alfromspace

He was concerned it was sacrilegious, not that it violated the 1st Amendment. Learn reading comprehension.

Stop preaching fake constitutionalism. You don't understand what you're talking about. Congress isn't establishing a federal religion by putting "In God We Trust" on money. This edgy internet atheism is getting old.

Before someone brings up "muh drugs" and only cites stats from federal prisons...

"In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due to parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[44] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[44]"

Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a white male candidate because they're working on a new diversity initiative. Or maybe, after being trained constantly on gender bias and seeing vigorous workplace political debates on the subject, you investigate the issue and find no evidence to support anything other than the fact that men and women have different preferences, and you present this evidence to the debate and get fired.

Even acknowledging such cases seems to be political.

Incredible. A stranger can barricade themselves inside your property, the police can blow your property to bits trying to get to the stranger, and the owner of the property is on the hook.

The court's ruling that the Takings Clause doesn't apply because it's not an exercise of eminent domain is utter nonsense. There's no such requirement in the 5th Amendment that the government needs to label their use of private property "eminent domain" to be responsible for compensation for it. All it says is "public use". If this ruling is allowed to stand, this isn't America anymore.

This administration certainly hasn’t helped as it amplifies its fear based rhetoric of migrants

Migration was and is a big part of the process. Not the only part, but still a problem to be solved. If you presumably want a European-style healthcare system in America and a job market that doesn't only favor employers, you'll need to acknowledge that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor and social services, and that an all-inclusive welfare state and mass migration can't work together.

Nothing, then import twenty million more of them?

How strange - are these people allowed to benefit from affirmative action?

Do they present any evidence to support this claim? I'm only aware of studies like that of Robert Putnam showing that diversity is extremely detrimental to community engagement and cohesion, among many other things.

Plenty of biologists see what happens, and toe the line so they can keep their lives and pay their mortgages.

I would say ruthlessly coerced.

An AI being accused of bias tends to really mean it works. Removing bias from AI, I've noticed, requires hardcoded 'fixes' rather than refactoring the algorithms. And in my view, becomes yet another human-curated classification system, and no longer AI.

So it seems like we have the choice of voting for left-wing politicians who run on increasing spending on new forms of entitlements, and spending will increase precipitously - or voting for right-wing politicians who run on not spending like the neocons do, then just do it anyway, and spending will increase precipitously.

Most tech workers wouldn't take a $40k job because they realize that's a gross undervaluing of their skillsets. It's a much smarter decision to continue applying and hope somebody recognizes your ability and pays you what your labor is worth, rather than tie up your schedule and possibly relocate to work the low-paying job. You can ask these bad-faith questions all you want, and they might be helpful for confusing and misleading people online, but I assure you, employers have thought about them more than you, and have long since found their answer.

It seems to me that you're in outright denial about companies getting cheaper labor through the H-1B system. Instead of asking these "if companies really want to save money, why don't they just x" questions, I'd ask you why Disney DID lay off hundreds of IT workers at a time and had them train their H-1B replacements who often lacked the same skill level as their predecessors if it wasn't a significant cost savings? These aren't allegations, they're reality. What was found in court wasn't that Disney isn't guilty of replacing workers, it's that they did do it and it's perfectly legal! Wages have dropped, many Americans have switched to other professions they wouldn't have otherwise, and profits for IT firms have gone through the roof due to the H-1B program. Try reading rather than theorizing all by yourself. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c13842.pdf And go tell the Disney workers they didn't really lose their jobs.

I don't normally post opinion pieces, but this is very devastating and well-researched: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/27/bill-gates...

Business executives and politicians endlessly complain that there is a "shortage" of qualified Americans and that the U.S. must admit more high-skilled guest workers to fill jobs in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math. This claim is echoed by everyone from President Obama and Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.

Yet within the past month, two odd things occurred: Census reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a STEM job, and Microsoft announced plans to downsize its workforce by 18,000 jobs. Even so, the House is considering legislation that, like the Senate immigration bill before it, would increase to unprecedented levels the supply of high-skill guest workers and automatic green cards to foreign STEM students.

As longtime researchers of the STEM workforce and immigration who have separately done in-depth analyses on these issues, and having no self-interest in the outcomes of the legislative debate, we feel compelled to report that none of us has been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry's assertions of labor shortages.

...

If a shortage did exist, wages would be rising as companies tried to attract scarce workers. Instead, legislation that expanded visas for IT personnel during the 1990s has kept average wages flat over the past 16 years. Indeed, guest workers have become the predominant source of new hires in these fields.

Being unemployed and making 0k. Avoiding hiring US employees for over $80k doesn't mean they're hiring those who accept below $80k. They're not being considered for those jobs at all in the first place. I assure you there are legions of very smart lawyers who work very hard on the process for employers - I would know, I've prepared the petitions, and the sham job postings with intentionally obscure and unnecessary skill requirements placed in print newspapers when the H-1B worker was our client and already chosen for the job ahead of time. There is often no intention to consider American workers. There are entire IT departments at companies like Disney, for instance, that are de-facto off limits to American workers. H-1B workers are very attractive to employers not just for the low wages, but also for the fact that they're dependent on the particular company sponsoring them and will often stick around forever and endure the shitty wages, hours, and work environment.

This is really total nonsense. That doesn't sound the end of democracy to me, that sounds like democracy in action. He just don't want the rule by elites in the guise of democracy to end. There's nothing anti-democratic about these policies he's tarring as "racist" and "authoritarian", which I assume would be things like stopping illegal immigration or securing one's country's territorial integrity (which, by the way, don't even ever happen due to the intervention of elites). But I guess he finds these things self-evident. That isn't good enough for me.

Interestingly enough, the context is being used here to invert the meaning of Franklin's beliefs, rather than clarify them.