|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw this guy isn't a departure from trump's list. they just picked a better positioned guy strategically, operating from the same heritage foundation outlook.
it's clear that he's farmed out social policy stuff to fundamentalists.
|
On February 01 2017 12:26 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine. I am not an expert on US political history. Is there precedent for an opposed-party Congress blocking, or refusing to hear, Presidential supreme court nominations? + Show Spoiler +"Nothing gets done unless a single party holds both the Congress and the presidency" doesn't seem like a particularly healthy place for a governing system to be in.
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
In June 1968, Warren, fearing that Nixon would be elected president that year, worked out a retirement deal with President Johnson. Associate Justice Abe Fortas, who was secretly Johnson's top adviser, brokered the deal in which Warren would retire upon confirmation of his successor, Fortas was nominated to be Chief Justice, and Homer Thornberry was nominated as an Associate Justice to take Fortas's seat. The plan was foiled by Senate conservatives, who ripped into Fortas's record and blocked his nomination with a filibuster, prompting Fortas to withdraw from consideration and rendering Thornberry's nomination moot. Warren remained on the Court, and Nixon was elected. In early 1969, Warren learned that Fortas had made a secret lifetime contract for $20,000 a year to provide private legal advice to Louis Wolfson, a friend and financier in deep legal trouble; Warren immediately asked Fortas to resign, which he did after some consideration.[61]
|
On February 01 2017 12:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
...
In that case, regardless of whether there was or was not a legal or constitutional or other official reason why the Republicans should have been obligated to accept/consider the nomination, not doing so seems like a pretty bad precedent for them to set, from the perspective of damaging the ability of the US government system to effectively govern.
|
On February 01 2017 12:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine. Firstly, you are deliberately going for a red herring that I've already addressed. I am not claiming that the Senate had a legal obligation to hold a hearing and a vote. Can you stop pretending otherwise? Secondly, you're just rephrasing what I already responded to, so I'll copy/paste what I just said: "the fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty [this is in reference to the Senate's constitutional role of providing advise and consent -- note again that I am not using the words "legal obligation" here] in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice." This vacancy was clearly, as per the Constitution, Obama's to fill with the advise and consent of the Senate. The GOP decided to act as partisan hacks in denying the sitting president any chance of filling the vacancy, hoping to see a Republican president elected in November, which is what happened. They therefore clearly stole the sitting president's prerogative to fill the vacancy in order to transfer it to the following president. Trying to argue semantics won't change the fact that what the GOP engaged in was fundamentally wrong and unprecedented partisan hackery. You just happen to be happy about the result because it suits you to have a conservative Justice replacing Scalia.
You know what, I wrote more but I'll just say this.
I'm "playing semantics" because my original response was an objection the word stolen and its connotation. The Senate didn't do anything unconstitutional or illegal. Find a new word.
|
On February 01 2017 12:37 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
...
In that case, regardless of whether there was or was not a legal or constitutional or other official reason why the Republicans should have been obligated to accept/consider the nomination, not doing so seems like a pretty bad precedent for them to set, from the perspective of damaging the ability of the US government system to effectively govern.
We're well past the point of "setting a bad precedent."
|
On February 01 2017 12:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 11:14 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid. 1. Not slam-dunking, just actually appeasing the conservative establishment... which, again, I understand fully. I'd rather see a conservative judge nominated than a non-judge. 2. I was feigning incredulity due to his track record of nominating unqualified people to prestigious positions. 3. Neither I- nor anyone else here, from what I've seen- has attacked Barron Trump on anything. What are you talking about? Okay, the conservative establishment, and also all the voters who knew (it's not coming through whether you paid the same focus to his potential nominees or not) where he stood on the SC and what they'd be getting since May of last year, yes?
Yes; I didn't say otherwise. I did pay attention to his list, and they were standard Scalia replacements that any establishment Republican would choose. I'm not actually surprised... I don't think you understood the sarcasm, although I thought it would have been obvious, given my listing of Kanye, Melania, Barron, and Chuck Norris...
|
On February 01 2017 12:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:37 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 12:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
...
In that case, regardless of whether there was or was not a legal or constitutional or other official reason why the Republicans should have been obligated to accept/consider the nomination, not doing so seems like a pretty bad precedent for them to set, from the perspective of damaging the ability of the US government system to effectively govern. We're well past the point of "setting a bad precedent."
Probably so, yes, but if I made a more accurate (yet more extreme and antagonising) statement I'd just trigger a bunch of people and get no useful responses.
|
On February 01 2017 12:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 01 2017 12:37 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 12:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
...
In that case, regardless of whether there was or was not a legal or constitutional or other official reason why the Republicans should have been obligated to accept/consider the nomination, not doing so seems like a pretty bad precedent for them to set, from the perspective of damaging the ability of the US government system to effectively govern. We're well past the point of "setting a bad precedent." Probably so, yes, but if I made a more accurate (yet more extreme and antagonising) statement I'd just trigger a bunch of people and get no useful responses.
The real problem is how deeply fractured society itself is. The country is becoming increasingly polarized, like most of Europe right now. A system of broken people will reflect that reality.
|
On February 01 2017 12:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution.
and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine. Firstly, you are deliberately going for a red herring that I've already addressed. I am not claiming that the Senate had a legal obligation to hold a hearing and a vote. Can you stop pretending otherwise? Secondly, you're just rephrasing what I already responded to, so I'll copy/paste what I just said: "the fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty [this is in reference to the Senate's constitutional role of providing advise and consent -- note again that I am not using the words "legal obligation" here] in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice." This vacancy was clearly, as per the Constitution, Obama's to fill with the advise and consent of the Senate. The GOP decided to act as partisan hacks in denying the sitting president any chance of filling the vacancy, hoping to see a Republican president elected in November, which is what happened. They therefore clearly stole the sitting president's prerogative to fill the vacancy in order to transfer it to the following president. Trying to argue semantics won't change the fact that what the GOP engaged in was fundamentally wrong and unprecedented partisan hackery. You just happen to be happy about the result because it suits you to have a conservative Justice replacing Scalia. You know what, I wrote more but I'll just say this. I'm "playing semantics" because my original response was an objection the word stolen and its connotation. The Senate didn't do anything unconstitutional or illegal. Find a new word.
if the action was unconstitutional would you find the word stolen to be acceptable?
note that some of us do consider it to be unconstitutional. and we've presented good evidence for so doing, and your counterarguments have all been addressed, and do not outweigh the points we made.
the connotation is entirely justified by the improper action that was done.
|
On February 01 2017 12:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution.
and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine. Firstly, you are deliberately going for a red herring that I've already addressed. I am not claiming that the Senate had a legal obligation to hold a hearing and a vote. Can you stop pretending otherwise? Secondly, you're just rephrasing what I already responded to, so I'll copy/paste what I just said: "the fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty [this is in reference to the Senate's constitutional role of providing advise and consent -- note again that I am not using the words "legal obligation" here] in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice." This vacancy was clearly, as per the Constitution, Obama's to fill with the advise and consent of the Senate. The GOP decided to act as partisan hacks in denying the sitting president any chance of filling the vacancy, hoping to see a Republican president elected in November, which is what happened. They therefore clearly stole the sitting president's prerogative to fill the vacancy in order to transfer it to the following president. Trying to argue semantics won't change the fact that what the GOP engaged in was fundamentally wrong and unprecedented partisan hackery. You just happen to be happy about the result because it suits you to have a conservative Justice replacing Scalia. You know what, I wrote more but I'll just say this. I'm "playing semantics" because my original response was an objection the word stolen and its connotation. The Senate didn't do anything unconstitutional or illegal. Find a new word.
The issue then seems to be that you're not sufficiently familiar with the definition of the verb "to steal". There is no requirement for an act to be illegal to qualify as an example of stealing. Using the word here is perfectly accurate, as I explained.
|
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good.
|
On February 01 2017 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good.
Get rid of every last one of them. We shouldn't have them.
|
On February 01 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:41 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 12:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 01 2017 12:37 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 12:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
I don't really think so really until the Republicans did it. Think Dems floated the idea once or twice. Apparently there was some weird stuff when earl warren tried to do it. from wikipedia so not the most useful thing ever
...
In that case, regardless of whether there was or was not a legal or constitutional or other official reason why the Republicans should have been obligated to accept/consider the nomination, not doing so seems like a pretty bad precedent for them to set, from the perspective of damaging the ability of the US government system to effectively govern. We're well past the point of "setting a bad precedent." Probably so, yes, but if I made a more accurate (yet more extreme and antagonising) statement I'd just trigger a bunch of people and get no useful responses. The real problem is how deeply fractured society itself is. The country is becoming increasingly polarized, like most of Europe right now. A system of broken people will reflect that reality.
it is indeed quite a problem. and I'm quite annoyed that I haven't heard more suggestions on how to fix it from the political leadership. I don't know whether they have suggestions that haven't been sufficiently publicized, or simply have no suggestions; but I have tried asking them about (got no response), and either way it's unsatisfactory.
makes me continue my gripe that I could do a better job than congress, since I've made such suggestions in this thread.
|
On February 01 2017 12:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good. Get rid of every last one of them. We shouldn't have them.
I'm gonna miss the hot Aussie chicks at Vail.
|
On February 01 2017 12:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good. Get rid of every last one of them. We shouldn't have them.
I've been somewhat considering that perspective as well. If an industry is struggling to find a worker of a certain type, I would really like that industry to be extremely motivated to create them. What would the tech industry look like right now if the only way they were gonna crank out another 100K software engineers was influencing our education system?
|
On February 01 2017 12:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 01 2017 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good. Get rid of every last one of them. We shouldn't have them. I've been somewhat considering that perspective as well. If an industry is struggling to find a worker of a certain type, I would really like that industry to be extremely motivated to create them. What would the tech industry look like right now if the only way they were gonna crank out another 100K software engineers was influencing our education system?
I'm in favor of bringing in highly skilled and valuable immigrants. Setting a high salary threshold for H1B is a good way of going about it.
|
My view is that if they're worth bringing in, then there should be an expedited path to a green card, and if they're not, then they don't belong. I see little benefit in helping either those who don't intend to stay or who aren't valued enough to be processed to be on an equal level with locals legally.
|
Salary threshold really just disproportionately punishes startups because the big Silicon Valley giants all pay out a ton to begin with. Doesn't seem like an adequate solution to me.
On February 01 2017 12:59 Mohdoo wrote:
I've been somewhat considering that perspective as well. If an industry is struggling to find a worker of a certain type, I would really like that industry to be extremely motivated to create them. What would the tech industry look like right now if the only way they were gonna crank out another 100K software engineers was influencing our education system?
The problem is that both education systems and the tech industry are highly regionalized. It'd be very difficult for them to create the necessary influence at a national level.
Silicon Valley companies like Google do a ton of accessible training stuff to get people into the tech industry, the problem is that it's all very localized to areas they operate out of, and that's not really sufficient to generate enough new talent (in part because a lot of the people who live there are already influenced by the tech industry to begin with).
It's very hard to break this down because the incentives are poor for states that don't interact heavily with the tech industry to begin with. How is Google going to incentivize Oklahoma to have better tech education in schools when someone who gets a tech education in Oklahoma would move to California to work for Google? It doesn't feed forward in a way that's directly beneficial to them.
|
So is our executive branch going to have a cabinet any time soon?
|
On February 01 2017 12:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone around here opposed to coming down hard on H1B? I'm 100% on board. Make the min salary $200K and call it good. Get rid of every last one of them. We shouldn't have them.
Lol, thats pretty short sighted. You would effectively end up incentivizing companies to setup offshore development centers even further. Unlike manufacturing, you cant solve the problem by levying a tariff on software developed outside US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
