Since when does the Left give a shit about the deplorables? You actively hate the population of the USA. The long-term success of the USA is the worst thing that could ever happen.
Keep telling yourself that while you vote for the very party that want to impoverish ordinary people and the USA.
There's a new group loosely called "populists", which are being elected under the guise of Republicans at the moment. These are the ones who put the welfare of the citizens ahead of everything else.
I have a bridge to sell you, and some fine land in Florida.
Seriously, they really have conned you, haven't they?
These populists are blowhards who are supported by ultra-wealthy interests, who pander to the worst instincts of low information voters. People who want to impose their own will on others in many aspects of life. People who think that they alone have the framework for a moral life, rejecting any competing ideas.
Just look at the tax plan: promoted by the biggest populist of them all: Donald Trump. It's a huge bung to ultra-wealthy, a minor tax cut for a few middle-class people, and a tax increase for many other middle class people.
McConnell demanded that Moore leave the election, and told Moore that even if he won he would be immediately ousted from the Senate. All based on accusations, many which have been shown to be fraudulent.
Well, there are two problems with that.
1. Even if some of the accusations are fraudulent (and none have been proven to be so), others remain. Moore didn't even deny all the allegations.
2. McConnell is also the enemy. You support the Republicans despite their policies being aimed to impoverish ordinary people and put your faith in people who are even more right-wing, even more determined to impoverish ordinary people.
... and in turn, reduces the number of intelligent, motivated and educated foreign students who will move to the USA.
In turn the workforce will become less educated, productivity will drop and the USA will slide down the wealth tables.
The influence of the USA worldwide will also reduce because there will be fewer students who get an advanced education in the USA and return to their home country, taking with them American values and mind share.
What this really shows is that the Republicans and their wealthy donors don't give a shit about the USA. This assault on education will impact the long term success of the USA in many ways.
That's right: the very people who benefit from a strong economy (the top 0.1%) don't give a shit about the long term future of the USA. They plan to milk it then (mixing metaphors) abandon ship.
I don't know what is the next country they plan to milk and screw over -- perhaps China? This is what is going on in Brazil right now and the result is large numbers of people living in the hovels they call favellas.
Companies flee California for a reason. So do the residents.
And from another post:
Pretty much. I could throw $1000 into the fire pit right now. I would end up sleeping on the couch for the next year, but it's entirely doable for me.
As I suggested in my other post, you are unsuccessful in life, yet you feel qualified to criticise life in California. If losing $1000 puts you on couches for a year, you are dirt poor, and it's not just because you are a young adult: your/. id number shows that you are middle aged, at least.
Come back and criticise California when you haven't failed at life.
So how would you characterise the actions of the US gymnastics team doctor who told young female team members that he was performing a normal and necessary medical treatment on them?
Want to solve the world's problems? Educate people to have fewer children, worldwide. Pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today, pollution, war, economic problems, stems from overpopulation.
Well, the GOP is working to make education levels in other countries equal to that in the USA. The problem is that their approach to this is to lower education levels in the USA.
The most recent example of this is the proposed taxation of tuition waivers for graduate students.
When I first moved to the USA, there were a number of British English words that were largely unknown in the USA. Now, they appear to be understood, if not in common use. For example: "loo".
So how do we know that any other present or future reactors don't have problems of a similar magnitude?
ROI drives decisions the world over. There is nothing unique about this in Fukushima.
From what I read, the safety measures at Fukushima were considered to be acceptable before the tsunami, but what was not accounted for was that the whole island dropped in elevation, so the effects of the wave were greater than could have been imagined.
How many other reactors are there where a catastrophic event may exceed the design parameters?
The problem is that the consequences of a single nuclear accident are huge.
I was partly blaming the operators at Chernobyl for the attitude of people against nuclear power. Do you really think that the ordinary person knows the details?
The operators screwed up and caused a disaster. People don't like disasters, especially the ones that make places uninhabitable for decades. It matters none that it was a special case.
The problem with nuclear power is that, as a society, we can't afford many special cases.
I am sure that nuclear reactors can be built that are safe and operated safely. The issue is whether this can be done cost-effectively. Yes, regulator compliance pushes up the costs, but how safe is a nuclear reactor where there is no or little regulatory oversight and the builders want to control costs?
Slashdot Mirror
No one?
Former H1B holder here. I did just this and I know plenty other people who did this.
The real issue is the Green Card process. I had to abandon one Green Card application and start another.
The other rely to this post is also wrong. The employer that you are leaving does not have to agree, they have no say in the matter.
Google and Facebook don't even need a deal.
Who is going to sign up for an Internet plan in which Google and Facebook don't work well?
If they had just put the backup generators on higher ground, things would not have been as bad.
And the additional thyroid and other cancers over the lifespan of the people living there? What about that?
Perhaps they don't care.
Perhaps the real mission is subjugating the population, not anything related to strengthening the USA.
Keep telling yourself that while you vote for the very party that want to impoverish ordinary people and the USA.
I have a bridge to sell you, and some fine land in Florida.
Seriously, they really have conned you, haven't they?
These populists are blowhards who are supported by ultra-wealthy interests, who pander to the worst instincts of low information voters. People who want to impose their own will on others in many aspects of life. People who think that they alone have the framework for a moral life, rejecting any competing ideas.
Just look at the tax plan: promoted by the biggest populist of them all: Donald Trump. It's a huge bung to ultra-wealthy, a minor tax cut for a few middle-class people, and a tax increase for many other middle class people.
Well, there are two problems with that.
1. Even if some of the accusations are fraudulent (and none have been proven to be so), others remain. Moore didn't even deny all the allegations.
2. McConnell is also the enemy. You support the Republicans despite their policies being aimed to impoverish ordinary people and put your faith in people who are even more right-wing, even more determined to impoverish ordinary people.
... and in turn, reduces the number of intelligent, motivated and educated foreign students who will move to the USA.
In turn the workforce will become less educated, productivity will drop and the USA will slide down the wealth tables.
The influence of the USA worldwide will also reduce because there will be fewer students who get an advanced education in the USA and return to their home country, taking with them American values and mind share.
What this really shows is that the Republicans and their wealthy donors don't give a shit about the USA. This assault on education will impact the long term success of the USA in many ways.
That's right: the very people who benefit from a strong economy (the top 0.1%) don't give a shit about the long term future of the USA. They plan to milk it then (mixing metaphors) abandon ship.
I don't know what is the next country they plan to milk and screw over -- perhaps China? This is what is going on in Brazil right now and the result is large numbers of people living in the hovels they call favellas.
And from another post:
As I suggested in my other post, you are unsuccessful in life, yet you feel qualified to criticise life in California. If losing $1000 puts you on couches for a year, you are dirt poor, and it's not just because you are a young adult: your /. id number shows that you are middle aged, at least.
Come back and criticise California when you haven't failed at life.
An old, tired and false argument.
You sound like someone who knows they don't have the ability to be successful in California.
Don't forget that, although California has the highest debt, that is largely because California has more people and a higher GDP than any other state.
California debt/GDP ratio is in the middle of the pack amongst US states.
So how would you characterise the actions of the US gymnastics team doctor who told young female team members that he was performing a normal and necessary medical treatment on them?
Possibly, but did you stop to consider how many British people live in the USA and have become naturalised US citizens?
The foreign income exclusion doesn't exist.
There is a "Foreign earned income exclusion". Do fee waivers count as earned income? I don't know, but it would be important.
Well, the GOP is working to make education levels in other countries equal to that in the USA. The problem is that their approach to this is to lower education levels in the USA.
The most recent example of this is the proposed taxation of tuition waivers for graduate students.
Ah, memories. I did this as an adult on my first trip to the USA, except, just like the girl in your story, I did not use the word "eraser".
That example doesn't show a change in speech. The "y" in that use is actually a "thorn" and is pronounced like "th".
Courgette (French) / zucchini (Italian)?
Then there is aubergine (French, again) / eggplant.
When I first moved to the USA, there were a number of British English words that were largely unknown in the USA. Now, they appear to be understood, if not in common use. For example: "loo".
According to my decades-old Oxford English Dictionary, typically both endings are acceptable, with the "-ize" ending preferred.
So the ise/ize endings are an example where British English has diverged from American English in recent times.
So how do we know that any other present or future reactors don't have problems of a similar magnitude?
ROI drives decisions the world over. There is nothing unique about this in Fukushima.
From what I read, the safety measures at Fukushima were considered to be acceptable before the tsunami, but what was not accounted for was that the whole island dropped in elevation, so the effects of the wave were greater than could have been imagined.
How many other reactors are there where a catastrophic event may exceed the design parameters?
The problem is that the consequences of a single nuclear accident are huge.
So, basically, reducing regulations only matter when it affects large Republican donors?
So, basically, your argument style is: ...La ... La... I can't hear you, but here is what I said before"
"La
Just because you repeat something that you said before does not make it any more true or relevant.
I don't think that you have followed the thread.
I was partly blaming the operators at Chernobyl for the attitude of people against nuclear power. Do you really think that the ordinary person knows the details?
The operators screwed up and caused a disaster. People don't like disasters, especially the ones that make places uninhabitable for decades. It matters none that it was a special case.
The problem with nuclear power is that, as a society, we can't afford many special cases.
I am sure that nuclear reactors can be built that are safe and operated safely. The issue is whether this can be done cost-effectively. Yes, regulator compliance pushes up the costs, but how safe is a nuclear reactor where there is no or little regulatory oversight and the builders want to control costs?