US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8286

On August 03 2017 07:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Where are the american workers than can fill it?

The civil rights division of President Trump’s Justice Department is preparing to shift its resources toward “investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants,” the New York Times’s Charlie Savage reported Tuesday.

Any shift in priorities hasn’t been finalized or announced yet, so it’s unclear where this policy will end up or how specifically it will be implemented. Still, in conversations and debates over just who gets the biggest leg up in university admissions, the tale of how senior White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner got into Harvard is an instructive one.

Of course few will be surprised that Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, a wealthy and connected developer and political donor, helped him get in. But the details of just how that happened, described in Daniel Golden’s thoroughly reported 2007 book The Price of Admission, remain remarkable to this day.

What Golden found, essentially, was that Jared’s father handed Harvard (a school he did not attend) a big pile of money just as Jared was starting to apply to colleges. Around the same time, Jared’s dad got his US senator to contact another US senator to arrange a chat with Harvard’s dean of admissions.

This string of donations Trump may have made [to Penn] in the late nineties roughly coincides with his children’s enrollment at Penn. Donald J. Trump Jr. began classes at Penn in 1996 and Ivanka Trump in 2000.

The donations also coincide with a gift Trump made to fund a project closer to home.

In 1996, the Wharton graduate donated over $100,000 to the Penn Club of New York, according to a Jan. 28, 1997 DP article. The Penn Club — founded in 1994 — is a private clubhouse in Midtown Manhattan for the use of Penn students, alumni and faculty with membership.

The gift is described as Trump’s “first major donation” in the article, but then-Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations Virginia Clark did not specify the exact amount of the donation. The DP reached out to Clark, now Assistant Secretary of Advancement at the Smithsonian, last week, but she did not return requests for comment.

On August 03 2017 07:38 LegalLord wrote:

Unemployed or working at unreasonable wages. Or forced elsewhere because that industry became unprofitable for them.

The companies that want cheap labor tend to scream scarcity forever. This is no surprise. And Mohdoo is right and I too want to see H1B die a brutal death.

On August 03 2017 07:39 Gorsameth wrote:

I love how that article tries to blame the Obama appointees on the NSC for the leaks, despite their past record on confidentiality under Obama, rather then look at the new people when factions within the WH are clearly at war with each other.

On August 03 2017 07:45 Introvert wrote:
Can't wait to see this Miller/Acosta exchange when I have time. Heard Acosta is a fool of himself again. We've had too many quiet days in a row.

Btw opposing increasing or supporting a decrease of immigration =/= being against all immigration entirely. I know, it's difficult. A point system is a great idea compared to family favorable immigration.

On August 03 2017 07:50 Introvert wrote:


Entirely logical that Obama holdovers would have a motive for leaking against a new president they dislike.

On August 03 2017 07:51 Doodsmack wrote:


Miller is a 30 year old moron who sounded fakely confrontational (probably to specifically appeal to Trump who watches closely). Btw the proposed bill has no chance of passing.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bipartisan bill placing new sanctions on Russia — but in a statement, he claimed multiple aspects of the legislation violate the Constitution.

The sanctions, aimed at punishing Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, limit the president’s power to lift the sanctions without congressional approval and were initially resisted by the administration.

In one of two statements released almost simultaneously Wednesday morning by the White House, Trump said he supports the law's efforts to crack down on the actions of Iran, North Korea and Russia. But the White House protested what it sees as congressional encroachment on the president’s power in foreign affairs.

"In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions," Trump said in one statement. "My Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies."

The president's second statement included a stepped-up defense of his own administration's foreign policy and input on the legislation. Trump said that "despite its problems," he had signed the bill "for the sake of national unity." The statement characterized the governments of Iran and North Korea as "rogue regimes," a label he did not apply to the Russian government.

Even as he continues to label Russian interference in the election a “hoax,” the statement went further in acknowledging the intrusion than Trump has in the past.

“I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization,” the statement said.

Still, Trump was quick to push back on what he views as congressional overreach.

"The bill remains seriously flawed — particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking," Trump said, in reference to congressional Republicans’ latest failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

"I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected," the president continued. "As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.”

The statements drew mixed reaction on Capitol Hill.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, a leading architect of the sanctions bill, told reporters he was not concerned about Trump’s statement, though he said he had not yet seen it.

“Both countries talk privately in ways that are very different from how they talk publicly,” the Tennessee Republican said of U.S.-Russia relations. “But this was a necessary step that we took, and I’m glad we took it.”

In addition to allowing lawmakers to handcuff Trump on any future changes to Russia sanctions, the legislation converts some existing sanctions from executive orders into law, making them more difficult to roll back, and imposes new sanctions focused on Moscow’s reported cyber-meddling in the November election. The legislation’s Iran and North Korea sanctions were broadly popular in both parties and with the Trump administration.

Although White House officials asserted that some of the preferred changes to the legislation were included before its final passage last week, the administration had long underscored its opposition to provisions that will impede Trump's ability to warm relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The action by the Congress to put these sanctions in place and the way that they did, neither the president nor I are very happy about that,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters Tuesday. “We were clear that we didn’t think it was going to be helpful to our efforts.”

Still, Tillerson added, “we can’t let it take us off track of trying to restore the relationship” with Russia.

Even as Trump criticized the measure, he added that “I nevertheless expect to honor the bill’s waiting periods to ensure that Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill’s review procedures.”

That apparent concession by Trump did not assuage Democratic concerns about his signing statement. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California warned in a statement that Trump’s interpretation of the sanctions bill “raises serious questions about whether his administration intends to follow the law, or whether he will continue to enable and reward Vladimir Putin’s aggression.”

And some Republicans who played a key role in the sanctions package raised their own alarms.

“Look, whether it was President Bush, President Obama, or President Trump, I’ve never been a fan of signing statements,” said Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado. “I think they’re a way for any president to usurp the role of the legislative branch. And that’s why I’ve always been concerned, regardless of who issued them, on any matter.”

The bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support. The House passed the sanctions by a vote of 419-3, and the Senate cleared it 98-2 — making any presidential veto futile and sure to be overridden.

With multiple investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, a veto also would have been politically disastrous.

After weeks of waffling, the White House confirmed over the weekend that Trump would sign the bill.

The White House still sought to characterize the bill as a win, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying in a statement on Friday that Trump “negotiated regarding critical elements of it” and decided to sign it “based on its responsiveness to his negotiations.”

The statement Wednesday also contained a warning — not to Russia, but to Congress.

“The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President,” Trump said. “This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice.”

On August 03 2017 07:53 Introvert wrote:


Of course not.

And I've heard Acosta before. We need more of him, every time he acts as a "journalist" a suburban independent becomes a reluctant Trump supporter.

On August 03 2017 07:53 LegalLord wrote:
For me personally, this all makes export controls and government secrets a blessing. H1Bs are actively destroying our local workforce, starting with the most vulnerable areas: pure science academia.

On August 03 2017 07:57 TheYango wrote:

Pure science academia is doing a good job of destroying itself without the help of immigrants tbh.