissions than anyone yet gets special status. The treaty was all about virtue signalling and vague promises that were never intended to be delivered on while piling on the US. The only good thing about the US declining is that when the world police goes away the world will get to go to hell. Have fun with China calling the shots.
Citation: https://www.investors.com/poli...
Regardless of the merits of the detailed examples, a lot of the article just struct me as saying, "If it's not from Disney you can't trust it!" Never mind your local children book authors! They may be up to something no good! CONSUME ONLY DISNEY.
The days of Disney being family friendly are long gone. Now all you see are very snarky kids shows with the lamest stereotypes and PC garbage. Disney traded in wholesome family entertainment for the Hollywood crowd.
I think that already happened with racism, news in general, and even Nazis. It's bad enough that you put up a poster that says "it's OK to be white" or "all lives matter" and it's a problem. The end is getting pretty near.
Why not? If I never see the money because it goes straight to state taxes, why should I have to pay taxes on that money?
I'll have more sympathy for this argument when it gets applied to child support. The tax system is thoroughly broken and puts incentives in the wrong places. Then again, the US in general is too big and needs to be split. The economies and value systems are too different between the left coast and the "flyover" states. Both sides would likely be happier if they can *peacefully* split.
Assume you live in your current state. You were born in a neighboring state (pick one). Due to chaotic life events common to the poor, you've lost most of your possessions, including your expired driver's license, birth certificate, and all other forms of ID. You are living in a room you rent (no utility bills), and obviously don't have a vehicle.
This is not an uncommon circumstance for the poor, btw.
Now, look up what you would require to get state photo ID.
Still think it's easy?
I think that if you can't even get ID together then you've shown a *complete* inability to do basic tasks. Why would you advocate for such a person to vote? I take voting seriously enough to consider a minimum standard. While I agree that the minimum standard shouldn't be too high ID easily is met by that. Moreover, how do you suggest preventing fraud? What's to keep me from voting dozens of times? Or volunteering for voting booth duty and then filling in all the unclaimed ballots? Some level of fraud preventing is necessary to prevent things like having 3.5M more registered voters than citizens:
https://www.investors.com/poli...
If you must be a "productive member of society" to vote, that's practically the definition of a poll tax.
In the US, our Constitution defines birth under specific conditions as the "minimum level of participation required to be a citizen". If you don't like that definition, then jump through the required hoops to change the Constitution and quit asking for a lower hurdle.
There are simple solutions, like giving away ID cards for free. In truth, I doubt that would placate you as the real issue is elsewhere. I doubt the constitution will be changed as we can't even agree on basic standards - fox example proving you are who you say to vote. What I call common sense you, and others like you, call voter suppression. I'm holding out hope for US 2.0, which with a bit of luck will be a peaceful fragmentation not unlike the Soviet Union breaking up into more manageable countries.
Because getting ID in the USA is hard.
That's absurd. It's actually easier than just about any other dealing you will have with the government. Moreover any even marginally productive member of society would already have ID. Your statement is false and fatuous.
If you don't drive, are poor and can't get credit what piece of ID would you have?
What you are probably unaware of is that states also issue ID. It looks just like a drivers license in California other than it says "Identification" instead of "Drivers License". It's easier to get as it doesn't require a test like a drivers license would.
There are many parts of the USA that are essentially third world. Voter ID laws mean that people from these places won't be able to vote so their areas can then be further ignored.
The parts of the US most like a third world are the immigrant heavy portions where all the signs are in a foreign language. They get catered to by us translating all government documents into the language of their choice.
Lets be adults for a moment. Would you agree that there is a minimum level of participation required to be a citizen? Unless you say no and have no standards then I think we can agree that getting ID is part of that minimum. If someone cannot be bothered to even have ID I have no issue calling that person unqualified to vote. The fact that on average a higher percentage of certain minorities lack ID says more about those groups than anything else. There is no racism stopping them from getting ID, "the man" isn't keeping them from getting ID, only they are keeping themselves from getting ID. If they want to vote, it's a small price to pay.
People call it racist when you require any ID at all. If someone cannot be bothered to even have ID why on Earth would you trust them with voting? It boggles the mind.
...Further, the USA has barely scratched the surface of its mineral resources. We have confirmed rare-earth metals and lithium deposits we aren't touching -- because China is mining away just fine for cheaper than it'd be worth for us to bother... especially considering the environmental impact of mining in our own back yards.
I hope you don't mean the ones in California. Mining is a real industry that produces more than electrons. That's just the kind of thing that California hates and has largely chased / exported to China. Illegals are welcome but industry is despised and pushed out. I suspect it won't end well.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/cul...
Do non-english speaking "types" have the majority in both houses of congress and the presidency? Does antifa have so much as a single seat in any state legislature? Who's the one talking about marginal boogeymen, and who's talking about a group that has near-total control of government?
I live in California. The inmates I mock very much run the asylum. So while you fear Christians being authoritarian dicks I get to see daily just what liberals do in that position. I see the hypocrisy of saying that you support mass immigration then going to pricey neighborhoods that only have illegals around for lawn and housekeeping. I see people complain about the high cost of housing but not being bright enough to figure out that letting in another few million will only hurt that. Same argument applies to traffic as another few million on the road won't help anyone's commute. I'll take my chances with the Christians any day.
Ever check what the Christian Right has in store for America? It is not much different than what Islam would like to do to America.
Christians and Muslims are fine, until they become overwhelming majorities. Then they turn into authoritarian dicks.
Ah yes the Christian right boogeyman. Way worse than an America full of illegal non-English speaking types waving other countries flags. Far worse than Antifa beating anyone they suspect of being wrong in their eyes. And the horrors of only two bathrooms ... how would one ever live under such oppression? Far better that we shout down anyone who disagrees with our benevolent view and prevent them from even speaking lest anyone believe their blasphemy.
China's main political push right now is preventing societal instability...
In contrast to the US, where identity politics are the norm and people are constantly barraged with how someone is keeping someone else down. China prospers while the US courts a second civil war.
Let me ask you a question since you feel that populous states should set the tune for everyone. Are you OK with the non-populous states who you will bully with your numbers from leaving? Can, say, Idaho leave the Union? The issue of more populous states bullying smaller states is exactly why the senate is 2 per state vs the House which is by population. If you want to change the rules are you OK with letting less populated states leave in peace?
Hopefully the right 1% of people change their mind before the next election.
The 1% I keep hearing about is trying their best to pillage the country before it tanks, so you'll have to look in other areas. Still though if you're thinking that importing tens of millions of low skilled people who don't speak English will help then I'd love to hear your explanation. Immigration is actually kinda simple - unskilled labor hurts a country and high skilled labor helps. The "best and brightest" Elon Musk types help while the far more common unskilled non-English speaker only hurts. This is both what the research finds and it makes sense at a basic level as well.
H1B could be solved in an afternoon by auctioning off the permits instead of a lottery. Those companies that *really* wanted a particular person could bid higher get their key person while the issue of paying below market wages issue would be dealt with immediately. As a bonus it would reduce the deficit since the revenue from the program would be higher.
No, you dumb fuck. Good, decent people know the law has nothing to do with whether an act is moral, good, or decent. Appealing to the law as the ultimate arbiter if moral good is something only shitty assholes do. Like you.
If only we could appoint you supreme ruler of the US and you could personally decide what is right or wrong. You're as silly as the Antifa crowd beating people in the name of suppressing their own type of behavior.