|
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. |
On February 01 2017 12:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:48 Danglars 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: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% 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. You could even say justices had a constitutional duty to be non-political non-"activist," and have long since abandoned that role. Originally, it was the branch of government least expected to be so politically charged, since they could write no laws and only interpret what was already legislated. Then we got emanations of penumbras, tax-penalty-taxes, in short a legislating bench with varying committments to making discretion sound justified. In changing times, past niceties change. it's still the least politically charged branch of government by quite a lot.
Appointed for life and with the power to break and make legislation. It's been the biggest political football since at least the 1960s, and I'm sure someone could make the argument that it's been the case since much earlier.
On February 01 2017 13:26 LegalLord wrote:
So is our executive branch going to have a cabinet any time soon?
I give it a month. Dems gotta play tough for their activist big cities and coasts. Maybe Trump will backroom deal some concessions on infrastructure pork or trade deals.
|
On February 01 2017 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
I'm in favor of bringing in highly skilled and valuable immigrants.
Ostensibly this is supposed to be the purpose of the H-1B program. The problem is that for the most part, it's very hard to regulate abuses within the program because it's very hard for people who aren't well acquainted with the industries in question to evaluate how it's being used. For example "skill" within the IT industry is a pretty nebulous concept, so it's very hard to judge in the context of a particular company whether local labor is adequate for their needs or if there's a tangible benefit to utilizing H-1B workers.
I don't think this is an easy problem to solve, and I'm worried that, like other things Trump has handled, he's going to do it with a lot less finesse than is required.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump has actually talked about the H1B issue with a depth of knowledge that clearly comes from significant experience. I think he will be fine on that issue at the very least.
|
What's wrong with the changes he's made to it for now? FWIR he's made it harder for companies to disproportionately rely on H1-B workers, which primarily affects out-sourcing companies.
|
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.
Please do it. I would love for SV companies to bring more of their talent to Canada.
|
On February 01 2017 13:37 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
I'm in favor of bringing in highly skilled and valuable immigrants. Ostensibly this is supposed to be the purpose of the H-1B program. The problem is that for the most part, it's very hard to regulate abuses within the program because it's very hard for people who aren't well acquainted with the industries in question to evaluate how it's being used. For example "skill" within the IT industry is a pretty nebulous concept, so it's very hard to judge in the context of a particular company whether local labor is adequate for their needs or if there's a tangible benefit to utilizing H-1B workers. I don't think this is an easy problem to solve, and I'm worried that, like other things Trump has handled, he's going to do it with a lot less finesse than is required.
I think that there are some easy rules that could be created and followed to facilitate expediting high quality immigrants. One that immediately comes to mind is a program that fast tracks immigrants with technical graduate degrees. I've seen how stupid our current system is up close through my wife. She was basically the paragon of the type of immigrant that this country wants (Ph.D. in a scientific/technical field, earned a great salary, paid lots of taxes, and stayed out of trouble), but she had to deal with all of the regular USCIS bullshit and then some. At one point, the US wouldn't let her back into the country for a period. It was just absurd.
|
On February 01 2017 13:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:06 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 11:48 Danglars 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: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% 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. You could even say justices had a constitutional duty to be non-political non-"activist," and have long since abandoned that role. Originally, it was the branch of government least expected to be so politically charged, since they could write no laws and only interpret what was already legislated. Then we got emanations of penumbras, tax-penalty-taxes, in short a legislating bench with varying committments to making discretion sound justified. In changing times, past niceties change. it's still the least politically charged branch of government by quite a lot. Appointed for life and with the power to break and make legislation. It's been the biggest political football since at least the 1960s, and I'm sure someone could make the argument that it's been the case since much earlier. Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 13:26 LegalLord wrote:
So is our executive branch going to have a cabinet any time soon? I give it a month. Dems gotta play tough for their activist big cities and coasts. Maybe Trump will backroom deal some concessions on infrastructure pork or trade deals.
This seems like we are still well within the normal time frame for picks, especially controversial ones?
Obama nominees hold the top three spots on the waiting list. And Obama has had to wait longer, on average, than any other president in the data set for his nominees to join his Cabinet: Confirmed Obama nominees have waited for an average of 35 days. George W. Bush’s waited for an average of 16 days, Bill Clinton’s for 16 days, George H.W. Bush’s for 21 days, Ronald Reagan’s for 13 days and Jimmy Carter’s for six.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-for-cabinet-confirmations-than-any-other-recent-president/
He's well under the average time for many other presidents still.
|
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.
Only if you're not replacing it with something more expansive and fair to the worker. We need more workers, particularly skilled ones.
|
On February 01 2017 11:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote:
Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that. why did you italicize the word the? it doesn't clarify anything and just makes it harder to read. and I thought the ukraine topic was verboten here. but i haven't kept close track.
He italicized it because some people who study Russian politics a bit more say that saying "the Ukraine" instead of just "Ukraine" signals that we think of them a territory (i.e. a piece of a larger USSR-like whole), not a country; that is, it's a subtle and often unintentional dig at their sovereignty. LL thinks that's stupid, so he's going out of his way to say the one that bugs people.
It's kind of like when people on the internet started saying "autistic" instead of "ritarded" to call someone stupid, because ritarded had been used so much as an insult it had almost lost its association with the mentally disabled, and therefore lost a lot of its bite. It's intentionally choosing the more provocative wording just to get a reaction.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 01 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 13:37 TheYango wrote:On February 01 2017 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
I'm in favor of bringing in highly skilled and valuable immigrants. Ostensibly this is supposed to be the purpose of the H-1B program. The problem is that for the most part, it's very hard to regulate abuses within the program because it's very hard for people who aren't well acquainted with the industries in question to evaluate how it's being used. For example "skill" within the IT industry is a pretty nebulous concept, so it's very hard to judge in the context of a particular company whether local labor is adequate for their needs or if there's a tangible benefit to utilizing H-1B workers. I don't think this is an easy problem to solve, and I'm worried that, like other things Trump has handled, he's going to do it with a lot less finesse than is required. I think that there are some easy rules that could be created and followed to facilitate expediting high quality immigrants. One that immediately comes to mind is a program that fast tracks immigrants with technical graduate degrees. I've seen how stupid our current system is up close through my wife. She was basically the paragon of the type of immigrant that this country wants (Ph.D. in a scientific/technical field, earned a great salary, paid lots of taxes, and stayed out of trouble), but she had to deal with all of the regular USCIS bullshit and then some. At one point, the US wouldn't let her back into the country for a period. It was just absurd.
The phrase "immigration reform" has been co-opted to mean "let in more immigrants" in modern political lingo, so it's hard to use it for the purpose of simply saying that we need to fix the confused and bloated mess that is the process to obtain citizenship. I know myself just how ineffective the process can be because I've seen it first hand.
|
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.
That's about the level of nuance that Trump and Bannon have right now on immigration and it doesn't work.
|
I sure hope we dont get rid of H1-B visas, because as much as people stick to mentioning the tech side, the art side relies heavily on foreign artists.
For instance, everyone's favorite studio Blizzard has a ton of asian and european artists that have H1-B visas and noone wants to see Blizzard have a harder time making great games. 
|
On February 01 2017 13:42 Blisse wrote:
What's wrong with the changes he's made to it for now? FWIR he's made it harder for companies to disproportionately rely on H1-B workers, which primarily affects out-sourcing companies.
The problem is those H1B (at least at my company) Do all the off shore coordination so I don't have to.
Besides being the higher level/better coders, they also do a SHIT TON of managerial work for the companies they work for (if they are contractors, which they are at my job)
They also provide a really big buffer come layoffs. Contractors are the first to go at my job and that level of security is REALLY nice come this administration.
I really do not want to see H1B fucked with because it really will make my job harder
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There are H1B recipients that are what they are meant to be: high-skilled workers. But there is also a large and important part of the recipients that are just bottom feeders hired for being indentured servants, and those need to go.
|
Apparently we forgot about the loser's bracket. For this tournament the 3rd/4th place match is after the finals.
The event will be about the ACA.
|
On February 01 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
There are H1B recipients that are what they are meant to be: high-skilled workers. But there is also a large and important part of the recipients that are just bottom feeders hired for being indentured servants, and those need to go.
But this response is kind of like going "You have a rash on your arm, better chop it the fuck off first thing"
|
Sanders fighting to pull the Dems to the left.
Cruz fighting to still have a voice in the GOP.
I feel Cruz has a LOT more to lose from this than Sanders does
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 01 2017 16:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
There are H1B recipients that are what they are meant to be: high-skilled workers. But there is also a large and important part of the recipients that are just bottom feeders hired for being indentured servants, and those need to go. But this response is kind of like going "You have a rash on your arm, better chop it the fuck off first thing"
In this case it would be more like a gangrenous limb, which you should indeed chop off.
|
It's pretty cute and kind of unfortunate that back in 2002 Gorsuch wrote about how judicial appointees (including specifically Garland who he says is "widely considered to be among the finest legal minds of the generation") languished in nomination purgatory because of politicization and will now probably end up languishing in nomination purgatory.
What are the odds you write that and end up getting nominated to SCOTUS after one of the guys you wrote about is nominated and never gets a hearing because of politics? At least we'll have another person on the court who thinks that's as absurd and stupid as I do.
I also find it interesting that a quick read of his history makes him seem more likely to try to revise the gay marriage decision than the Roe v. Wade decision, but that just could be me missing nuance.
I do nurse hope that he'll end up ruling on a Trump executive overreach and vote against it as a strict constructionist, because the tweets following could be something legendary.
|
On February 01 2017 16:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 16:26 IyMoon wrote:On February 01 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
There are H1B recipients that are what they are meant to be: high-skilled workers. But there is also a large and important part of the recipients that are just bottom feeders hired for being indentured servants, and those need to go. But this response is kind of like going "You have a rash on your arm, better chop it the fuck off first thing" In this case it would be more like a gangrenous limb, which you should indeed chop off.
Your experience with H1B might be much worse than mine, but I have had nothing but good things to say about the people we use onshore(as oppose to Offshore, who suck)
Do we really have that many Americans looking for tech jobs that we are really getting fucked over by H1B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
