SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Claiming a shortage of workers for the hospitality industry, Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club has requested and obtained permission to hire 70 foreign workers. The claim of a shortage of available workers is disputed:
'"We currently have 5,136 qualified candidates in Palm Beach County for various hospitality positions listed in the Employ Florida state jobs database," CareerSource spokesman Tom Veenstra said Friday.'
70 is a slight increase over last year, when 64 foreign workers were hired.
"Making America Great Again" by hiring foreigners? Perhaps what is required is higher pay, not foreigners.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Estate Gets Permission to Hire 70 Foreign Workers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
< nobse> bleh... last night I had a dream... someone NMU'ed vim...
nightmare
-- in #debian-devel
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @03:42PM (54 children)
Ho-hum. As time passes, Trump most certainly exposes himself to be a hypocritical ass, who cares nothing for anyone "beneath" him. But - why so some insist on comparing him to the alternative, and pretending that the alternative might have been better? I repeat myself: the choice was between the court fool, and the evil witch. If I want to fish for issues in which Hillary probably would have done better, I can probably find some. But, I can certainly find issues in which she would have been worse. Uranium One? With Trump, we're not sure what he's willing to sell. With Hillary, we knew that EVERYTHING was for sale. And, once again, WTF do we tolerate this two party system, in which we are only offered one sack of shit, or another?
As time passes, the Democrat's treatement of Bernie just pisses me off more. I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but he did represent the "people's choice". A corrupt party shot him down, and insisted that it could force the party's own choice on the people. The Republicans are better than the Democrats, in my opinion, in that the people refused the party's choices, and in fact, chose their own alternative. The race should have been Bernie vs Sanders, and I kinda think Sanders would have won.
Blame the current state of affairs on Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, and their close cadre. Corruption lost the election.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @04:01PM (18 children)
Wow, just wow!
You really are in denial about the Republicans aren't you.
Your rant was missing something about her emails, but apart from that, a pretty comprehensive application of blame on the wrong people. Many people (you included?) supported Trump despite all the evidence that came out before the election that showed his was a grifter with limited intelligence.
Next time you don't like what is going on in the country, instead of blaming Democrats, take a look in the mirror.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @04:24PM
No, I was never a Trump supporter. I voted for Johnson, this time around. I refused to give my blessing, however grudging, to either of the royal asses the rest of the country was fighting over.
Denial? What on earth am I denying? I'm openly admitting that neither Trump nor Hillary are fit for any office, at any level of government. The alternatives weren't much better, but they were at least somewhat better. Corruption pervades the D and the R party.
You appear to be denying that Hillary is corrupt. Is that what you are referring to with your denial statement? Tell me, what would Hillary NOT have sold to the highest bidder?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday November 13 2017, @05:05PM (10 children)
You really do need to take a step back and listen to Runaway: BOTH candidates you had were shite. Trump is an ass, but Hillary corrupted her party from the inside SOLELY for the purpose of winning. Both candidates are losers, and America lost no matter who won.
You DO need to start supporting a 3+ party system, or you WILL be stuck with corrupt leaders.
Picking Trump or Hillary is like picking shit or poo.
You NEED better choices.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @06:28PM (7 children)
Dude! Seriously! NO ONE ever needs to do this! I mean, really???
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday November 13 2017, @08:08PM (5 children)
I know, right!?! :)
But in THIS case, he IS right.
The REAL choice, Bernie, was corruptly stolen away and Americans were left with shoe-shit for both the Left AND the Right.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @09:29PM
Bernie chose to align himself with the democrats rather than remaining on the Independent ticket and catapulting a third party into the election discussions.
If either the Green or Libertarian parties had gotten the 5+ percent this election we could start having a real discussion about change in America, since they would have qualified for the federal advertising funds next election. That would have had more of an effect in 4 years than either Clinton or Trump getting elected this time around. But Americans have proven themselves the stupid, jingoistic idiots that foreigners love to insult us as, by voting for Trump and Clinton to a reasonably narrow margin, neither of which won over 50 percent of the popular vote. When a president isn't even starting with a 50-51 percent approval rating, you already know something is wrong with the system. In America's case the real question is: What isn't wrong with the system?
It is time to have a serious, calm, and rational discussion on this, between the two stupid masses of sheeple, as well as the kooks and rationals of that remaining ~4 percent.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13 2017, @09:32PM (3 children)
It was rigged and #CrazyBernie [twitter.com] got schlonged. Donna Brazile said so in her book Hacked. But now she says it wasn't rigged. She told the #FakeNews [twitter.com] ABC and CBS it wasn't rigged. Because that's what they want to hear. That's the only way they'll cover her, is if she says it wasn't rigged. And she needs to get out the word about her book, needs to sell her book, so she says it wasn't. Folks, it was rigged. You pick up her book, she says it very clearly in there. But the #MSM [twitter.com] don't want to report that. They will never, ever report that. Because they're in the pocket of the #CrookedClintons [twitter.com]. Who have left a long, long trail of corpses behind them. From #VinceFoster [twitter.com] to #SethRich [twitter.com] and beyond. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:12AM (2 children)
It took you a while, but you're getting really good at the spoof trump.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:01AM
Honestly, he's (she's?) brilliant. It's too bad his genius is confined to this site with its rather small readership.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:21PM
It's a spoof?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13 2017, @09:58PM
Yes, really. I probably give him more of the internet equivalent of catapult-launched sacks of flaming shit than anyone else on this site and I still mod him up when he says something insightful or informative. A true thing is true no matter who says it. He's not intellectually disabled; he's evil. There is a difference.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 13 2017, @10:42PM (1 child)
I don't think there is a hope in hell of the US ever getting new parties elected, as the Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered the entire system from top to bottom.
When I point out to Americans that the UK, a nation of 64 million (or so) has 8 parties in their parliament, even with the awful first-past-the-post system in place, they point to the fact that the US parties are "big tent" parties, as if that is a good thing.
What it tells me is that the US is not really a democracy, and these guys agree with me, [cnbc.com] although I'm not sure I entirely agree with their methodology.
Princeton's study is probably better [cambridge.org] and comes to similar conclusions.
Of course the US has the best propaganda in the world, so the average American thinks their system of government is great, the best.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @03:07AM
There's a book called "Human Universals". It's a serious anthropological study of every human culture possible, searching for the root common qualities they all share with each other.
One of these common qualities is the de-facto system of government. Behind the facade all governments are the same, from primitive tribes to super powers. It's called Oligarchy.
The part you're able to see is just the popularity show. Guns, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Immigration... Rich and powerful people don't care about any of those things. It's a distraction to keep us busy, like a magicians misdirection. The real decisions about things that really matter (the wealth and power of a country) happen behind closed doors. They always have. Today is no different.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by stretch611 on Monday November 13 2017, @05:12PM (1 child)
Hillary is the one that refuses to look in the mirror. She has blamed everyone else for her losing the election to Trump. It was Bernie disrupting loyal democrat voters, it was Comey and mentioning email issues, it was Russia hacking. After all, she deserved it and was entitled to the presidency.
What a load of crap.
I do honestly believe that Hillary would be doing a better job at president right now than Trump is. Congress surely wouldn't have wasted 6 months trying to replace Obamacare with "No care except for millionaires." She wouldn't be having a d!ck p!ssing contest with North Korea over twitter. She wouldn't have had the FCC gut all network neutrality, eliminate consumer privacy protection at ISPs, or fight against community broadband. She wouldn't be trying to completely subvert the CFRB and toss it out (admittedly with her banker friends she probably would have tried to weaken some things there) She wouldn't have hired Betsy Devos to f-over students while letting bad for-profit colleges and the loan industry rape them raw. She probably would have had a response sent to PR, instead of having less than 50% power restored to the island 2 months after the hurricane struck. Not to mention remove all references in government to "climate change" and withdraw from the paris accords. Or refuse to divest stocks into a blind trust let alone still own/control a private hotel chain. (and the list goes on and on...)
That being said... I wouldn't vote for hillary. She is a crook. Her whole platform was I'm not Trump. She had no real plan or election message. After all, she thought she was entitled to it. And against Trump... Half the Republican party hated Trump before the election what did she have to worry about... of course she doesn't believe that half the Democrats hate her as well. (This truly was an election of the absolute worse candidates ever... I'd rather have G. Bush for a 3rd term than either of the 2 major candidates that our awful 2 party system left us with.) I actually voted for Obama... twice... and did not regret it... But last year... I too voted for Johnson because the other choices were f-ing horrible.
TL:DR. Hillary would have been better than Trump but she did nothing to prove to voters that she should be elected and loss it due to her lack of actually campaigning. She thought it was in the bag and her entitlement, only to blame others when she lost.
The 2 party system does nothing but keep the worse of us in power and forces people to choose the lesser of two evils. (and damn, there were few people/things lesser than these two.) Until people actually vote 3rd party, nothing will improve with the 2 rotting parties currently in charge.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 13 2017, @08:16PM
I think she wouldn't have come off as sooooooo insane, but I think she would have fucked Americans as much, she just would have hidden it better.
That aside, yes you need s third party down there. Bernie should run independently and have his slogan as "I won't fuck your asses like the other guys have".
Or.... Whatever.
Fecking Hillary. Fecking Trump. You need REAL change, REAL choice.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @08:32PM
Given a few $million, could you end up with a few $billion? Could a person with "limited intelligence" do this? (without taking bribes to sell uranium!)
Heck, could a person with "limited intelligence" get elected president? I suggest you try.
The fact that Trump does things you find offensive or confusing does not mean he has limited intelligence. If anything, it suggests this about those who disagree.
Meanwhile, repeated strokes have an impact on intelligence. The main alternative for our country, Hillary Clinton, is suffering from this problem.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday November 13 2017, @09:10PM (1 child)
I have to say I'm with Runaway on this one. I voted for Stein in the General election, but in the "Democratic" primary I voted for Sanders.
There's no way I would have voted for either of the corrupt clowns representing the "major" parties. I wouldn't trust either of them to lead a pack of Cub Scouts, let alone a nation.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @04:05AM
in the "Democratic" primary I voted for Sanders
Your pattern and mine match.
In California, The Blues will allow Non-Blues to cross party lines and vote for Dems in the primary.
(The Greens don't allow this and I'm registered non-partisan.)
You ask for a Democratic crossover ballot. [google.com]
DO NOT accept a "provisional" ballot (AKA a placebo ballot).
N.B. A federal law says that if there is a registration irregularity, you must be offered a "provisional" ballot; it does NOT say that those must be counted (and, as a rule, they aren't).
...and poll workers are typically eager to push placebo ballots.
When my polling place moved by a few hundred yards and I went to the old location out of habit, the gal offered me one of those damned palacebo ballots instead of first telling me that I should go down to the corner (another polling place) and check there.
I listen to Pacific Radio and they do a great job of explaining this stuff repeatedly.
I assume that anyone consuming only Lamestream Media (which includes NPR and PBS) missed this.
Word is, there were 2 million votes for Bernie in California's primary that didn't get counted. [google.com]
.
I had previously had another crappy poll worker who wouldn't give me a paper ballot after I had signed the roll.
This is how I found out for myself that placebo ballots are total crap.
That's what the poll worker gave me and the authorities mailed me a notice that said mine was rejected.
Now I insist that they show me my paper ballot before I sign anything.
.
I'm now wondering if Organized Labor will abandon The Blues and throw their weight behind a 3rd party in 2018 and 2020.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:42AM
There is plentyu of blame to be had by the Republicans, but the Democrats worked hard to earn their share of blame. The Rs offered a candidate so bad even many Rs didn't want to vote for him. Meanwhile, the Ds had a candidate that was actually bringing people out to vote who never bothered before. Bit NOOOOOOOO, they had to sandbag the favorite and coronate Hillary instead because of some misguided idea that it was her turn (and let democracy be damned for saying otherwise).
They wrapped up the election and handed it to Trump on a silver platter. It wasn't easy, but they managed it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @04:07PM (15 children)
Talking of corruption, Trump's administration recently nominated and the Senate appear to be ready to approve the most unqualified judge in recent history.
His only qualification for the post is loyalty to Trump.
This is what you voted for.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @04:30PM (13 children)
Apparently, you voted for that very same thing. Democrats appoint judges with precisely the same qualification. Loyalty to the party, if not loyalty to the president.
Wake up and smell the coffee - the two party system is broken and corrupted. You apparently support one of those two corrupt parties, while I do not.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @05:14PM (12 children)
Instead of bullshitting, name a similarly unqualified judicial nomination made by a Democrat.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @05:41PM (8 children)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/31/obama-judges-democrat-republican-senate/3286337/ [usatoday.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama [wikipedia.org]
Each and every judge who works to promote his/her own version of social engineering. We hear blathering about this thing called "precedent", but then we see activist judges in action. My favorite example? California passed a constitutional amendment, defining exactly what marriage is. Proposition 8 passed by a considerably large margin. Californians - the residents and citizens of the most liberal state in this country - REJECTED gay marriage.
And, some fucking activist judge told Californians to go fuck themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29 [wikipedia.org]
Name any activist judge, be he/she D or R, and I'll show you a son of a bitch who is patently unqualified to be a judge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @06:29PM (5 children)
Apparently to you "unqualified"means "does not agree with my world view". That is an immature and self-centered view of the world.
The people you point to may well have biases (although pointing to a bio of the person doesn't provide any evidence of such), but they were qualified. They had experience in court.
This recent nomination has barely been inside a courthouse. He has never argued a motion in front of a judge, he has never tried a case. He is utterly unqualified.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @06:43PM (4 children)
A judge who actively undermines the will of the people is unfit to be a judge. The same goes for almost any other official position. Immature and self centered? You have probably just described the entire Democratic party. The party rallies groups around idiot slogans, promising to cater to each group, knowing that it is impossible to do so. And, the juvies hop on the D's bandwagon.
How in hell does a party champion the cause of Islam, and homosexuals, at the same time? It's all a lie. Immature and self centered. Go on, please continue . . .
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM
That sentence got stuck in my mind.
Is that true? I can't really determine (maybe I just don't know enough about how governments work).
In Montesquieue(sp)'s Trias Politica (which I've never actually read but I remember the description from school), the Judiciary branch is supposed to adjudge based on the letter of the law and nothing else (+ constitution, human rights, et cetera. you know what I mean; written down stuff.)
However.
1. Suppose the Trump Administration and the US Congress manage to make a law: "all money budgeted for health insurance such as Medicare is re-allocated to tax relief for the 1% and a 10fold increase of the number of nukes we have".
2. And assume (I don't know if this is true!!) that the will of the people of the USA is, to have affordable health insurance, even to the detriment of the # of extra nukes or the taxes on the rich.
3. And imagine somebody would sue the government for that Trumpcare law like "it isn't fair for the majority of Americans!".
Are you then saying, that a judge should listen to and interpret the will of the people by him/herself, and be an "activist judge" and strike that law down as un-constitutional? (Because I think the US constitution contains the phrase "for the people", not "for the rich and the MIC")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM
You're such a clown I can't wait until we return to serfdom so I can laugh when you get sent to work in the dirt mines for being a poor hick. I already gave up on the country now the only thing that makes me happy is the satisfaction I'll be a rich lord while you peons get the dicks you've been begging for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @08:18PM
Apparently, you skipped your civics class:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Judges are there to uphold the law, starting with the Constitution, not to make popular decisions, or even decisions that you disagree with.
You are back to your familiar tactics: deflection and "whataboutism".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:06PM
FTFY.
Judges are not there to please the people but to uphold the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) [wikipedia.org]
The judges decided that the California constitution could not be amended to be in conflict with the US constitution, given that California was part of the US. Admittedly, this clause was designed to protect the rights of the newly released slaves, but it applies just as much to any sub-group of citizens.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
The gay marriage, that's a terrific example. Who do some of these judges think they are? The folks in California voted fair and square to amend the Constitution. But some judge says, "Oh no, you can't, that's unconstitutional." How can the Constitution be unconstitutional? I'll tell you, it can't. And if it could, do we really want JUDGES to decide on things like that? That's not the job of a judge. Not what they're there for. But they pretend it's their job. Believe me, they're lousy at it. You look at the 14th Amendment, if there's anything unconstitutional in the Constitution it's that. It's the reason we have all these anchor babies. What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby. When people are illegally in the country, they have to go. Now, the good ones -- there are plenty of good ones -- will work, so it’s expedited, we can expedite it where they come back in, but they come back legally.
And flag burning. Personally, I don’t think it should be legal. Let me ask you a question. It didn’t used to be legal, did it? I see more and more burning of the flag. Did it used to be legal? People burning the flag, I don’t like them in this country. Nobody ever asks, why don't the courts stop that? They're not stopping it, it's getting worse and worse. 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:12PM
I think flag burning is the correct and proper way prescribed in the flag code to dispose of a flag. Now I know that's not what you mean, but here's the more nuanced answer(IANAL, FWIW, Free advice is worth what you paid, etc): Burning of the flag is legal, burning of the flag to show disrespect is illegal because it shows disrespect according to the law dealing with the flag, how it is to be displayed, etc. I think this is also overridden by the 1st amendment, as making a political statement via a demonstration and public special is protected, by free speech and right to assemble.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor [wikipedia.org] - for the Hispanic vote, ties to Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan [wikipedia.org] - for the ties to Clinton and Chicago
Both sides nominate based on loyalty
But don't mod this touche, mod it down because only those dirty Rs nominate based on loyalty
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13 2017, @10:48PM
Let me tell you, President Obama picked a huge, huge number of UNQUALIFIED judges. But you never hear about that. Because he didn't nominate them. He would go to the American Bar Association -- which is very liberal -- and ask, is this guy qualified? And a lot, a lot of times they would tell him "no." And he didn't nominate those guys. A few times they said "yes" and he went ahead with the nominations. Nobody really knows why they say "yes" or "no." I mean, they know. Probably, they know. But most folks don't know. So I'm not asking the Bar Association, I'm deciding whether a guy is qualified or not. Believe me, I can tell. It's very easy to tell. And surprise, surprise, a lot of times the Bar Association says I nominated someone qualified. Not 100%, actually 60%. Which is very good. For Obama it was 70%. It's no surprise, folks, I'm not trying to be a liberal here so they don't want to agree. But I know what I'm doing so they look very foolish if they don't agree. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @03:46AM
Sonia Maria Sotomayor is racist. (see her "wise latina" comment) She's on the supreme court.
She also doesn't give a damn about the law as written, preferring instead to interpret her way to some sort of social justice. Evidently the law is just vague suggestion, to be discarded by the supreme court whenever it pleases her.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:58PM
New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez had spent the last couple months on trial for corruption, bribery, and fraud. All mainstream media avoided the story. This is a sitting senator on trial for corruption, bribery, and fraud. Something is rotten here. Most TV networks gave the story a minute or so in non-news shows, and zero coverage in the news programs. As is usual, there is rarely a "(D)" shown after the name of a misbehaving democrat.
The senate itself should have voted to eject Bob Menendez, but the democrats want to drag things out to avoid letting a republican governor appoint a replacement.
To compare: CNN heavily covered republican senator Ted Steven’s corruption trial back in 2008. The unsubstantiated nonsense about Trump always gets heavy coverage.
You'll have to go outside the bubble to see anything about this:
https://www.redstate.com/jon-street/2017/11/07/medias-near-non-existent-menendez-trial-coverage/ [redstate.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/28/study-cnn-barely-covers-menendez-trial-provided-nonstop-coverage-for-ted-stevens-in-08/ [breitbart.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/08/abc-cbs-nbc-give-zero-coverage-to-menendez-trial/ [dailycaller.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/ [dailycaller.com]
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/11/national-media-curiously-uninterested-in-democrat-menendez-corruption-trial/ [legalinsurrection.com]
https://www.infowars.com/abc-cbs-nbc-give-zero-coverage-to-menendez-trial/ [infowars.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @04:32PM (10 children)
Almost all politicians are slimy; that's just the way our system works (or non-works). Honest people won't go far in politics. That being said, T is damaging our reputation overseas by having the attention span of a goldfish. Venezuela's neighbors used to be fairly friendly to the US. But when T threatened to invade Venezuela, they turned and backed Venezuela instead.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:36PM (9 children)
Old reputation: basically a doormat that anybody could walk all over, trying desperately to buy friends
New reputation: the 800-pound gorilla you must respect
Nobody respected the old America. Ripping off the USA was a game that every country did and enjoyed.
Not that he needs it, and you don't see it on CNN, but oddly Trump actually has adoring crowds everywhere he goes in Asia. That even includes China! It's weird as fuck actually, but it kind of makes sense. Chinese people consider Trump to be strong, and thus worthy of respect.
Trump is succeeding with the leaders too. A great example is that China just dropped the very 1-sided requirements they had for foreign tech transfer and for joint ownership to be majority-Chinese. It used to be that doing business in China meant you were limited to 49% ownership and you couldn't hold back your trade secrets. Trump drops by for a visit, and the new policy is announced right after he leaves.
Trump has also helped improve relations between Japan and South Korea.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday November 13 2017, @05:58PM (4 children)
Where's the Facepalm mod when I need it?
Step away from Fox (or the white house), and read some foreign media for a change.
(Score: 5, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday November 13 2017, @06:46PM
Bob, you are less super in my estimation, since, apparently,
you seem to think that Fox viewers and Trumpists can read. A "tweet" is a wall of text to them, I tell you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @09:49PM (2 children)
Foreign media is often government controlled. It represents not what the government or people think, but what the government wants an audience to think. If you read the English-language version, that audience is often mostly intended to be Americans.
Foreign media can be lazy. Parroting CNN is easier than doing actual work.
Ignoring those credibility problems... so what if they hate us? The goal is not to be liked. The goal is to maximize American advantage in the world. Only rarely does that coincide with being liked.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 13 2017, @10:15PM (1 child)
> Foreign media is often government controlled. It represents not what the government or people think, but what the government wants an audience to think.
Holy fuck you have no clue on an epic scale...
> If you read the English-language version, that audience is often mostly intended to be Americans.
I'm sure the brits will be glad to learn that. The Indians and a third of Africa too!
> Parroting CNN is easier than doing actual work.
Doesn't that contradict your first statement?
> The goal is not to be liked. The goal is to maximize American advantage in the world. Only rarely does that coincide with being liked.
Not disagreeing there, but ...
> so what if they hate us?
I guess you've never had true friends. You'll recognize if you meet one: actually telling you something you should notice you're doing wrong, even if they know you don't like to hear it. It's a bit hard to understand for someone who's both acting like a bully (ask Saddam) and yet has an unquestionable charisma...
I guess you might relate that to BLM: people need the police, mostly respect the police, sometime envy the courage and the heroes ... but they have to point out that part of it is perfectible, since beating up brown people, pigging out, or taking bribes, does look bad. The US is the World's police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:50PM
it's almost like your anon friend is a paid shill
you wont get through to him because hes getting paid to post his stuff. unless he feels bad about the money, if so then he'll just stop posting for a while until he needs to be someones bitch again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday November 13 2017, @08:36PM (3 children)
Old reputation: gorilla of plus-size weight willing to lie/cheat to get its way in invading wherever it wants
New reputation: confused octopus that each hand does whatever it wants and is corrupt in each arm and is in the process of making America a police state where it spies on everyone, takes away all freedoms and rights, can arrest anyone for any reason and hold them without counsel, control freak controlling ALL communication....
....hmmmm....
What else? Any Americans here who can add to the list? :)
No one respects America STILL because the world sees you as ignorant, entitled, rude and money grubbing (even your Prez who hires Mexicans because they're cheap while blowing out his ass that doing THAT is wrong and he's going to stop it.
America is a world joke and is deserving of disrespect because of these things.
Americans need to start electing people who earn respect, and start acting respectful inside AND OUTSIDE it's borders.
Act respectful and honest, and you will, maybe, earn respect.
Be rude and money grubbing and you are American.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday November 13 2017, @09:14PM
And here I am out of mod points...please accept a virtual +1.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)
The gorilla gets respect... but whatever. The goal is power, influence, control, dominance, etc.
Sometimes it pays to be rude.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13 2017, @10:03PM
But for how long? The biggest bully on the playground gets respect of a sort, but after he's gotten fat and lazy from stealing everyone's lunches, eventually some of the scrappier victims are going to gang up on him, beat the shit out of him, and put him in the hospital for a while. You're shortsighted and stupid.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13 2017, @06:24PM (5 children)
The Republicans are better than the Democrats, in my opinion, in that the people refused the party's choices, and in fact, chose their own alternative.
This isn't really correct I think, though I guess it depends on your definition of "better". What this race showed is that, at least at that time, the GOP's party procedures and by-laws were inferior, because they allowed an outsider to get the GOP nomination despite party officials and members being against it. I guess that shows it was superior in the "democratic" metric, but inferior as far as a party being able to police itself and operate with some level of governance and authority.
The DNC, by contrast, showed itself to be superior in choosing the candidate that party insiders and leaders wanted. However, while this was done with a veneer of democracy (the primary elections, which Hillary won), it was also done with a lot of inside backstabbing, as shown by the divulged emails.
I expect the GOP to probably change their election policies in the future to avoid another upset like Trump's victory. I'm not sure what's going to happen with the DNC though.
The race should have been Bernie vs Sanders, and I kinda think Sanders would have won.
I completely agree that Sanders would have won. Trump was not very popular, swing voters didn't like him, and a lot of people either didn't vote or voted 3rd-party (look up the number of 3rd-party votes for 2016 vs. prior years, and also the turnout numbers in 2016 vs. 2008). There were also many people who claimed to be Bernie voters who instead voted for Trump as a fuck-you to Hillary. Add up all of those that could realistically have voted Bernie, add in most of the HRC voters (because they sure as hell weren't voting for Trump), and surely there's enough there to get Bernie a victory. Remember, Trump did not win by a landslide even remotely, he lost the popular vote in fact, so it wouldn't have taken that many votes (in particular states especially, where Bernie's message of economic populism was well-received whereas Hillary didn't bother to even show up) for Bernie to win.
What this really showed IMO was poor DNC leadership: pragmatically speaking, they should have pulled Hillary's nomination and given it to Bernie, *despite* the primary results, just based on how unpopular she was. As a party, it was their job to win the election, not coronate a queen. It should have been obvious to party insiders that she was unpopular and risked losing, compared to Bernie and his popularity, and also that every time they've run an unpopular, uncharismatic candidate in the last 50 years, they've lost. When are they going to learn? Was it not enough to have Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale all lose, and for Obama to win (which was unexpected to the DNC, as they wanted Hillary in '08 too, but Obama stole the show)?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @06:38PM (4 children)
"depends on your definition of "better"."
Take a look at The Party, sitting in front of the gramophone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice [wikipedia.org]
In this election, the R's eventually caved in to the "master's voice". The D's stauchly ingnored the "master's voice". The D's tail wagged the party, the R's tail finally obeyed the party. That is how and why I see the R's as being better than the D's - this time around, at least.
Much is made of our nation being a "democratic" republic. When any party acts as the D's did in this election, they put the lie to that "democratic" bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13 2017, @07:22PM (2 children)
The D's tail wagged the party, the R's tail finally obeyed the party. That is how and why I see the R's as being better than the D's - this time around, at least.
Again, it depends on your definition of "better". If you just mean "winning the 2016 election", then yep, the GOP's system worked wonders for them, even if it was entirely accidental (Trump is NOT who the party insiders wanted). However, and this remains to be seen, if you mean "winning elections long term", it might not: there's indications that Trumpism is seriously splitting the party apart, with several long-time GOP members like Jeff Flake and John Boehner retiring and criticizing the party, and the GOP did not do well in the election last week either, especially in Virginia. Of course, the DNC has been having its own little civil war in the wake of the '16 election too, so it remains to be seen which one will do better in '18 and '20. If Trump is a 1-term President and the DNC takes over both branches in '20, then I'd say it didn't turn out well for the GOP at all.
Much is made of our nation being a "democratic" republic. When any party acts as the D's did in this election, they put the lie to that "democratic" bullshit.
Perhaps, but I'd also say that our entire election system isn't all that "democratic" to begin with. The Electoral College is inherently un-democratic, as the President isn't even elected by the people at all, but by unelected "Electors", though they're supposed to (and usually do, but not always [wikipedia.org]) vote according to the votes in their state, but there again, this means people in Wyoming and Rhode Island have more power per vote than people in California and Texas, and this is by design. The way Congressional districts are chosen is also completely undemocratic and downright rigged. Besides, "The Orville" just had a pretty funny episode about why direct democracy isn't such a hot idea.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:04PM
Virginia had a democrat governor, and they got another. This isn't a gain. It's just keeping a seat.
The new governor won the state by less than Hillary won the state. So, he still won, but the margin of victory was lower.
To say that the GOP did not do well in the election last week is thus wrong. They did better than expected for that election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:10PM
States have the constitutional right to choose electors as they wish:
* by lottery
* by auction
* the governor picks
* the state supreme court picks
* the state legislature picks
* first-past-the-post voting (normal)
* approval voting
* ranked voting
* the state's members of the US congress are automatically the electors
That last one would be a parliament. If all the states did that, then the US congress would effectively be a US parliament.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:52PM
listen, at least the democrats rigged it from within the democrats.
the republicans got rigged by russia and they gave us a stooge everyone intelligent resents to some extent, if not completely.
i refuse both outcomes, but the lesser evil is internal rigging.
we as a people can at least punish the democratic party for their actions. we can't punish republicans for being so stupid to go along with it to push their agenda
make being someone else's bitch great again should be the new US motto because it'd work for both parties.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday November 13 2017, @07:52PM
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday November 13 2017, @08:35PM
If you thought he was just the court fool, then you ignored 30 or 40 years' worth of publicity about his business and personal dealings in NYC. My feeling about 3rd party voters is that they do indeed make a statement; sadly, that statement is "we ignore the fact that American elections are winner-take-all".