|
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. |
Canada11363 Posts
On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that
I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.'
|
On July 31 2017 23:53 Plansix wrote:
The assault on public education on all fronts is the most depressing part of modern politics. It is one of the main reasons I did not stay in the field. It is rage inducing to watch people hamstring one of few public services that can provide real job skills and upward mobility. I listened to a report from NPR about Alabama having a teacher shortage problem because they pay their teachers the lowest amount in the entire nation. To resolve this, they removed all the requirements for teacher training and hoped some people from the private sector would fill ranks. This failed because hiring a biology teacher to perform surgery is also doomed to failure. I’m sure it will be another 10 years before they crack the code and pay more for teachers.
I seem to remember a few years back in Philly that some kids had to sit on the ground in some classes because the school district couldn't afford enough desks.
On August 01 2017 00:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 00:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Outspoken conservative commentator Tomi Lahren admitted she still benefits from a feature of Obamacare while arguing against it during a debate with Chelsea Handler on Saturday.
Lahren and Handler faced off at Politicon, a non-partisan event, which features debates, panels, film, and comedy. As expected, Lahren and Handler's conversation turned towards the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
Lahren, who supports Trump, slammed Obamacare and told Handler that while she believes in her right to purchase healthcare, she doesn't "believe it's my right to pay for it for other people,"Fortune reported.
While Lahren continued to rail on Obamacare, she admitted that she is still on her parent's health insurance plan because of it.
"Do you have a healthcare plan or no?" Handler asked Lahren during the exchange, according to Fortune.
"Well luckily, I'm 24, so I am still on my parents'," Lahren said.
The comment quickly drew a response from the crowd, which cheered and clapped.
A key component of the Affordable Care Act is that dependent children can stay on a parent's plan until age 26.
On social media, many responded to the news and slammed Lahren for being hypocritical. SourceIt's Monday and I'm thankful for the news. Be boring otherwise. Wait, people listen to Tomi Lahren still? Conservatives still fawn over vapid but attractive women who are on "our side" I guess.
Young, pretty, blond hair, blue eyes, and says things you want to hear. She's basically the conservative dream waifu.
|
I feel bad for whoever has to sit on the hearing when the holocaust deniers get their day
|
On August 01 2017 01:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.'
the first change should be going back to the old rule where to filibuster you actually have to stand up there and talk; you can't simply declare a filibuster and block things.
Some of the state legislatures have some rules limiting filibuster requiring you to stay on topic, and prohibit excessively repeating yourself (so you can't just repeat the same speech over and over). I'd be fine with adding those.
As a practical observation: some of the stuff people do while talking in the legislature might well not be allowed in a court of law, where the rules of decorum and procedure are quite a bit tighter.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On August 01 2017 01:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 01:13 Falling wrote:On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.' the first change should be going back to the old rule where to filibuster you actually have to stand up there and talk; you can't simply declare a filibuster and block things. Some of the state legislatures have some rules limiting filibuster requiring you to stay on topic, and prohibit excessively repeating yourself (so you can't just repeat the same speech over and over). I'd be fine with adding those.
Yeah, I think that would be a great place to start. Implement those two things and see where we end up. If that fixes the problem well enough, wonderful. But I'd certainly want to try that first before wiping out the filibuster/ going straight to simple majority.
|
Forcing them to stand for all filibusters would be more than enough to stop most abuses. Staying on topic seems like a great rule, but is also easily abused by the ruling party.
|
Bring back congressional sesquipedalianism in the vein of Henry Ashurst, I say!
|
This is a special kind of mean spirited. Petty isn't sufficient to discribe it.
|
On August 01 2017 01:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 01:13 Falling wrote:On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.' the first change should be going back to the old rule where to filibuster you actually have to stand up there and talk; you can't simply declare a filibuster and block things. Some of the state legislatures have some rules limiting filibuster requiring you to stay on topic, and prohibit excessively repeating yourself (so you can't just repeat the same speech over and over). I'd be fine with adding those. As a practical observation: some of the stuff people do while talking in the legislature might well not be allowed in a court of law, where the rules of decorum and procedure are quite a bit tighter.
What would this actually accomplish?
You just wait a few hours until the guy gets tried or runs out of things to say and then pass your law regardless?
What problem does this solve?
If its about stopping the 'tyranny of the majority' then you need something more permanent.
Is there any government in the west (or elsewhere for that matter) where a simply majority is not enough? Only big things like constitutional amendments require more.
|
On August 01 2017 01:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.'
See, this is the weird thing. I'm young enough that all the discussion of the filibuster I remember is Dems saying "this is stupid, we should only need 51 votes" and Republicans saying "no, this is sn essential part of democracy, it encourages bipartisanship and gives the people more voice, etc. etc." Now I guess we get to see ehether that was just opportunism from the Republicans, or if they really do believe the minority party should have that kind of power.
From Trump it looks like a pure power grab, plain and simple.
|
On August 01 2017 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 01:37 zlefin wrote:On August 01 2017 01:13 Falling wrote:On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that I'm not him, but I still think it's a gamebreaking exploit at least in the way it is being utilized now. I thought that with the Republicans filibustering the Democrats, and I still think that with the Dem's filibustering the Republicans. There must be a way to have the filibuster that would allow the opposition to take a stand on key issues without them being able to hamstring the entire governing party. The most aggravating thing is that it seems you can stand there reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham (Ted Cruz). Or do they even have to filibuster now? Just say you are going to filibuster and no one shows up- just run through the motions? How does it work now? Like maybe a ruling that says you need to be at least on topic? That would be impressive if someone had actually had hours and hours of something to say on a subject. Although, ultimately I imagine that too, could be exploited: 'in order to establish my case to lay the ground work and understand the true context, let me read the entire history of America from our founding until now, all the Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Papers and 100 letters I have received from my contituency relating to the topic, once that is complete, I will begin my formal argumentation.' the first change should be going back to the old rule where to filibuster you actually have to stand up there and talk; you can't simply declare a filibuster and block things. Some of the state legislatures have some rules limiting filibuster requiring you to stay on topic, and prohibit excessively repeating yourself (so you can't just repeat the same speech over and over). I'd be fine with adding those. As a practical observation: some of the stuff people do while talking in the legislature might well not be allowed in a court of law, where the rules of decorum and procedure are quite a bit tighter. What would this actually accomplish? You just wait a few hours until the guy gets tried or runs out of things to say and then pass your law regardless? What problem does this solve? If its about stopping the 'tyranny of the majority' then you need something more permanent. Is there any government in the west (or elsewhere for that matter) where a simply majority is not enough? Only big things like constitutional amendments require more.
in terms of what it does: the filibuster used to be sparsely used, because you had to actually put effort into it; the problems with abuse of the filibuster mostly have come after they changed the rules to allow you to simply declare one, without having to actually stand there on the floor. it's also more meaningful as a protest if some form of actual sacrifice/effort, however mild, is required.
if there's only one guy talking, they can just invoke cloture anyways to end debate. if it's a whole party doing it, then they can each take turns talking, and should be able to keep it up for a very long time if they truly care to put in the effort.
it's not meant to be a perfect systemic solution, simply a minor improvement to the existing situation.
|
Foreign automakers have received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to build factories in the U.S. and create American jobs.
A new CBS News primetime series, "CBSN: On Assignment," uncovers the hidden foreign workforce being used to build sections of U.S. auto plants. The show premiers on CBS on Monday, July 31st at 10pm EST & PST, streaming simultaneously on CBSN, the network's streaming news service.
This CBSN investigation took us thousands of miles, from South Carolina to Slovenia, in eastern Europe, in search of answers.
For three years, Gerald Greiner managed safety on American construction projects for a German contractor called Eisenmann. His first job was at Mercedes in Vance, Alabama in 2013.
"There was Polish and Slovenian and Croatian people there," he told correspondent Vladimir Duthiers. "It was hard for me to believe because I just didn't understand why they would be here."
What did they do? "Anywhere from steel erection to pipe fitting to pouring concrete to installing equipment, just about everything."
The cars would be built by American workers — but the building of the auto plants was being done by foreign workers. "Exactly," said Greiner. "They come in at groundbreaking, they're done at start of production."
Duthiers asked, "Did you think to yourself that the jobs that these guys were doing could be done by Americans?"
"Oh yeah, absolutely. Yes."
Our investigation led us to an apartment complex in Spartanburg, South Carolina, where it appeared workers from Slovenia and Croatia were being housed by their employer.
Around 6:30 a.m., the workers had one last cigarette, before a van came to take them to work.
A CBS producer filmed the van of workers going through BMW security at 6:45 a.m. The producer shot 15 or more vans and vehicles filled with workers from Eastern Europe.
"I'm angry. Angry," said Daniel Travancic, who has worked for the Local 104 sheet metal workers union out of San Jose, California for more than a decade.
"There's lots of guys out there still looking for work in the United States," he said. "And now we have how many thousands and thousands of East European workers working here, and they're abused, too? Who lets this happen?"
Automakers declined CBS News' requests for an interview.
In statements they said, "Their contractors are legally obligated to comply with all immigration, safety and employment laws, and any violations are promptly addressed."
Source
|
On August 01 2017 02:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Foreign automakers have received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to build factories in the U.S. and create American jobs.
A new CBS News primetime series, "CBSN: On Assignment," uncovers the hidden foreign workforce being used to build sections of U.S. auto plants. The show premiers on CBS on Monday, July 31st at 10pm EST & PST, streaming simultaneously on CBSN, the network's streaming news service.
This CBSN investigation took us thousands of miles, from South Carolina to Slovenia, in eastern Europe, in search of answers.
For three years, Gerald Greiner managed safety on American construction projects for a German contractor called Eisenmann. His first job was at Mercedes in Vance, Alabama in 2013.
"There was Polish and Slovenian and Croatian people there," he told correspondent Vladimir Duthiers. "It was hard for me to believe because I just didn't understand why they would be here."
What did they do? "Anywhere from steel erection to pipe fitting to pouring concrete to installing equipment, just about everything."
The cars would be built by American workers — but the building of the auto plants was being done by foreign workers. "Exactly," said Greiner. "They come in at groundbreaking, they're done at start of production."
Duthiers asked, "Did you think to yourself that the jobs that these guys were doing could be done by Americans?"
"Oh yeah, absolutely. Yes."
Our investigation led us to an apartment complex in Spartanburg, South Carolina, where it appeared workers from Slovenia and Croatia were being housed by their employer.
Around 6:30 a.m., the workers had one last cigarette, before a van came to take them to work.
A CBS producer filmed the van of workers going through BMW security at 6:45 a.m. The producer shot 15 or more vans and vehicles filled with workers from Eastern Europe.
"I'm angry. Angry," said Daniel Travancic, who has worked for the Local 104 sheet metal workers union out of San Jose, California for more than a decade.
"There's lots of guys out there still looking for work in the United States," he said. "And now we have how many thousands and thousands of East European workers working here, and they're abused, too? Who lets this happen?"
Automakers declined CBS News' requests for an interview.
In statements they said, "Their contractors are legally obligated to comply with all immigration, safety and employment laws, and any violations are promptly addressed." Source
There's nothing saying that they must hire American if an American can do the job. Cheapest labor wins out.
|
On August 01 2017 03:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 02:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Foreign automakers have received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to build factories in the U.S. and create American jobs.
A new CBS News primetime series, "CBSN: On Assignment," uncovers the hidden foreign workforce being used to build sections of U.S. auto plants. The show premiers on CBS on Monday, July 31st at 10pm EST & PST, streaming simultaneously on CBSN, the network's streaming news service.
This CBSN investigation took us thousands of miles, from South Carolina to Slovenia, in eastern Europe, in search of answers.
For three years, Gerald Greiner managed safety on American construction projects for a German contractor called Eisenmann. His first job was at Mercedes in Vance, Alabama in 2013.
"There was Polish and Slovenian and Croatian people there," he told correspondent Vladimir Duthiers. "It was hard for me to believe because I just didn't understand why they would be here."
What did they do? "Anywhere from steel erection to pipe fitting to pouring concrete to installing equipment, just about everything."
The cars would be built by American workers — but the building of the auto plants was being done by foreign workers. "Exactly," said Greiner. "They come in at groundbreaking, they're done at start of production."
Duthiers asked, "Did you think to yourself that the jobs that these guys were doing could be done by Americans?"
"Oh yeah, absolutely. Yes."
Our investigation led us to an apartment complex in Spartanburg, South Carolina, where it appeared workers from Slovenia and Croatia were being housed by their employer.
Around 6:30 a.m., the workers had one last cigarette, before a van came to take them to work.
A CBS producer filmed the van of workers going through BMW security at 6:45 a.m. The producer shot 15 or more vans and vehicles filled with workers from Eastern Europe.
"I'm angry. Angry," said Daniel Travancic, who has worked for the Local 104 sheet metal workers union out of San Jose, California for more than a decade.
"There's lots of guys out there still looking for work in the United States," he said. "And now we have how many thousands and thousands of East European workers working here, and they're abused, too? Who lets this happen?"
Automakers declined CBS News' requests for an interview.
In statements they said, "Their contractors are legally obligated to comply with all immigration, safety and employment laws, and any violations are promptly addressed." Source There's nothing saying that they must hire American if an American can do the job. Cheapest labor wins out.
It is the disconnect between free market and MAGA
|
I guess the argument here is: since they received some tax exemptions from US gov. they should provide jobs for US citizens. This kinda makes sense, however its kinda strange that its economicaly plausible to fly and house unskilled labor to/in US compared to Your domestic workforce. Flying people to US isnt exactly cheap. US unskilled labor have to high demands?
|
On August 01 2017 03:25 Silvanel wrote:
I guess the argument here is: since they received some tax exemptions from US gov. they should provide jobs for US citizens. This kinda makes sense, however its kinda strange that its economicaly plausible to fly and house unskilled labor to/in US compared to Your domestic workforce. Flying people to US isnt exactly cheap. US unskilled labor have to high demands?
We have unions and people that are willing to use the US court system to hold those companies accountable if they get hurt. The companies are avoiding the costs employing US workers while also receiving massive tax cuts. And they are doing it secretly to avoid the bad PR.
|
On August 01 2017 03:25 Silvanel wrote:
I guess the argument here is: since they received some tax exemptions from US gov. they should provide jobs for US citizens. This kinda makes sense, however its kinda strange that its economicaly plausible to fly and house unskilled labor to/in US compared to Your domestic workforce. Flying people to US isnt exactly cheap. US unskilled labor have to high demands?
These Eastern Euros are probably immigrants in the US already. I highly doubt they are flying in from Yugoslavia just to build a plant and then leaving. The money would be worth it, but not for the contractors. It's the same as hiring Mexicans to build shit. Cheap labor.
Americans are an entire different set of burden on the companies, with labor laws and unions, etc. Undocumented immigrants just work and if they get hurt, they hit a small clinic, pay cash, receive treatment, and get out.
|
Unskilled construction labor is overwhelmingly unionized here, so these kinds of labor import strategies are basically a government sanctioned workaround.
|
At the same time, we've known for quite a while he was a horrible human being.. I have no pity for the people who decide to serve him.
|
Not surprised to see this coming from the president who denied Spicer, a Catholic, to meet the Pope because Spicer displeased him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
