Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by martyb on Monday November 13, @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

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

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.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:23PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:23PM (#596193)

    MAGA?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:51PM (#596228)

      Trump! Trump! Trump!

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Monday November 13, @05:53PM (1 child)

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Monday November 13, @05:53PM (#596337)

      MAGA MAGA!

      Is that one of those Pokemon calls? It's coming from a big orange monster, so it must be. :P

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @01:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @01:19AM (#596597)

        It evolved from an orange game-show host: Apprentapuff

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday November 13, @08:24PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Monday November 13, @08:24PM (#596430)

      Hey, they get the job done [youtube.com], apparently.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Monday November 13, @02:28PM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @02:28PM (#596196)

    Did he promise the mexicans will pay for the wall?
    Since their government doesn't want to, mexicans working in US will pay for it in taxes.

    (grin)

    ---
    Careful what you wish for [wikia.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:22PM (#596352)

      Shit, win by technicality, every geek's worst secret weakness!

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday November 13, @08:46PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Monday November 13, @08:46PM (#596448)

      Maybe he could say they'd pay for it in cost savings on the labor. That way he can sort of say he kept his promise.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 13, @08:59PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @08:59PM (#596455)

        Well, yeah, in the same vein, he can bring mexicans to work those coal mines or whatevs his electorate hoped he'll create jobs in.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @03:26PM (95 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:26PM (#596216)

    Let's see the Trump-lovers rationalize this one.

    Trump: "We need to put Americans to work! Build a wall! Mexicans are putting American workers out of a job!"
    Trump supporters: "YAY! MAGA!"

    Trump: "I need foreign workers to work at my resort because no Americans are willing to take the low pay I offer."
    Trump supporters: "YAY! MAGA!"

    There was some real stupidity and cluelessness on the other side in last year's election, but nothing that compares to the sheer brainlessness and lack of critical thinking ability of Trump supporters.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13, @03:42PM (54 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:42PM (#596223) Journal

      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.

      --
      This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13, @04:01PM (18 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Monday November 13, @04:01PM (#596236)

        Wow, just wow!

        You really are in denial about the Republicans aren't you.

        Blame the current state of affairs on Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, and their close cadre. Corruption lost the election.

        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, @04:24PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:24PM (#596258) Journal

          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?

          --
          This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @05:05PM (10 children)

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:05PM (#596303) Homepage Journal

          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.

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:28PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:28PM (#596359)

            You really do need to take a step back and listen to Runaway:

            Dude! Seriously! NO ONE ever needs to do this! I mean, really???

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @08:08PM (5 children)

              by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @08:08PM (#596420) Homepage Journal

              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.

              --
              --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:29PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:29PM (#596472)

                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, @09:32PM (3 children)

                by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @09:32PM (#596478) Homepage Journal

                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, @12:12AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:12AM (#596557)

                  It took you a while, but you're getting really good at the spoof trump.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13, @09:58PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @09:58PM (#596498)

              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.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 13, @10:42PM (1 child)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 13, @10:42PM (#596529)

            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, @03:07AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:07AM (#596637)

              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, @05:12PM (1 child)

          by stretch611 (6199) on Monday November 13, @05:12PM (#596310)

          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.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @08:16PM

            by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @08:16PM (#596427) Homepage Journal

            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.

            --
            --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:32PM (#596437)

          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, @09:10PM (1 child)

          by GlennC (3656) on Monday November 13, @09:10PM (#596462)

          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.

          --
          The only gods that have ever been truly worshipped are wealth and power. Others are just cover.
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @04:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @04:05AM (#596656)

            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, @01:42AM

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday November 14, @01:42AM (#596601) Journal

          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, @04:07PM (15 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Monday November 13, @04:07PM (#596242)

        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, @04:30PM (13 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:30PM (#596269) Journal

          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.

          --
          This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Monday November 13, @05:14PM (12 children)

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

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

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

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @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.

              --
              This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13, @06:29PM (5 children)

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

                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, @06:43PM (4 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @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 . . .

                  --
                  This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday November 13, @07:38PM

                    by fritsd (4586) on Monday November 13, @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, @07:38PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @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, @08:18PM

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

                    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, @10:06PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @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, @10:28PM (1 child)

                by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @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, @07:12PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @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, @05:43PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @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, @10:48PM

                by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @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, @03:46AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @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.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:58PM (#596339)

          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, @04:32PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:32PM (#596271)

        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, @05:36PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:36PM (#596329)

          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, @05:58PM (4 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @05:58PM (#596338)

            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, @06:46PM

              by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:46PM (#596369) Journal

              Bob, you are less super in my estimation, since, apparently,

              Step away from Fox (or the white house), and read some foreign media for a change.

              you seem to think that Fox viewers and Trumpists can read. A "tweet" is a wall of text to them, I tell you!

              --
              If you could ensure that your submissions are balanced, accurate and unbiased, you might stand a better chance
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:49PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:49PM (#596489)

              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, @10:15PM (1 child)

                by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @10:15PM (#596513)

                > 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, @02:50PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @02:50PM (#596805)

                  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, @08:36PM (3 children)

            by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @08:36PM (#596440) Homepage Journal

            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.

            --
            --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
            • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday November 13, @09:14PM

              by GlennC (3656) on Monday November 13, @09:14PM (#596464)

              And here I am out of mod points...please accept a virtual +1.

              --
              The only gods that have ever been truly worshipped are wealth and power. Others are just cover.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:52PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:52PM (#596493)

              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, @10:03PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @10:03PM (#596501)

                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.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @06:24PM (5 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:24PM (#596355)

        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, @06:38PM (4 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:38PM (#596364) Journal

          "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.

          --
          This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @07:22PM (2 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @07:22PM (#596388)

            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, @10:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:04PM (#596502)

              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, @10:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:10PM (#596508)

              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, @02:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @02:52PM (#596806)

            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, @07:52PM

        by inertnet (4071) on Monday November 13, @07:52PM (#596409)

        Ho-hum. As time passes, Trump most certainly exposes himself to be a politician after all.

        FTFY.

      • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday November 13, @08:35PM

        by DutchUncle (5370) on Monday November 13, @08:35PM (#596439)

        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".

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13, @03:48PM (13 children)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:48PM (#596227) Homepage Journal

      I've said there has to be a pause. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages. But until that happens, our businesses have to compete. My businesses, your businesses, all the businesses. And if I said, OK the Mar-a-Lago Club won't hire foreign workers, everybody else can hire them but my club won't, that's not competition. It would give a big, big advantage to the other clubs. A VERY UNFAIR advantage. When we do the pause, when we totally pause the green cards, believe me, then the Mar-a-Lago Club won't hire any more foreign workers. Until then, it's going to run like any other business. It's the Southern White House, Winter White House, it's also a business. Which always, always must make the biggest profit it can. #MAGA 🇺🇸

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:01PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:01PM (#596237)

        Is this really President Trump talking? I would be very surprised to see him on Soylent News.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by number11 on Monday November 13, @04:42PM (3 children)

          by number11 (1170) on Monday November 13, @04:42PM (#596283)

          Is this really President Trump talking?

          Nah. It's not only more coherent than the real thing, it's far longer than his attention span.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13, @04:28PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:28PM (#596266) Journal

        Horse shit. If you're any kind of a leader, you lead by example. Talking out your ass to make excuses for Trump doesn't make you any points.

        --
        This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13, @05:34PM (2 children)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:34PM (#596325) Homepage Journal

          I'm setting a great example. Because the greatest businessmen always, always put money first. And so do the greatest presidents. A lot of people are saying I'm the best. I'm a winner. I don't leave money on the table. When I'm golfing I play with a handicap, a very low handicap. 2.8. I'm not going to handicap my businesses just because I went into politics. And while I'm a politician I'm not running my businesses. I promised to stop running them, I kept that promise. I put them into a blind trust. Which my kids are managing. I'm not in charge of that. Not at all. I own it, I don't make the decisions any more. But I think they made the right decision here, a winning move.

          We’re going to win economically. We’re going to win with the economy. I am going to bring back the jobs that have been stripped away from you and your country. We will make America the best place in the world to start a business. We’ll hire workers, and we’ll open factories. We will also get rid of wasteful rules and regulations, which are destroying our job-creation capacity. I am your voice. I'm with you, and I will fight for you, and I will win for you! 🇺🇸

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13, @05:49PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:49PM (#596336) Journal

            You're still making shitty excuses. Morals "trump" money. If it's alright for a businessman to "put money first", then we have to stop arresting robbers, muggers, and burglars. They are doing the same damned thing, "put money first".

            The only thing you are doing is stating the obvious. Rich bastards get away with theft and embezzlement because they are rich. Poor bastards don't get away with it, because they are poor.

            You have no reason or excuse to bring foreign workers into this country, to perform work that Americans can do. And, no, don't bother making another post to lie about a lack of American workers.

            --
            This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:41PM (#596485)

              'Make America Great Act'

              - Any person or business making more than 1/330 millionth of America's GDP is fair game for American citizens to steal from, with no criminal charges brought against independent citizens choosing to steal from them. Criminal charges as well as RICO still apply for gangs, other corporations, and criminal enterprises which attempt to do the same, but independent citizens can steal to their heart's content :)

              Sounds like an excellent application of 'trickle down economics' to me, while enforcing the death by a thousand cuts for most corporations/wealthy individuals :)

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:33PM (#596272)

        So you're hiring undocumented workers.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Monday November 13, @05:20PM (2 children)

        by stretch611 (6199) on Monday November 13, @05:20PM (#596315)

        Of course this comes from the person that hires foreign wives as well as foreign workers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:00PM (#596341)

          Hey, that's no way to talk about the First Titties! :D :D

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13, @10:11PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @10:11PM (#596509)

          On the plus side, Melania proves that immigrants do jobs Americans don't want to do! :D

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @04:20PM (17 children)

      by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:20PM (#596251)

      "President Trump is permitted by his staff, by Congress, and by the Judiciary to postpone handling issues of national and global importance to personally direct and oversee the hiring managers' business practices at the Trump Mar-A-Lago resort, under the ownership of a company he is no longer the head of."

      What?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:55PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:55PM (#596294)

        I'm not 100% sure what your comment is... but you don't see the hypocrisy and problem with this?

        Donald Trump, who has campaigned and constantly spoken of on "Put America First" and "Make America Great Again" is importing low wage foreign workers despite Americans looking for work?

        Even if Trump didn't personally sign the hiring, you have to admit that with such a visible and directly associated connection, *somebody* should have thought better... or once it comes to his attention the President could give a literally 30-second phone call to stop it and literally put his money where his mouth is.

        As for everybody saying it is okay, that doesn't make it any better. For example, all those same people would say it is "permitted" for him to urinate on the floor of the reception hall of the White House. It's still a horrible idea, and would rightly lead to a scandal if he did so.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @05:16PM (7 children)

          by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:16PM (#596313)

          "don't see the hypocrisy and problem with this"

          That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Hypocrisy means "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel."

          Let's objectively examine the situation:
          President Donald Trump feels that American businesses should hire more American workers. However, President Donald Trump is not the owner, leader, or hiring manager, of any private corporation. His public organization, the Presidency, has almost exclusively hired American workers.

          A completely separate individual, the Hiring Manager at the Trump Mar-A-Lago Resort, feels that money, time, or effort could be saved by hiring foreign workers. As the hiring manager of Trump Mar-A-Lago Resort, they have not made public appearances in which they state their positions on hiring foreign workers, however, they have recently gotten approval to hire 70 of these workers, so it is likely that the hiring Manager of the resort supports hiring foreign workers.

          What is so complicated about this situation?

          "Donald Trump, who has campaigned and constantly spoken of on "Put America First" and "Make America Great Again" is importing low wage foreign workers despite Americans looking for work?

          Donald Trump is not the hiring manager of the Trump Mar-A-Lago Resort. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

          "once it comes to his attention the President could give a literally 30-second phone call to stop it and literally put his money where his mouth is."

          Are you suggesting that if Trump stopped doing his job as the President to make hiring decisions at one of his resorts, that you would be supportive of it? I'd think you would be outraged, so why would you suggest him putting the country's affairs on hold to make the call?

          This is a case of "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" and it is certainly an all-too-common logical dead-end.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @05:21PM (4 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:21PM (#596316)

            Wow, you don't think Trump, who *owns* the resort, has some sort of say in its policies, even if he doesn't run its day-to-day operations?

            You're seriously deluded. Typical Trump supporter.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @06:42PM (3 children)

              by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:42PM (#596366)

              Wow, you don't think Trump, who *owns* the resort, has some sort of say in its policies, even if he doesn't run its day-to-day operations?

              It doesn't matter what you or I "THINK" any more than it matters what you or I "feel" what matters is reality. Donald Trump does not run the Trump business. Donald Trump is President of the United States.

              Substantiate your argument that Donald Trump is responsible for the hiring practices at Trump Mar A Lago Resort either with evidence or inference, or re-examine your claim. Trump has been busy traveling all over the World, meeting with foreign leaders, etc. Do you really expect any independent third party to find it reasonable that the fucking hiring manager at Trump Mar A Lago Resort has a red phone sitting on his desk so he can ask at any time, "Hey Prez, tell Shinzo to shut up a minute and put your Generals in the Pacific on hold, we need to hire a few bagboys and carpet cleaners - do you have any ideas how we can get them for cheap?"

              You need to find out what is broken in your worldview, where you believe this could be occuring. Whatever it is, it is seriously insane.

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @07:25PM (2 children)

                by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @07:25PM (#596391)

                Wow, you are a seriously stupid, stupid, stupid person, and you'll defend Trump no matter what. Trump owns the resort, yes? His hiring manager therefore still answers to him, and can be assumed to be acting in Trump's interests. His hiring manager should have known that hiring foreigners would look bad for Trump, given his campaign claims about putting Americans to work. So if Trump really believed that shit, he'd be publicly disavowing this hiring manager and working to get him fired, even if he has to request this from some family member who still has power over the place. But we don't hear anything from Trump, therefore we can assume he agrees with the decision.

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @08:53PM (1 child)

                  by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @08:53PM (#596453)

                  Wow, you are a seriously stupid, stupid, stupid person, and you'll defend Trump no matter what.

                  Wow, that is seriously not, not, not an argument, and you cannot substantiate any of your claims, no matter what.

                  Even if I am an idiot, I am an idiot who is very clearly objectively better than you at collecting, processing, and re-communicating information. My claim is - at minimum - both reasonable and factually verifiable; that the President of the United States is not a mid-level manager at a vacation resort, and thus has nothing to do with their operation. You would fail with flying colors in a formal debate setting; If you cannot operate in a framework of arguments based on reason and evidence, it is because you are incapable. Simple as that.

                  we don't hear anything from Trump, therefore we can assume he agrees with the decision."

                  Let's test your reasoning here, for example.
                  "Trump said he is going to give me $1. "
                  "..."
                  "Obviously we haven't heard anything from Trump, therefore we can assume he agrees with my decision."

                  You are a laughingstock. You cannot distinguish objective information, and even if you could, are incapable of processing it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:00PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:00PM (#596812)

                    your argument is a poor retort.

                    managers are hired to manage, not report everything to the boss. if i claimed trump would give me $1 to someone in a position to give me $1 of trumps money, i would expect that person to either just say no or wait for evidence before even bothering to further validate the claim

                    anyone in a similar position would use their critical thinking to just tell a beggar like you that panhandling is probably illegal and get off the private properly, without bothering to look up the specifics nor calling their boss about it unless the beggar became a persistent recurring problem

                    i would like to support your arguments because i dont really like trump, but you sound more like a desperate person now with these irrational arguments as baseline examples

                    trump will hear about this for sure, the hiring of foreigners, because it WILL hurt is credibility, whether they want $1 for the efforts or not.

                    he'll have to respond eventually, but he may pull a rabbit out of his hat to draw attention to something else while his propaganda team tries to do damage control.

          • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @06:51PM (1 child)

            by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:51PM (#596371)

            Loving the Troll modifiers I'm getting.

            Certainly, my entire comment was constructed with the sole purpose of inflaming someone else; namely "you" (the down-modder) as your feelings are my top priority. After all, you are the Special Snowflake - the ones everyone's opinions and worldviews are based around - whether in support of, or against.

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:26AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:26AM (#596572)

              Who the hell pulled your chain trumpflake.

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 13, @05:07PM (6 children)

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday November 13, @05:07PM (#596307) Homepage

        Same question to you: what?

        Where did your "quote" come from?

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @05:23PM (5 children)

          by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @05:23PM (#596320)

          The quote is a summary of the apparent belief of the original commenter.

          For Trump to be responsible for the hiring practices of the Trump Mar A Lago Resort, he must be the hiring manager or general manager of the Trump Mar A Lago Resort, or at a CEO, or perhaps hold a seat on the Board of Directors of the Trump business.

          However, Donald Trump is not the hiring manager of the Trump Mar A Lago Resort, nor does he hold any administrative positions of the Trump company. Donald Trump is actually the President of the United States! It sounds silly, but seems apparent that the original commenter seems to have separated his consciousness from present reality some time around late 2016 - the last time Donald Trump had anything to do with the Trump business.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 13, @06:05PM (4 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @06:05PM (#596344)

            > late 2016 - the last time Donald Trump had anything to do with the Trump business.

            For someone with no interest in it, he sure loves to give the Trump organization a lot of free advertising !
            That's clearly a terrible business move on his part.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @06:25PM (3 children)

              by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @06:25PM (#596356)

              "For someone with no interest in it, he sure loves to give the Trump organization a lot of free advertising !"

              Whether or not he has "interest" in Trump MarALago's hiring practices, or in SpaceX, or in Russia, is completely irrelevant; he has no control over any of them.

              "That's clearly a terrible business move on his part."

              What business? Donald Trump does not run a business, he is the President of the United States. It's like you are hallucinating or something - every time you see Trump at the podium of the White House, instead of the Presidential Seal, your mind substitutes it for a pen graph of quarterly revenues and what impact on costs the new carpet-cleaning company had on its bottom line. Every time Trump takes off in Air Force One flying to an Air Force base for some classified intelligence briefing, you instead see Trump climbing into a mid-level Mercedes Benz and driving himself to a moderately-furnished apartment in a trendy part of town. I really cannot fathom what is going on with you.
              Donald Trump is not a hiring manager or marketing rep for Trump Mar A Lago Resort, he is the President of the United States, and has absolutely nothing to do with Trump Mar A Lago Resort's hiring or business practices and policies.

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 13, @06:49PM (1 child)

                by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @06:49PM (#596370)

                Step 1: read the comment you're replying to.

                President Trump, since Jan 20th, has said many times that the Trump hotels and the Mar-a-Lago resort are fantastic places. You can find that information.
                You contend that he has no business relationship whatsoever with the Trump organization. Taking that at face value, I'm asking why he would give them free advertising. Famous people get paid for endorsements, so giving that for free is a bad business decision.

                Does that make sense? Can you get out of your bubble of stories you tell yourself about other people, and understand what you are being told?

                The fact that you are absolutely delusional about Trump's continuous relationship with, and influence on, his companies, doesn't even factor in this.

                • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday November 13, @09:35PM

                  by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @09:35PM (#596480)

                  President Trump, since Jan 20th, has said many times that the Trump hotels and the Mar-a-Lago resort are fantastic places. You can find that information.

                  The moment you, the democratic party, or the MSM can prove that he is directly profiting from saying so, and that he is not simply speaking his honest belief, is the moment I will admit I was wrong. If anything, he has tarnished the Trump image by outright insulting some of the most powerful people and organizations in the world. Hillary got $1.2bn in campaign donations because she played by the book. Trump got $500m because he appealed to "poor stupid rednecks." Profit and brand image was very obviously not a sole motive from the start.

                  The fact that you are absolutely delusional about Trump's continuous relationship with, and influence on, his companies, doesn't even factor in this.

                  Nobody would hire an Ad Agency who lambasted them and their products, would they? Trump made the company so they share a name, he's the President, so the company's image correlates with his popularity. His much more frequently inflammatory actions and statements toward the MSM, who controls the radiowaves he is "advertising" on, if anything, supports the opposite position.

              • (Score: 4, Touché) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 13, @09:46PM

                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday November 13, @09:46PM (#596487)

                Donald Trump is not a hiring manager or marketing rep for Trump Mar A Lago Resort, he is the President of the United States, and has absolutely nothing to do with Trump Mar A Lago Resort's hiring or business practices and policies.

                Good. Then he can have a meeting (have his staff meet) with the ownership of Mar-A-Lago ownership and persuade them to change their policies, the same was he did with other U.S. businesses about to export jobs. That's fair, isn't it?

                He can choose to not go there until they change their practices and go to Camp David instead. That's fair, isn't it?

                He can Tweet about how unfair it is that Americans are being denied jobs at Mar-A-Lago because they import foreign workers. That's fair, isn't it?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Monday November 13, @06:46PM

        by NewNic (6420) on Monday November 13, @06:46PM (#596368)

        Are we talking about the same Donald Trump who, had he a shred of decency, would have divested himself of the ownership of Mar-A-Lago as all recent Presidents have done with their business interests?

        Trump chose self-dealing. People are responsible for the businesses they own.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:22PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:22PM (#596317)

      It does our country no good to have Trump properties stubbornly go out of business, crushed by competition that hires cheaper workers. We need to make it so that hiring American workers is competitive.

      This isn't something that an individual company can fix. Once the government cuts off the supply of cheap H1-B workers, resorts will have to hire American workers. Pay will increase, maybe even to the "living wage" the left so adores. Currently, a business owner would be a damn fool to pay that well, since cheap workers are available and being used by all the other businesses.

      You could even say that fixing the situation with Trump properties makes a fine goal for Trump to achieve: he'll have succeeded when his hiring managers can't find foreign workers who are cheaper than American workers.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 13, @06:09PM (2 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @06:09PM (#596346)

        Someone needs to learn the difference between H1-B and H2-B.

        I also recently heard that there were tens of thousands of US citizens available for menial jobs, desperate as they are to reconstruct their lives after fleeing a devastated tropical island.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:16PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:16PM (#596386)

          H1-B, H2-B, whatever... might as well be some kind of refugee or diplomatic visa for all I care!

          If hiring foreigners is cheaper, either here or in their own countries, we have a problem. It's a national problem that can not be fixed by a business ignoring economics and thus failing.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:12PM (#596815)

            no that is not correct -- they are responding to economics by hiring the cheapest labor allowable by law, which often is more lenient than what some segments of the public would allow.

            if you want to solve the problem, cheap labor from other countries is not the real issue, the real issue is why does the US economy encourage this, and why are prices so high that costs must be controlled in this way, as opposed to say reducing the prices so that regular people can have more money left over that they earn from their modestly paying job?

            because rich people don't want people that won't be high margin, unless they are the labor. then its as low margin as can be allowed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:43PM (#596334)

      I don't have to rationalize it. He has done this for years, and that is his right because the laws suck ass. If everyone takes advantage of the system, only a moron would not do it. Fix the system.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Monday November 13, @08:48PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Monday November 13, @08:48PM (#596450)

      Trump: "I need foreign workers to work at my resort because no Americans are willing to take the low pay I offer."
      Trump supporters: "YAY! MAGA!"

      It's not just about pay. You hire immigrant workers to do a job that no American is willing to do.

      That is why Trump has all immigrant wives.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:59AM (#596707)

        That is why Trump has all immigrant wives.

        And not just alien but illegal alien too. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/melania-trump-modeling-visa-jobs-230774 [politico.com]

        But as always, it's not do as I do but do as I say...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @03:15PM (#596817)

          being a member of the rich white man club has benefits, you know. your sex toy purchases are frequently permissible unless you are courting some element of the populace after having claimed some sort of disdain for the toys you play with.

          trump never claimed such disdain, infact, he loves subservient foreign women, and so it is not arguable that its somehow a problem since he was voted in with this condition known.

          you can get rid of harvey and moore and weiner, but trump has condoms of teflon and no such charges will ever stick to him

(1) 2