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This discussion has been archived.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.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link.
-- Don Knuth
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13 2017, @06:24PM (5 children)
The Republicans are better than the Democrats, in my opinion, in that the people refused the party's choices, and in fact, chose their own alternative.
This isn't really correct I think, though I guess it depends on your definition of "better". What this race showed is that, at least at that time, the GOP's party procedures and by-laws were inferior, because they allowed an outsider to get the GOP nomination despite party officials and members being against it. I guess that shows it was superior in the "democratic" metric, but inferior as far as a party being able to police itself and operate with some level of governance and authority.
The DNC, by contrast, showed itself to be superior in choosing the candidate that party insiders and leaders wanted. However, while this was done with a veneer of democracy (the primary elections, which Hillary won), it was also done with a lot of inside backstabbing, as shown by the divulged emails.
I expect the GOP to probably change their election policies in the future to avoid another upset like Trump's victory. I'm not sure what's going to happen with the DNC though.
The race should have been Bernie vs Sanders, and I kinda think Sanders would have won.
I completely agree that Sanders would have won. Trump was not very popular, swing voters didn't like him, and a lot of people either didn't vote or voted 3rd-party (look up the number of 3rd-party votes for 2016 vs. prior years, and also the turnout numbers in 2016 vs. 2008). There were also many people who claimed to be Bernie voters who instead voted for Trump as a fuck-you to Hillary. Add up all of those that could realistically have voted Bernie, add in most of the HRC voters (because they sure as hell weren't voting for Trump), and surely there's enough there to get Bernie a victory. Remember, Trump did not win by a landslide even remotely, he lost the popular vote in fact, so it wouldn't have taken that many votes (in particular states especially, where Bernie's message of economic populism was well-received whereas Hillary didn't bother to even show up) for Bernie to win.
What this really showed IMO was poor DNC leadership: pragmatically speaking, they should have pulled Hillary's nomination and given it to Bernie, *despite* the primary results, just based on how unpopular she was. As a party, it was their job to win the election, not coronate a queen. It should have been obvious to party insiders that she was unpopular and risked losing, compared to Bernie and his popularity, and also that every time they've run an unpopular, uncharismatic candidate in the last 50 years, they've lost. When are they going to learn? Was it not enough to have Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale all lose, and for Obama to win (which was unexpected to the DNC, as they wanted Hillary in '08 too, but Obama stole the show)?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 13 2017, @06:38PM (4 children)
"depends on your definition of "better"."
Take a look at The Party, sitting in front of the gramophone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice [wikipedia.org]
In this election, the R's eventually caved in to the "master's voice". The D's stauchly ingnored the "master's voice". The D's tail wagged the party, the R's tail finally obeyed the party. That is how and why I see the R's as being better than the D's - this time around, at least.
Much is made of our nation being a "democratic" republic. When any party acts as the D's did in this election, they put the lie to that "democratic" bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13 2017, @07:22PM (2 children)
The D's tail wagged the party, the R's tail finally obeyed the party. That is how and why I see the R's as being better than the D's - this time around, at least.
Again, it depends on your definition of "better". If you just mean "winning the 2016 election", then yep, the GOP's system worked wonders for them, even if it was entirely accidental (Trump is NOT who the party insiders wanted). However, and this remains to be seen, if you mean "winning elections long term", it might not: there's indications that Trumpism is seriously splitting the party apart, with several long-time GOP members like Jeff Flake and John Boehner retiring and criticizing the party, and the GOP did not do well in the election last week either, especially in Virginia. Of course, the DNC has been having its own little civil war in the wake of the '16 election too, so it remains to be seen which one will do better in '18 and '20. If Trump is a 1-term President and the DNC takes over both branches in '20, then I'd say it didn't turn out well for the GOP at all.
Much is made of our nation being a "democratic" republic. When any party acts as the D's did in this election, they put the lie to that "democratic" bullshit.
Perhaps, but I'd also say that our entire election system isn't all that "democratic" to begin with. The Electoral College is inherently un-democratic, as the President isn't even elected by the people at all, but by unelected "Electors", though they're supposed to (and usually do, but not always [wikipedia.org]) vote according to the votes in their state, but there again, this means people in Wyoming and Rhode Island have more power per vote than people in California and Texas, and this is by design. The way Congressional districts are chosen is also completely undemocratic and downright rigged. Besides, "The Orville" just had a pretty funny episode about why direct democracy isn't such a hot idea.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:04PM
Virginia had a democrat governor, and they got another. This isn't a gain. It's just keeping a seat.
The new governor won the state by less than Hillary won the state. So, he still won, but the margin of victory was lower.
To say that the GOP did not do well in the election last week is thus wrong. They did better than expected for that election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @10:10PM
States have the constitutional right to choose electors as they wish:
* by lottery
* by auction
* the governor picks
* the state supreme court picks
* the state legislature picks
* first-past-the-post voting (normal)
* approval voting
* ranked voting
* the state's members of the US congress are automatically the electors
That last one would be a parliament. If all the states did that, then the US congress would effectively be a US parliament.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:52PM
listen, at least the democrats rigged it from within the democrats.
the republicans got rigged by russia and they gave us a stooge everyone intelligent resents to some extent, if not completely.
i refuse both outcomes, but the lesser evil is internal rigging.
we as a people can at least punish the democratic party for their actions. we can't punish republicans for being so stupid to go along with it to push their agenda
make being someone else's bitch great again should be the new US motto because it'd work for both parties.