Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 13 2017, @02:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the cleaning-up dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @05:14PM (12 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Monday November 13 2017, @05:14PM (#596311) Journal

    Instead of bullshitting, name a similarly unqualified judicial nomination made by a Democrat.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Touché=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @05:41PM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13 2017, @05:41PM (#596332) Journal

    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)

      by Whoever (4524) on Monday November 13 2017, @06:29PM (#596360) Journal

      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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13 2017, @06:43PM (#596367) Journal

        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

          by fritsd (4586) on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM (#596400) Journal

          A judge who actively undermines the will of the people is unfit to be a judge.

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM (#596402)

          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

          by Whoever (4524) on Monday November 13 2017, @08:18PM (#596428) Journal

          A judge who actively undermines the will of the people is unfit to be a judge.

          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.

          How in hell does a party champion the cause of Islam, and homosexuals, at the same time?

          You are back to your familiar tactics: deflection and "whataboutism".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:06PM (#596504)

          A judge who actively undermines the applicable law is unfit to be a judge.

          FTFY.

          Judges are not there to please the people but to uphold the law.

          The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples."

          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)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday November 13 2017, @10:28PM (#596520) Homepage Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:12PM (#596922)

        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:43PM (#596333)

    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

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday November 13 2017, @10:48PM (#596530) Homepage Journal

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @03:46AM (#596651)

    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.