Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the revenge-of-the-nerds? dept.

President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.

Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.

"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."

Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:07PM (#425356)

    Your post can be characterized as follows:

    first paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem

    second paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem

    third paragraph: Argumentum ad hominem

    We deserve better here at SN.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:28PM (#425374)

    "We deserve better here at SN."

    Deserve? Really? Where does it say any of us deserve anything? If you don't like it do something about it. But don't sit back and expect perfection to be given to you. And if you are lucky enough to have convinced someone to spoon feed you awesomeness while you sit back and enjoy it without working, get ready for a shock when the spoon feeding stops. Please don't act like a toddler at that stage and cry.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:44PM (#425391)

      I've paid tens of thousands of dollars in Fed. income taxes each and every year for the last 20 years, from my employment in the private sector (only - no government jobs).

      Donald Trump is proud of having found a way of paying $0 in Fed. taxes, based on writing off money lost by other people. He bragged about it on national TV.

      Who's being spoon fed?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:55PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:55PM (#425401) Homepage Journal

        Nobody. Rest assured his accountants take a hefty chunk out of his ass for finding all those legal ways to avoid paying taxes.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM (#425425)

          If HRC had done that, that's all that outfits like Fox News would talk about. They would metaphorically pick up each guest by the shoulders and say, "Are you saying that a person who did that should even be allowed to be President of the United States?"

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:28PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:28PM (#425441) Homepage Journal

            HRC could have set puppies on fire on national TV and the MSM would have had nothing to say about it but "Hillary makes world safe for cats!".

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:55AM (#425602)

              > HRC could have set puppies on fire on national TV and the MSM would have had nothing to say about it but "Hillary makes world safe for cats!".

              The idea that the media was in cahoots with clinton is, and has always been, utter bullshit.
              There was relentless hyperbolic coverage of every non-scandal.
              Benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. Every damn night for months.
              Emails, emails, emails every damn night for over a year.
              And the Comey letter - holy shit headliner every night for week, until the 2nd Comey letter which got one day of coverage and done.
              Speech transcripts, transcripts, transcripts, transcripts
              Wikileaks this, wikileaks that
              And that was nothing new, its been that way for nearly her entire life - whitewater, travelgate, etc --- they all had coverage coming out wazoo for months

              And not only that, the coverage was hardly ever informative, the analysis was shallow - at best reporting bare facts without context or explanation, but frequently giving lots of airtime to random crazy ass shit republicans said under the false rubric of objectivity. Like Trump saying the Comey letter was bigger than watergate. WTF? And when she was exonerated, there would be one day's worth of coverage, at most. For example at the conclusion of the 9th benghazi investigation, the lead persecutor, Trey Gowdy who had been running his mouth off to the press for months refused to list one thing clinton had done wrong because there was nothing, That got about 15-seconds of coverage on CNN's rotation for less than a day.

              No, its just utter fucking bullshit to think the press supported her. You have to be delusional to think the press was clinton's friend.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @10:47AM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 11 2016, @10:47AM (#425624) Homepage Journal

                What planet are you from? CNN cut off a fucking congressman's feed because he said the word "wikileaks". I knew about every last one of those and a whole lot more because I refuse to be shackled by their bullshit. If a Republican had had one tenth of the scandals HRC had they would have burned him in effigy and called it reporting.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday November 11 2016, @07:31PM

                by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday November 11 2016, @07:31PM (#425783) Homepage Journal

                Oh the liberals are back to victim politics. I have been hearing about 'media is unbiased' from day one. There is only one proof needed to show MSM was in cahoots with Clinton. It kept on predicting Clinton's win, it kept on demonizing Trump, it kept on asking 'experts' about why Clinton should be president, and at the end of the day liberal voters didn't even know how Trump won.

                Just accept it - you got duped.

  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:15PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:15PM (#425428)

    I think the first paragraph is pretty spot on. Greenwald and Johnson (I think it was Johnson. It was late last night I read it) both penned pieces saying similar things. If you don't like those, go look at the bile spewing forth from HuffPo or NYT. Pretty sure they're still doing it.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 11 2016, @12:55AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 11 2016, @12:55AM (#425492) Journal
    Argumentum ad hominem [oxforddictionaries.com] doesn't mean what you think it means.

    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

    Merely being insulting is not an ad hominem.