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: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:36PM
women who may not be able to exercise their reproductive human-rights
Really?
Who is preventing that?
Do males have reproductive rights too?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:41PM
Do males have reproductive rights too?
Well of course silly. Men have the right to not have sex if they don't want to deal with pregnancy.
Of course suggesting women do the same is an OUTRAGE.
Hypocrisy? You're soaking in it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:02PM
That's not an outrage. But women have the additional option of getting an abortion, seeing as how they carry the fetus in their body and all.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by bob_super on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:09PM
> deal with pregnancy
Funny how you forgot to put the accent on the right word, despite typing it.
Men and women don't exactly deal with pregnancies in equal ways...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:41PM
Absolutely not, males do not have the right to reproduce, but males are encouraged to make gay porn for female entertainment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:58PM
Did you pay attention to a single goddamn element of the platform of the idiot you voted for?
He came out explicitly in favor of arresting women who get abortions. And yes, he said women, not men, not doctors, not anyone else. So take your supercilious "what about men" bullshit and cram it right back the MRA hole it came out of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:07PM
Cite?
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:20PM
K.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-women-punishment_us_56fc2a99e4b083f5c606880d [huffingtonpost.com]
(I know, I know, I don't like huffpo either, but it was the first result for my search and I'm feeling lazy)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:25PM
Some type of punishment isn't exactly arresting, fuckwad.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:26PM
Please indicate the non-traffic crimes that any one person or person has ever received through the US judicial system without first having been arrested.
I'm aware of a few ways that's possible, but it doesn't happen often. Arresting is a precursor to "Some type of punishment" you pedantic child.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Friday November 11 2016, @12:22AM
There's currently a punishment for people without insurance in the form of a monetary fine that is handled as part of filing your tax returns. You don't get arrested, you just get less back or owe more money come April. So, yes, it's possible to have "some type of punishment" without arrest. Doesn't mean that's what Trump meant, but it's certainly possible. People need to jumping to conclusions about shit when there's so little to go on.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm just tired of the bullshit from both sides. Like it or not, he won, so now he can be measured by what he does or does not do, rather than speculation about dumb shit said during this year's farce of an election.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:52AM
I know I solicited this response but, I'm sure he was talking about a tax modification, as a means of incentive alteration in a technocra-
-wait:
that's stupid as hell and if you're tired of "the bullshit from both sides" why are you seriously trying to pretend he didn't intend criminal prosecution because there's a trivial language difference from what I said.
I want to make the case that I said nothing hyperbolic at all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Marand on Friday November 11 2016, @01:24AM
You asked about punishments given without requiring an arrest, so I supplied one. Like I said, that doesn't mean it's what Trump meant, but it could be. Or he could have just been talking out of his ass just like everything else said during his campaign. I don't think it really matters; I only replied because you asked for an example and that one came to mind.
Also, I wasn't accusing anybody of hyperbole. That bit about being sick of the bullshit got added in because of both you and the AC resorting to petty name-calling over an argument about what Trump may have meant about a statement that may or may not have been absolute pandering bullshit when he said it. After months of watching the pro-Clinton and pro-Trump camps nitpicking every damn thing the other side has said, I'm just tired of it. Is that what he meant? Was it bullshit? Why does it even matter now? Election's over, he won, now we can wait, see what he does, and criticise actions instead of arguing over speculation about campagn-trail hot air.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:39AM
Getting a free pass for "pandering" is bullshit.
If we don't hold candidates accountible for their words, then what the fuck else is there?
When Hitler was campaigning people literally said the same thing about him, oh he's just pandering to get the stupid vote. [vox.com]
No he fucking wasn't.
The problem with waiting for action is that by then its too damn late.
Maybe you get lucky and can undo it, but in the meantime lots of people suffer.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by tisI on Friday November 11 2016, @05:08AM
My friend, you're being bated by troll.
AC's will argue stupid shit incessantly. Ignore that cum swallower unless he wants to show his face.
Thank you for the link.
I had NO idea that worthless piece of shit freak show on wheels ever said such a retarded thing.
Nuke that fucker and anyone else that follows that type of neanderthal mentality. Rabid dogs must be put down.
Yep, these worthless cocksuckers are really going to divide the country now, worse than even CRAB and Fox News couldn't do with 8 years of manipulating the peasants.
We'll be so fucked up squabbling amongst ourselves finger pointing "who's to blame" with the Emperor baiting the whole clusterfuck along.
Next thing you know Mexico and Canada will invade and loot the smoldering wreckage.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @11:26PM
" explicitly in favor of arresting women who get abortions"
Nope. He was pushed into saying there should be some kind of punishment for women, and walked it back the very next day. That was never his policy, nor clearly anything he had thought about.
Make no mistake, he will nominate anti-choice justices, and they will absolutely get on the supreme court. When the Democrats used the "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster a few years ago, the Republicans TOLD THEM that they would do the same for supreme court justices if they did it. Well, they did it. The Republicans have avoided actually BEING too anti-choice at the federal level, probably because they fear the blowback. Trump doesn't seem to have any such qualms, or ideological skin in the game, but he does have promises to keep. Plus, his distance from the party lets them blame him for it later.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:59PM
Do males have reproductive rights too?
Not enough. For example, men need the right to a "financial abortion" where all parental rights can be waived in exchange for ALL financial liability for the child being removed.
Would you have expected a liberal to give that answer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:14PM
Well that was my thought when I considered the question, and I consider myself a liberal. By the true definition of the word that is what I am, but by the weird distorted version that has come about I'm sure some rabid folks would tear me down for agreeing with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:20AM
As long as there were some way to ensure that if the man ever makes contact with the kid at any time during his life then the full cost of upbringing becomes due.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 11 2016, @03:47PM
I'm sure that could never be abused at all...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday November 11 2016, @07:19PM
You mean the current system of restraining order or not punishing mothers who disobey custody/visitation orders or move to different states etc... is just not enough.
You make it very clear that for you a kid is basically a bat to hit men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:42AM
Well gee, did you support any candidate advocating for that? Have you ever?
HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE MEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
It's easy to say you support men's rights, quite another to put up or shut up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday November 11 2016, @01:04AM
For example, men need the right to a "financial abortion" where all parental rights can be waived...
Reality check time. There is a reason for all of that traditional morality related to families. Bottom line, it ain't a decision for the male nor the female alone for a very basic reason, the reason humans pair bond long term. A single female can't successfully bear and raise a child. Period. Full stop. Spare me your anecdotal counter factuals, viewed from the civilizational level they are statistical noise. Modern society allows the illusion that it is possible and stupid people mistake it for the reality. So there is a third actor involved, The State. If the male is permitted to 'abort' his responsibility the Welfare State will be required to make up the difference. It isn't for the benefit of women or children that we have been on a jihad against "deadbeat dads" since the beginning of the easy divorce and hookup culture period, it is the budgetary impact on the government that drives it.
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters. Or some combination of the options, all various flavors of bad when compared to a normal two parent household. Feminism insists this reality is just propaganda from "the patriarchy" but history and logic refutes them. Child rearing is simply a very labor intensive process and works best when the biological mother is the primary caregiver. This implies someone else is supplying the resources required to make this investment of labor possible. Fathers or Big Brother. Pick.
If you want to end poverty in America, every study has come to the same politically unacceptable conclusion. So of course the study is rubbished and a new one commissioned to find an acceptable policy recommendation. End single motherhood and you end poverty in a generation. Any remainder is a small enough problem the impact on government is a burden nobody will object to and could probably be discarded from the list of things government even needs to do, it returns to being a problem small enough that private charity can handle it.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability. The problem is that the previous sentence is a hatefact and it is a career ending offense for a government school to tell their students such a horrible thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @08:58AM
A single mother has three options,attempt to raise the kid alone as a welfare client or try to earn enough to replace a male income plus pay somebody else to raise her kid(s), something only possible for the couple of % of earners; or they can raise semi feral monsters.
You're missing an option: they can get help from the community. Most people I know with children have some sort of rotation plan with other parents of similarly aged children and they share the child rearing duties. It's a way to get child care without being prohibitively expensive. Due to my economic class, I only know a few single mothers, but the couples I know mostly have both parents working, so child care is still a problem.
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children and the odds of you or your children being in poverty are pretty much limited to tragic situations like sudden death or disability.
I worry that there's some correlation not meaning causation here, but ignoring that, the most effective fixes are (1) free effective birth control like Colorado [cnn.com] and (2) actually having a path to education and careers for women so they don't have to date men for economic support and get pressured into having children.
Given the wording you've used, I'm guessing that you think this is not the answer and some conservative policies would be more effective in reducing the prevalence of single mothers?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @12:33PM
Complete high school
Since high schools are about rote memorization and instilling obedience and almost nothing else, I fail to see the benefit here. I refused to complete high school out of principle, and refused to get a GED for the same reason. I'm revolted by our paper-worshiping society which values job training and rote memorization over intelligence and education. It's still possible to find a job without a high school diploma, especially if you own your own business like I do. In the 21st century, it's easily possible to take your education into your own hands and do a much better job than any high school could ever do.
If you had said "get an education" instead, I might have agreed.
get married
Marriage seems to cause magical thinking in people, but it's not the marriage that's important. What's important is that you have a good relationship, which can be done with or without marriage. But I'm not thinking like a puritan theist nutjob who selectively relies on nonsensical social science (i.e. not science) studies to 'prove' how beneficial marriage is.
If you had said "get into a stable, loving relationship" instead, that would have been more agreeable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday November 11 2016, @03:45PM
Marriage adds a financial, legal disincentive to leave.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday November 12 2016, @03:46AM
Unless you're a woman, then it can be quite profitable.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 14 2016, @02:53PM
Well, unless you're a woman with less money than your husband, yes. Sugar daddy woman marrying a financially lesser man would lose in a divorce as well, obviously.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @09:26PM
I agree with you about the magical thinking surrounding marriage. If one is not interested in child-rearing, shacking up is fine for couples, but marriage should be correctly understood as a contract between two persons for the benefit of children subsequently produced. The marriage contract implies a pooling of resources for the purpose of child-rearing. All the laws relating to inheritance also support this view: once one produces offspring, everything the parents have is dedicated to the benefit of the children.
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday November 11 2016, @09:50PM
Complete high school, get married, get a steady job and THEN have children
I'm very liberal, and I agree with this. It's sound advice, and not a "hatefact". It's true, and more people should be told it.
Where we probably part ways is how to bring it about. My preferred solution includes teaching sex-ed, providing free contraception to teenagers including BC pills to girls under 18 without parental notice or approval required, and--yes--safe and legal and free abortions if it comes to that. This should all be paid for by the state. Yes, I want tax payer funded abortions, as many as necessary.
As you said, it saves money overall because single-parent (usually mother) households are not ideal and the state ends up paying the difference.