SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:22PM
No, I'd argue it's not.
If you were friends with someone who says they're going to kill their wife, but hey, he also makes okay ice cream I guess, so why not be pals, I'd probably condemn your tacit endorsement of his murdering.
That might all be different if the wife-killer had changed his mind, repented, or been punished for it in some way, because hey, understanding that people are flawed is okay. But that's not the case in this analogy, the immoral, outright evil component of Trump was front and center and unapologetic. Anyone tacitly accepting that with a vote, is also tacitly endorsing the bigotry in a non-trivial way. These voters are actually bad people.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 11 2016, @01:21AM
Unfortunately though, this election was a choice between a shit sandwich and a glass of vomit (your choice who was who). You could equally argue that voting for Hillary was tacit endorsement of her support for the big end of town at the expense of the little end. I'm still feeling the Bern.
I agree that Trump's election will be bad for minorities. But I disagree that it was the intent of all Trump voters (maybe some, but not all) to explicitly disadvantage minorities. His angle was about protecting American jobs. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that, if there were a crisis in the US flat-pack furniture industry, he'd try to send all of the Swedish home too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:21PM
This! Stop the division, even with Sanders on the ballot I would understand that some people would be too afraid of the scurrry "socialism" and vote Trump out of that fear. I wouldn't like it, I would think those people need to expand their own mind, but just voting for Trump wouldn't mean by default that they are racist / bigoted / idiots. Just differing opinions about what they think would make the US a better place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday November 11 2016, @01:34AM
WHOA, whoa, whoa!
Hillary was fine with corruptly stealing the leadership of the Dems from Bernie. She had no problem staying with and supporting a man who cheated on her, while also attacking those women and trying to find info on them in order to attack them further and denigrate them.
She also deleted emails under subpoena not to.
She is a liar, a corrupt person who sanctimoniously attacked Trump for doing something she supported Bill for doing.
DO NOT Throw stones in her glass house... it all might come shattering down around you!
Bernie should have been the Dems leader and HE would have won GUARANTEED!
Instead, a pig of a person ran and lost, so stop crying about who won: Bernie and America lost. Hillary was just the punchline.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday November 11 2016, @03:48AM
So basically you're saying that all Hillary voters are bad people. After all, she has repeatedly advocated for war, and unrepetently supports campaigns that include bombing innocent civilians and putting weapons in the hands of murderous terrorists and religious fundamentalists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @10:27AM
I could argue such things about every candidate ever. We're always given a choice of two evils from the major parties, and most voters foolishly vote for what they believe is the lesser evil. Now, since most candidates have supported mass surveillance and/or other unconstitutional policies (which are every bit as horrendous if not more so than racism), does that mean everyone who voted for those candidates supported those policies? Do you have to agree with a candidate 100% to vote for them? You might argue that voting for evil is foolish--and I would agree--but I think someone's actual intentions matter, regardless.