SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Claiming a shortage of workers for the hospitality industry, Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club has requested and obtained permission to hire 70 foreign workers. The claim of a shortage of available workers is disputed:
'"We currently have 5,136 qualified candidates in Palm Beach County for various hospitality positions listed in the Employ Florida state jobs database," CareerSource spokesman Tom Veenstra said Friday.'
70 is a slight increase over last year, when 64 foreign workers were hired.
"Making America Great Again" by hiring foreigners? Perhaps what is required is higher pay, not foreigners.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Estate Gets Permission to Hire 70 Foreign Workers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The sooner our happiness together begins, the longer it will last.
-- Miramanee, "The Paradise Syndrome", stardate 4842.6
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @05:41PM (8 children)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/31/obama-judges-democrat-republican-senate/3286337/ [usatoday.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama [wikipedia.org]
Each and every judge who works to promote his/her own version of social engineering. We hear blathering about this thing called "precedent", but then we see activist judges in action. My favorite example? California passed a constitutional amendment, defining exactly what marriage is. Proposition 8 passed by a considerably large margin. Californians - the residents and citizens of the most liberal state in this country - REJECTED gay marriage.
And, some fucking activist judge told Californians to go fuck themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29 [wikipedia.org]
Name any activist judge, be he/she D or R, and I'll show you a son of a bitch who is patently unqualified to be a judge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @06:29PM (5 children)
Apparently to you "unqualified"means "does not agree with my world view". That is an immature and self-centered view of the world.
The people you point to may well have biases (although pointing to a bio of the person doesn't provide any evidence of such), but they were qualified. They had experience in court.
This recent nomination has barely been inside a courthouse. He has never argued a motion in front of a judge, he has never tried a case. He is utterly unqualified.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @06:43PM (4 children)
A judge who actively undermines the will of the people is unfit to be a judge. The same goes for almost any other official position. Immature and self centered? You have probably just described the entire Democratic party. The party rallies groups around idiot slogans, promising to cater to each group, knowing that it is impossible to do so. And, the juvies hop on the D's bandwagon.
How in hell does a party champion the cause of Islam, and homosexuals, at the same time? It's all a lie. Immature and self centered. Go on, please continue . . .
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM
That sentence got stuck in my mind.
Is that true? I can't really determine (maybe I just don't know enough about how governments work).
In Montesquieue(sp)'s Trias Politica (which I've never actually read but I remember the description from school), the Judiciary branch is supposed to adjudge based on the letter of the law and nothing else (+ constitution, human rights, et cetera. you know what I mean; written down stuff.)
However.
1. Suppose the Trump Administration and the US Congress manage to make a law: "all money budgeted for health insurance such as Medicare is re-allocated to tax relief for the 1% and a 10fold increase of the number of nukes we have".
2. And assume (I don't know if this is true!!) that the will of the people of the USA is, to have affordable health insurance, even to the detriment of the # of extra nukes or the taxes on the rich.
3. And imagine somebody would sue the government for that Trumpcare law like "it isn't fair for the majority of Americans!".
Are you then saying, that a judge should listen to and interpret the will of the people by him/herself, and be an "activist judge" and strike that law down as un-constitutional? (Because I think the US constitution contains the phrase "for the people", not "for the rich and the MIC")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @07:38PM
You're such a clown I can't wait until we return to serfdom so I can laugh when you get sent to work in the dirt mines for being a poor hick. I already gave up on the country now the only thing that makes me happy is the satisfaction I'll be a rich lord while you peons get the dicks you've been begging for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 13 2017, @08:18PM
Apparently, you skipped your civics class:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Judges are there to uphold the law, starting with the Constitution, not to make popular decisions, or even decisions that you disagree with.
You are back to your familiar tactics: deflection and "whataboutism".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:06PM
FTFY.
Judges are not there to please the people but to uphold the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) [wikipedia.org]
The judges decided that the California constitution could not be amended to be in conflict with the US constitution, given that California was part of the US. Admittedly, this clause was designed to protect the rights of the newly released slaves, but it applies just as much to any sub-group of citizens.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
The gay marriage, that's a terrific example. Who do some of these judges think they are? The folks in California voted fair and square to amend the Constitution. But some judge says, "Oh no, you can't, that's unconstitutional." How can the Constitution be unconstitutional? I'll tell you, it can't. And if it could, do we really want JUDGES to decide on things like that? That's not the job of a judge. Not what they're there for. But they pretend it's their job. Believe me, they're lousy at it. You look at the 14th Amendment, if there's anything unconstitutional in the Constitution it's that. It's the reason we have all these anchor babies. What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby. When people are illegally in the country, they have to go. Now, the good ones -- there are plenty of good ones -- will work, so it’s expedited, we can expedite it where they come back in, but they come back legally.
And flag burning. Personally, I don’t think it should be legal. Let me ask you a question. It didn’t used to be legal, did it? I see more and more burning of the flag. Did it used to be legal? People burning the flag, I don’t like them in this country. Nobody ever asks, why don't the courts stop that? They're not stopping it, it's getting worse and worse. 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:12PM
I think flag burning is the correct and proper way prescribed in the flag code to dispose of a flag. Now I know that's not what you mean, but here's the more nuanced answer(IANAL, FWIW, Free advice is worth what you paid, etc): Burning of the flag is legal, burning of the flag to show disrespect is illegal because it shows disrespect according to the law dealing with the flag, how it is to be displayed, etc. I think this is also overridden by the 1st amendment, as making a political statement via a demonstration and public special is protected, by free speech and right to assemble.