The L-1 visa facilitates the temporary transfer of foreign worker in the managerial, executive or specialized knowledge category to the U.S. to continue employment with an office of the same employer, its parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate.
"Specialized knowledge" isn't that restrictive. Also, people like Donald Trump can buy themselves a visa through the "E" visa class.
Read the context of my comment. The GGP was suggesting that the electoral college works because, if you ignore millions of voters, the electoral collage would match the popular vote.
IMHO, ignoring millions if voters isn't the way democracy should work. I was not arguing that the electoral college is not working as designed.
However, on that topic, I wonder if the founding fathers could imagine such large differences in the populations of the various states, and, had they realized how much the populations would differ, whether they would have not set the system up differently.
It should be trivial, as the president and with a Rep8ublican congress, to "reduce H1B visas" for his supporting voters but leave in large loopholes to protect their broad corporate use.
Like the L1 visa?
I have never understood why, with all the hate for H1 visas, the L1 visa category has not come under more scrutiny.
Most political systems have some degree of protection for rural areas to prevent them from being utterly steamrolled and dominated by the cities. This is true within the United States both on a national and state level, and within a number of places in Europe, Asia, etc.
And perhaps the USA would be wealthier overall if the political system did not give an outsized voice to the rural areas of the country.
This is proof the electoral college WORKS, not the other way around.
Apparently you don't believe in democracy. There is no legitimacy in a count that ignores millions of people just because they happen to live in or near one or two cities.
Your argument is that people that happen to live in the less populated parts of the USA should have a greater say over its policies than people who live in cities. Why should this be?
Nowhere near "the majority of the population." You may want to recheck your population & voting stats Sparky.
Are you suggesting that 80% isn't a majority of the of the population?
So my rural state will get basically no political say in picking a President?
"no political say"? No. Just a fair share.
At the moment your rural state has more say over the picking of the President than can be justified based on population, economic output, or any measure other than status quo.
If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities
"handful of cities", otherwise known as the majority of the population.
Your argument is that people that happen to live in the less populated parts of the USA should have a greater say over its policies than people who live in cities. Why should this be?
"Canada Computers". Then there's "United States Steel"
NOT from Iceland here, but probably they are upset about the fact that the store branding is "Iceland" and not something like "Iceland foods", and, as the article states, that the food store has prevented other non-conflicting uses of "Iceland" in brand names.
The result is that companies that are actually based in Iceland cannot call themselves "Iceland widgets" or something similar.
Imagine if there were a US company called "Canada" that sold food and was able to stop Canada Computers from using "Canada" in its name.
Dude, I have no idea what word fragment in this thread you're clinging to in order to try to pretend you're confused, but I suspect in your better moments you like to present yourself as slightly more intelligent than this. It's crystal clear which of the two people is running a false flag operation, and which of the two is reporting on it.
It's crystal clear who is reporting.
However, whether or not it's a false flag operation, or merely a fake news network is not at all clear. You have to believe the person who publishes lies for a living that it's not just fake news, but instead it's a false flag operation. Occam's razor suggests that the person just publishes fake news as a way of making a living and there is no false flag element to it.
It's two step program: 1. publish a fake story that the alt-right will pick up and amplify. 2. Denounce the alt-right for believing the story. The problem is that step 2 appears to be missing.
The interesting thing about that story is that the only source of information that it is a leftist plot comes from the man who publishes lies for a living.
... or three: the writers are being paid (indirectly, naturally) by individuals and companies whose finances are closely tied to fossil fuels. *cough* Koch brothers *cough*.
Have you seem some of those right-wing news sites: some of them don't have a lot of ads, suggesting an alternative source of funding.
Blah, blah, blah, blame everyone else.
Look in the mirror. The people who are to blame for Trump as president are those who voted for Trump. Blaming others the way you did is like blaming a woman for being raped because of the clothes she was wearing.
You say that we should have discussed policies, but how? Trump did not espouse policies in sufficient detail to discuss them.
You attempt to explain away the misogyny as just talk. Did you miss the women who came forward to accuse him of actual assault?
Putting aside some shit-talking from Trump about a religious test for entry--which is so obviously unlawful that even a conservative SCOTUS would probably strike it down unanimously
So you admit that Trump made xenophobia a policy position.
Basically, you are in denial.
Do you think that other countries don't vote for things other than their leader?
Of course they do. I have voted in more than one country.
We have multiple ballots for multiple issues. (no one ballot ever has more than one item on it)
But how often do you vote?
Many of those elections in the recent voting will have had equivalent elections in primaries just 6 months earlier, and there will be separate bond measures to vote on earlier this year, so this year, probably a total of about 40 separate items to vote on. Yes, it's a Presidential election year, which increases the number of elections slightly, but not by a huge margin.
How many items do you vote on in a typical year? I doubt that it is 30-40.
Why does the US continue to try to make voting as difficult and complex as possible?
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem.
My ballots for this last election were on 3 large pieces of card (larger than letter/A4). Two of these were double-sided, so a total of 5 sides of things to vote on.
There was a total of about 25 different items that I voted on.
Obviously, President, but also Federal Senator and Representative, state-level offices, local offices (mayor, city council, school board, etc.), the boards of various organizations such as BART and my local hospital.
Then, there were about 10 propositions, including one to legalize marijuana.
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump. I suspect that's because this election wasn't really fought along typical Republican vs Democrat, leftie vs rightie lines.
They voted for Trump. They just don't want to admit it.
and according to all reports, he is a rational person in his private dealings.
Mr Adams is not very observant. There was an article on Trump's dealing related to his casinos and he was not very rational in the way he went about making one deal. He ended up far worse off than he could have been.
But it is an interesting theory. It's too early to tell what will happen, although the cabinet appointments he has made are not very encouraging.
And with a stroke of a pen, the price can be changed.
And they are not exclusive.
Lots of acquisition deals have an agreement of exclusivity during the negotiation period. Personally, I don't think that it is likely to be a good deal for the selling company, but it happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong:
"Specialized knowledge" isn't that restrictive. Also, people like Donald Trump can buy themselves a visa through the "E" visa class.
Betteridge?
Read the context of my comment. The GGP was suggesting that the electoral college works because, if you ignore millions of voters, the electoral collage would match the popular vote.
IMHO, ignoring millions if voters isn't the way democracy should work. I was not arguing that the electoral college is not working as designed.
However, on that topic, I wonder if the founding fathers could imagine such large differences in the populations of the various states, and, had they realized how much the populations would differ, whether they would have not set the system up differently.
Like the L1 visa?
I have never understood why, with all the hate for H1 visas, the L1 visa category has not come under more scrutiny.
And perhaps the USA would be wealthier overall if the political system did not give an outsized voice to the rural areas of the country.
Apparently you don't believe in democracy. There is no legitimacy in a count that ignores millions of people just because they happen to live in or near one or two cities.
Are you suggesting that 80% isn't a majority of the of the population?
Try again, prick.
"no political say"? No. Just a fair share.
At the moment your rural state has more say over the picking of the President than can be justified based on population, economic output, or any measure other than status quo.
"handful of cities", otherwise known as the majority of the population. Your argument is that people that happen to live in the less populated parts of the USA should have a greater say over its policies than people who live in cities. Why should this be?
NOT from Iceland here, but probably they are upset about the fact that the store branding is "Iceland" and not something like "Iceland foods", and, as the article states, that the food store has prevented other non-conflicting uses of "Iceland" in brand names.
The result is that companies that are actually based in Iceland cannot call themselves "Iceland widgets" or something similar.
Imagine if there were a US company called "Canada" that sold food and was able to stop Canada Computers from using "Canada" in its name.
It's crystal clear who is reporting.
However, whether or not it's a false flag operation, or merely a fake news network is not at all clear. You have to believe the person who publishes lies for a living that it's not just fake news, but instead it's a false flag operation. Occam's razor suggests that the person just publishes fake news as a way of making a living and there is no false flag element to it.
It's two step program: 1. publish a fake story that the alt-right will pick up and amplify. 2. Denounce the alt-right for believing the story. The problem is that step 2 appears to be missing.
The interesting thing about that story is that the only source of information that it is a leftist plot comes from the man who publishes lies for a living.
... or three: the writers are being paid (indirectly, naturally) by individuals and companies whose finances are closely tied to fossil fuels. *cough* Koch brothers *cough*.
Have you seem some of those right-wing news sites: some of them don't have a lot of ads, suggesting an alternative source of funding.
So you admit that Trump made xenophobia a policy position. Basically, you are in denial.
Don't blame the people who pointed out the facts about Trump.
Look inwards: why did people like you ignore Trump's misogynistic, racist and xenophobic tendencies? Perhaps the truth is hard for you to accept?
I can say with confidence that it was not "particularly describing the place to be searched".
Of course they do. I have voted in more than one country.
But how often do you vote?
Many of those elections in the recent voting will have had equivalent elections in primaries just 6 months earlier, and there will be separate bond measures to vote on earlier this year, so this year, probably a total of about 40 separate items to vote on. Yes, it's a Presidential election year, which increases the number of elections slightly, but not by a huge margin.
How many items do you vote on in a typical year? I doubt that it is 30-40.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem.
My ballots for this last election were on 3 large pieces of card (larger than letter/A4). Two of these were double-sided, so a total of 5 sides of things to vote on.
There was a total of about 25 different items that I voted on.
Obviously, President, but also Federal Senator and Representative, state-level offices, local offices (mayor, city council, school board, etc.), the boards of various organizations such as BART and my local hospital.
Then, there were about 10 propositions, including one to legalize marijuana.
They voted for Trump. They just don't want to admit it.
Mr Adams is not very observant. There was an article on Trump's dealing related to his casinos and he was not very rational in the way he went about making one deal. He ended up far worse off than he could have been.
But it is an interesting theory. It's too early to tell what will happen, although the cabinet appointments he has made are not very encouraging.
"outsider"? Trump? You mean the scion of a wealthy family?
He may have convinced millions of people that he is an outsider, but they are badly mistaken.
Is Trump going to tell Pence that there is "some connectivity"?
When zoneedit was acquired a few years ago, the buyers screwed over the free-tier users.
They way they screwed over people suggests to me that zoneedit is not to be trusted for important infrastructure.
And with a stroke of a pen, the price can be changed.
Lots of acquisition deals have an agreement of exclusivity during the negotiation period. Personally, I don't think that it is likely to be a good deal for the selling company, but it happens.